Feminist analysis of the royal wedding

[DontdoitKatie]

This is one of the times when you realise how very lonely seeing things through a feminist lens can make you.

Patriarchy in all its glory.

KatieMiddleton - her exH successfully argued in court that she had not contributed to his business success or raised their children, but rather had detracted from it!

I don't actually disagree with him, StewieGriffinsMom! I don't like her exH at all, but she was a really useless housewife

They always had a FT nanny and her H did all the morning school runs etc.

I hope this is a sufficient lull in the thread for me to go back a bit to SGM's post: in which she said the following were unique to the RW: their guest list (not published in full, no evidence either way on whether the published versions gives a good reflection of what's going on); naming of guests (not unique - invitations from HMQ are always in this form eg garden parties) required clothing (no different from requiments at many high profile events) and service (standard CofE, no modifications).

I suppose I'd been hoping to inspire some debate in the unique aspects - the continuation of the narrative (though I realise only two posters were interested, but they've not continued) - especially given commentaries such as this.

Especially in counterpoint to the symbolism of the selection of the hymns between the Charles and the William wedding. Then there was an unquestioned acceptance that Diana chose the hymns (and just look at the choice! The weight if the expectation at that stage of the narrative! Or just echoing HMQ?). Now there's a surprisingly pervasive belief (ill-founded?) that Catherine didn't really make any choices but only followed Palace expectations/instructions: is this type of commentary a form of condemnation, or will it prove protective? In hymn terms, it distances her from the "English" choice at the Wales wedding should criticism come from the Scots. In wider terms, does it show a cannier way to introduce her to the potential pitfalls of public life? Would that be suitable training from experts to her, or just patronising?

'Then there was an unquestioned acceptance that Diana chose the hymns..... Now there's a surprisingly pervasive belief (ill-founded?) that Catherine didn't really make any choices but only followed Palace expectations/instructions'

that is REALLY interesting.
do you think it's because we're more aware of the way power operates - ie someone might on the face of it be a VIP to whom people will bow but in practice they may be out of their depth and easily manipulated, so we are more cynical about someone being claimed to have made certain decisions?
or is it about cynicism towards the royals as a result of all the cover-ups when the various marriages were breaking up, which means we don't take anything we're told about them at face value any more?

SGM: can I quote from your post of Tue 03-May-11 11:30:19

"meditrina - I don't think the uniquely royal aspect has been overlooked: we've discussed their guest list; naming of guests; required clothing and service. All of those were unique to the RW."

The last sentence quoted is why I thought thought you meant exactly that.

Sybil: interesting point. It's not really possible to tell, is it? Even if it is a more sympathetic (and media savvy) approach, there's still a willingness to believe that she wasn't an equal partner in making the arrangements (and if you look at the "Bully for Katy" thread, a view held by some that Waity Katy became Lazy Katy, also assuming that she did little/nothing in planning her own wedding). It suggests the dominant force (for want of a better word) remains the Palace establishment guided by its own views on what suits the Monarchy. Have they evolved - in which case the assertions of her full participation, and therefore proper workload, should be accepted more at face value - or is there enough ancillary evidence to show that there has actually been little change at all and her role will be constrained by more than just the inherent security precautions that come with royal status?

meditrina, what on earth do you mean by all this stuff where you seem to be arguing that a royal wedding does not have unique features?

Royal weddings modify the line of succession to the throne, and do so in a patriarchal way. other weddings don't.

On some of your specifics:

1. I think it's safe to say that the particular collection of rich and powerful men, with a smattering of women, who attended this wedding, have not been assembled for any other wedding. I don't think we need the guest list in full to know that, unless you're aware of non-royal weddings attending by large numbers of deposed monarchs, current despots and half the Tory cabinet.
2. The order of service may have been standard CofE. The presence of various archbishops, a choir, the use of Westminster Abbey, trumpeters, a huge number of news crews and a million people on the street did make the service itself just a tad different from a non-royal wedding, at least to me.

Oh, I think it does! Just that the things listed weren't unique.

Not having the full guest list, it's impossible to tell the balance between rich and ordinary, or male v female as principal guest (the nomenclature being a reflection if HMQ's norm, not which half of a couple was the principle invitee). Having European monarchy attend royal events is standard. But which despots were there?

But I do like your second point, about the role and relevance of pageantry. It doesn't seem to have been discussed much (if at all). Again, it feeds back to the post-Diana narrative - Westminster Abbey (the traditional Royal venue)' not St Pauls: therefore a shorter carriage ride (with fewer carriages), but still a need to parade through the centre of the capital, essentially bringing it to a halt. There are the same issues of display, but compared to the Charles-Diana wedding it's scaled back. Do you think that's a minor insignificant variation, or an indication of William's attitude? (I say William's, not the couple's, because if the areas if doubt I mentioned in my last post). Will it ever, as outsiders, be possible to divine whether Catherine did play a full role? If not, would you see the working hypothesis being that she did, or she didn't (and why?)

And another thought - the pageantry was much the same for HMQ and Princess Anne. Is there a difference based on sex? Or is it more that we tend to look back only as far as Diana and Charles, and the level of ostentation for them was an aberration - possibly the spirit of the time?

don't get your point meditriana, are you defending marriage?
ON a feminist forum? Or defending religion?

You seriously think that if by some terrible stroke of bad luck, Kate had to have a hysterectomy this year, Kate and WIlls would live happily ever after?

Youu're entitled to bring the mainstream point of view here, of course, it's just that it's boring. Aren't there loads of other threads out there where people are saying marriage is equal and brilliant and blah blah

i don't think any couple who are intending to have children would sail through a forced hysterectomy, so in terms of their personal relationship, i'm sure it would be enormously difficult. he's actually a fairly decent chap by all accounts tho, so unless their own relationship broke down irrevocably as a result due to grief etc, i don't think he would allow The Firm to intervene in a personal matter. i'm reasonably confident that the succession rules will be amended prior to the pg press conference. the wheels are turning, we just haven't drummed up enough enthusiasm for an actual revolution.

i always defend my marriage btw, on a feminist forum and elsewhere - it's just the institution itself that could do with a little evolution. it'll come.

i'm looking for military spouses to interview wrt feminism atm - do you think she'll bite?

Sakura it's not a feminist point I know, but I don't see how they could remove Kate and replace her with someone more fertile within the necessary timeframe without damaging the relationship Kate and Wills have nurtured with the public on the monarchy's behalf. Surely we'd be looking at Harry's children to succeed William.

That's not to say that Kate's not the ultimate disposable commodity for the Royal family.

I was thinking this morning that what I did like at the wedding was that it seemed to do away with all the tiresome + one nonsense that happens at most weddings. Like a single person is going to be the bad fairy and sprinkle doom dust over the happy couple so they must come along with a 'partner'

True, Amanda. But what if Wills had been an only child?

Gosh hard to crash into the thread now after 500+ posts!

You had the modern wedding service, then forkful.

You can pick what service you have, but apart from "obey" and the bit about children, you can't pick and choose your vows once you have chosen the service.

If I could ask Kate one question, I would ask her why they picked the old service. I expect the true answer would be because of the beauty and poetry of the language . . . and that she had not given a thought to the patriarchal nature of the language. She may have felt that it gave a more romantic feeling to have all the "thees" and "thous." She may not have given it any thought at all, and it was just what William wanted. Who knows. I certainly think that service is no longer appropriate for the modern marriage. Shame, as the language is wonderful.

two of my friends had the old service and neither couple had any problems with the slight alterations; I am fairly sure it's not true that if you use the Book of Common Prayer you have to have 'man and wife' and the giving away.

but I know nothing about churchy stuff.

both couples were very involved with their church - in one they had met while singing in the choir of the church where they got married, the other was a priest getting married in a cathedral. So perhaps you have to be mates with the vicar

my uncle was the vicar he didn't have any problem with tweaking.

can i just mention the newly traditional 'you may now kiss the bride'?

clearly the husband is the active partner and the wife the one on the receiving end, having something done to her... it just popped into my head, even though you can't have those sorts of shenanigans in the abbey .

so, evidence of a 'new' patriarchal tradition, or excused by the 'honouring' aspect? (i mean, it isn't 'you may now kiss the bride's feet', but does it have that sort of symbolism?)

the crowd didn't seem to be too bothered who was kissing who, as long as they got on with it, mind... but there did seem to be ensuing discussion as to who initiated, and who pulled away first...

Madwoman I think the discussion about who initiated and who kissed who arose in the context of a comparison with the Charles/Di balcony kiss being made as part of the tv commentary.

I think it's a bit unfair to Kate to say that you expect she hadn't given a thought to the patriarchal language of the service, I think most educated young women do and I find it hard to believe she hasn't reflected on her choices along these lines.

I was uncomfortable with the idea of being given away by my father but my father was so emotional about the whole thing anyway that I didn't raise it as an issue. Kate's hands were tied.

I do wonder on reflection whether my dad would have preferred to support me in rejecting that tradition. I suspect so.