In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Awaiting the Royal Wedding

Jill

kate middleton
My interest in the royal wedding doesn’t extend far beyond the Times style section dress speculations, Kate Middleton For The Win and wondering how in the world Our Future Princess gets her hair that shiny (seriously how? The people have a right to know). I didn’t even realize the wedding was happening so soon — didn’t he just propose and don’t these things take time to plan, even with a staff of servants? But, as I have a well-documented love of weddings, wedding dresses and wedding television shows (if not marriage for myself), I’ve been suckered into getting up at 4 a.m. on Friday to watch the whole thing go down. I don’t often get suckered into things (especially ridiculous pop-culture events that involve E! News countdowns and getting up at ungodly hours) so I have, in turn, suckered a third easily-manipulated individual into joining the group, and now it’s a party.

Ugh. At least it will involve coffee and lots of scones and even more champagne. Anyone else dotty enough to watch it live (even if it’s on at a reasonable hour where you live)? And OMG WHAT IS SHE GOING TO WEAR YOU GUYS?!

134 thoughts on Awaiting the Royal Wedding

  2. It’s highly likely that I will be watching. At 5 a.m. I’d like to say that I have an excuse, because my grandmother was British, and that interest in these things is genetically embedded. I’d like to. We’ll see if anyone buys it.

  3. I’m probably not gonna watch – on the east coast and at college without easy access to cable – but Kate Middleton for the Win has made my week.

  4. I might watch, if I do I just won’t go to bed that night since I’m in California, and my excuse is that I’m a genealogy fanatic and the two lovebirds happen to be my 15th or 16th cousins. 🙂

  6. I gather from the released schedule that I will be in bed until after the ceremony. Unless it’s a sunny warm day, in which case I will be on my roof working in the aforementioned sun and blissfully ignoring it.

    Thank gosh the EDL will be there protecting us native Brits from all those nasty bearded Muslims though… and I only wish I was joking. Blurgh.

  7. Feminists into royal weddings: adorable! Makes me feel less silly about clicking through all those best/worst dressed Oscar slideshows. Did you grow up sewing your own dresses for Easter/Xmas? I did and it has left a mark. I love fancy dress slideshows.

    Enjoy the wedding. ; )

  8. I actually want to watch it, just for the entertainment and pretty people and all that, and because hey – with all the awful shit in the news every day, a happy occasion like this would be a nice diversion.

    However, I’m in CA…and I just don’t know, people. I assume the relevant – and probably non-relevant – stuff will be reaired numerous times on numerous channels though, not to mention online.

  9. I’m not going to watch it, though I watched Diana’s. And I’m sure it’s my cynical take on weddings and marriage. It’s all pageantry and happiness during the wedding, and then the real hard work begins. Plus, I feel as if we are buying into the princessy notion that women live to become brides. So no, even though I’m usually up at 4:00am (my oldest doesn’t sleep), I’m not watching out of principle. Which is cynical and stupid, but I’m sticking by it. Though I do want to see the dress, because, well, I’m girly in that way.

  10. Oh God. I had figured that if I didn’t go on the Internet for 24 hours before the bloody thing started (and stayed away for 24 hours till all the maunderings were done) I could avoid reading getting triggered into venting rage about the bloody Royal Family and their bloody weddings.

    Evidently not.

  11. I’m recording the BBC America coverage and watching it later to skip any boring parts.

    Tip for anyone planning on watching stateside: if you get BBC America, watch that channel. They will be simulcasting the live, uninterrupted BBC One coverage from London which means: actual British commentators, no ads(!), and [hopefully] none of the treacly, want-to-stab-my-ears-out narrative that’s sure to permeate the American telecasts.

    Did I mention no ads? BBC ftw. It starts at midnight PDT/3am EDT, but the interesting stuff probably won’t start happening until an hour in.

    And Kathy Griffin is sure to have a hilarious take on the fashion and proceedings at 8pm on the TV Guide channel.

  12. There was a woman at the bookstore just now ranting about how lucky she is. But apparently like 85 percent of British women claim not to be envious.

  13. I am not really buying into this whole wedding hype thing honestly even if its members of the british royal family. I will do what i would do for anyone getting married and wish them a happy marriage.

  14. The combination of two outdated institutions: monarchy and marriage.

    Oh, and not to mention all that fun consumerism – want to buy a commemorative teatowel?

    So…er…no, I don’t much care what she’s wearing.

    (I haven’t got a problem with you being enthusiastic about and/or wanting to watch the wedding, but is a feminist site really the place to talk about it uncritically?)

  16. I am still completely amazed at the level of international interest in the wedding… One article estimated something like 2 billion people will watch it in some form, blows my mind if it’s true!

    I’m from and in the UK and the excitement goes completely over my head. Same for most of my social group, the royals are sort of traditional but not really relevant. They sell papers, attract tourism and frequently embarrass themselves and us overseas with dodgy business dealings or casual racism.

    Best commemorative item I have seen? A plate with the text “thanks for the day off”… a four day weekend for us is the main thing to be happy about!

  17. Tony:
    There was a woman at the bookstore just now ranting about how lucky she is. But apparently like 85 percent of British women claim not to be envious.

    I have only pity. Poor woman won’t be able to pee without the media inquiring about her electrolyte levels. I enjoy obscurity. It works for me.

  18. I’m not going to watch it live, as I figure I’ll see nothing but on any entertainment TV for the next two weeks.

  19. (I haven’t got a problem with you being enthusiastic about and/or wanting to watch the wedding, but is a feminist site really the place to talk about it uncritically?)

    Aaaaaand at least we got to 14 comments before the predictable “why is this on a feminist site?”

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

  20. I won’t be giving up any sleep to watch it live, but I will certainly go to the gas station next week to stare at pretty pictures of her in her dress on the covers of all the magazines. Because I really love pretty dresses.

  21. @Astraia: Deep down most people love hierarchies and the royalty is certainly a very loved one regardless of what people say. Monarchy is loved even more because it is not just a higher class, but it is a class that you can be only born into and not work, beg, or steal your way into. Well, some women can marry into it, but they will forever be the ‘commoner’ picked by the prince.

  23. The monarchy does nothing for me, marriage I can take or leave, but I do love me some pageantry. And hats. I can’t watch the actual event from my office (and I have no interest in getting up at 3:00 a.m.), but I’m going to celebrate the day by pinning everything I own into a fascinator that can be seen from space and wearing it to all of my Friday meetings.

  24. Honestly Jill, I don’t know how you deal with this bullshit, but I am glad that you call it out. Maybe people will actually think before they post comments accusing you of being uncritical of marriage as an institution.

    Also, how dare you not be the most perfect feminist ever, all the time. According to each readers personal definition of feminism, of course, as well as their priorities.

  25. There’s no way in hell I’m waking up to watch, but I’m sure I’ll watch some of it on YouTube later at work. Although I find the monarchy ridiculous and only enjoy the weddings of my loved ones, I am curious.

    And I think Harry’s hot.

  27. @ Quiet Riot Girl – thanks for the link, I loved your take on it!

    @ Sonia – well, that’s true enough to be depressing. All those fairytales fed to women from the earliest age about how marrying a prince is the most Wonderful Thing Ever probably have something to do with it too. I don’t know where you (or anyone else commenting here) are, geographically, but in my experience monarchies are regarded a lot more fondly by those who don’t currently have to put up with them, like Americans, than those that do, like the English.

    @ debbie – Bullshit? Really? I never claimed to know Jill’s view on marriage, or anything else for that matter. I’m just responding to the post as-written. It surprised me, to be honest. There are lots of places I’d expect to see gushing posts about the wedding, this just wasn’t one of them.

    Then again, I *am* a spinster feminist of the working class. My one wish for the royals is that when the Queen dies, the institution dies with her. I can hope.

  28. Uh, what part of the post was “gushing”? The part where I said I don’t care that much about it, or the part where I illustrated my enthusiasm with “ugh”?

  29. I’ll be watching, as I wrote today, even though I’m in California. I was watching thirty years ago, getting up in the middle of the night when I was 14 to watch Charles and Di get married. Wouldn’t miss it for the world.

    My wife and I are having about 20 people over, starting at 1:00AM Pacific. Tea, scones, champagne, gin, and party hats. Ironic detachment is cheap and easy. Sentimentality is hard.

    1. Jill, in honor of the comments I think we should, after all, wear tiaras while watching.

      I draw the line at tiaras, but I am happy to don a fancy hat.

  31. Hell to the yes. My local pub is actually opening at 5AM so crazy Torontonians like me can watch.

    I’m a sucker for pomp, circumstance, pretty dresses and crazy hats, what can I say?

    And the breakfast of scones with blackcurrant jam and cream the pub is serving is pretty damn tempting too.

    1. I should really fire myself for assuming that our readership is intelligent enough to not need a “MARRIAGE IS A DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC INSTITUTION” disclaimer every time I use the word “wedding.” MY BAD.

  34. @Astraia: Yes, bullshit. Because it doesn’t matter what Jill writes, there’s always someone to nitpick. To be clear, I’m not talking about legitimate critiques, but the “how dare you write about anything that is not on my list of appropriate topics!” that crops up on every post that has the potential to be fun or silly. Don’t believe me? Look in the archives for the post Jill with a link to photos of cats “beating up” dogs.

    There have been enough posts about marriage on feministe that it warrants its own tag
    tag in the archives</a.

  36. I’m British, so of course I won’t bother watching. The royal family are all just sort of… there.

    I will be enjoying my day off work though. Four day weekend, woo hoo!

  37. Gembird: I’m British, so of course I won’t bother watching. The royal family are all just sort of… there.

    Whenever I go to the UK or talk to my British friends and family, they insist that Americans care more about the royals than they do. They said the same thing about Diana. But having been in England the week Diana died, and seen very English grief on the streets of Durham, Newcastle, and South Shields (hardly Yank tourist hangouts), I always think the Brits exaggerate their own lack of interest.

    There’s almost a class thing to it, as if being too excited about the royals is vulgar and… American.

  38. Nope, I’m with the other British commenters saying I will not be involving myself in it in any way. I live in London. I’m staying home. I don’t have a tv but no doubt my Facebook feed will notify me of any major details. It really truly does seem to be a bigger deal in America. Aside from the commercial aspect… “buy all this ironic Kate/Wills stuff” which of course is doing very well over here too.

  39. I SHAN’T be watching – because Prince William has profoundly offended my aesthetic sensibilities by ceasing to be hot shortly after finishing up at St. Andrews. He obviously did it on purpose, just to spite me.

    The royal wedding will never live up to mine, anyway. I got to wear blue suede boots and get publicly groped by the husband right after he put the ring on my finger. Unless these two things happen on April 29 in London – I’m sorry, there will be no contest.

    Also, Jill, how DARE you act like a gushing fangirl when there is srs bzns to attend to, such as the recent dearth of cats on this blog.

  41. However, one of my friend’s cats is named Tiara, and I feel that it is a stupid name for a cat. =( But whatever, it’s his cat.

  44. I didn’t get the sense that Astraia’s comment was as harsh as some seem to be taking it. Yes, feminists are allowed to have seemingly contradictory opinions and interests, and yes feminists are allowed to have fun and do silly things. But I think what the comment was getting at is that such a huge event in pop culture would be a great time to have a broader conversation about issues such as marriage, class, heteronormativity, etc. Why can’t we have both the frivolity and the critical analysis?

    1. I didn’t get the sense that Astraia’s comment was as harsh as some seem to be taking it. Yes, feminists are allowed to have seemingly contradictory opinions and interests, and yes feminists are allowed to have fun and do silly things. But I think what the comment was getting at is that such a huge event in pop culture would be a great time to have a broader conversation about issues such as marriage, class, heteronormativity, etc. Why can’t we have both the frivolity and the critical analysis?

      Because I have a full-time job and worked 15 hours at it today and only had 5 minutes to put up a one-off post? Yes, this would be a great time for such a conversation, but facilitating that conversation takes a whole shit-ton of time and effort (and if this thread is so insufferable, just imagine what a “serious” conversation would look like).

  45. Because it’s Jill’s blog, and she is not obligated to post what yup think she should post?

  47. ACG: I’m going to celebrate the day by pinning everything I own into a fascinator that can be seen from space and wearing it to all of my Friday meetings.

    THAT’S what I’m talking about!

  49. I’m with Amanda Marcotte and Katha Politt on this one…who cares? I mean I know princess fantasies are near and dear to many of our hearts, but seriously, this is not news. I don’t begrudge Jill’s enjoyment of frivolous girly things, but gushing over royal weddings is hardly from patriarchal infand we probably shouldn’t pretend this media frenzy is value-neutral.

    1. Also seriously, there was no gushing in this post. I say, in the post, that I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ROYAL WEDDING. I am watching it because a friend is making me. So I put up a one-off post because it is, actually, a cultural event that is being widely covered. Also? I put up one-off posts about stupid shit all the time. See, e.g., small plates, photos of cats, etc etc. And without fail, someone is all, “WHY IS THIS ON A FEMINIST BLOG OMG WHAT IS HAPPENING YOU ARE THE WORST.” To which I say, you are the worst. This has always been a space where not-100%-feminist-political things are posted. And if you think the royal wedding is dumb but you like the rest of the content on this site, it is super easy to just skip that one post. In fact, part of being a grown-up human being is not expecting everything in the world to cater entirely and specifically to your interests.

  52. peggyluwho:
    Thanks for the shaming, Astraia.

    No hat for you.

    Or cake.

    Or pork buns.

    FYI, I’m all over the manapua. (I’ll even include a veg* variety with tofu.) Who has the champagne and tiaras?

  53. Maybe “gushing” is a bit strong of a word for what’s occurring here, but the references to shiny princess hair, pretty dresses for pretty people, rah-rah royal pageantry, etc. are in line with the over-hyped media frenzy surrounding this event, and those popular narratives certainly qualify as gushing. It’s the context of mainstream society uncritically obsessing with this wedding that makes seeing similar stuff on a feminist blog annoying.

    1. Maybe “gushing” is a bit strong of a word for what’s occurring here, but the references to shiny princess hair, pretty dresses for pretty people, rah-rah royal pageantry, etc. are in line with the over-hyped media frenzy surrounding this event, and those popular narratives certainly qualify as gushing. It’s the context of mainstream society uncritically obsessing with this wedding that makes seeing similar stuff on a feminist blog annoying.

      Recognizing a cultural event in a slightly sarcastic way is not “rah-rah royal pageantry.” Seriously. How does one get through life if any recognition of life outside of feminism gives you the vapors?

  55. Kristen J.: FYI, I’m all over the manapua.(I’ll even include a veg* variety with tofu.)Who has the champagne and tiaras?

    Oh, num. I used to work in a place that would find excuses to have parties because two of the staffers were kind of competitive about their cooking and that meant Jamaican beef patties and lumpia for days.

  56. Jill:
    Also seriously, there was no gushing in this post. I say, in the post, that I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ROYAL WEDDING. I am watching it because a friend is making me. So I put up a one-off post because it is, actually, a cultural event that is being widely covered. Also? I put up one-off posts about stupid shit all the time. See, e.g., small plates, photos of cats, etc etc. And without fail, someone is all, “WHY IS THIS ON A FEMINIST BLOG OMG WHAT IS HAPPENING YOU ARE THE WORST.” To which I say, you are the worst. This has always been a space where not-100%-feminist-political things are posted. And if you think the royal wedding is dumb but you like the rest of the content on this site, it is super easy to just skip that one post. In fact, part of being a grown-up human being is not expecting everything in the world to cater entirely and specifically to your interests.

    For fucking real.

    Also, how feminist is it to tell a woman what she can and cannot write? You’re punishing Jill for her self-expression. Find a new goddamn blog to hang out at if you don’t like the content here.

  57. zuzu: Oh, num.I used to work in a place that would find excuses to have parties because two of the staffers were kind of competitive about their cooking and that meant Jamaican beef patties and lumpia for days.

    So…who were these people with lumpia? I need names, numbers, addresses. I love lumpia.

  58. Jill:
    Also seriously, there was no gushing in this post. I say, in the post, that I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ROYAL WEDDING. I am watching it because a friend is making me. So I put up a one-off post because it is, actually, a cultural event that is being widely covered. Also? I put up one-off posts about stupid shit all the time. See, e.g., small plates, photos of cats, etc etc. And without fail, someone is all, “WHY IS THIS ON A FEMINIST BLOG OMG WHAT IS HAPPENING YOU ARE THE WORST.” To which I say, you are the worst. This has always been a space where not-100%-feminist-political things are posted. And if you think the royal wedding is dumb but you like the rest of the content on this site, it is super easy to just skip that one post. In fact, part of being a grown-up human being is not expecting everything in the world to cater entirely and specifically to your interests.

    Okay, hold up here. Jill, I sincerely apologize if you took my comments as a personal attack on you. They weren’t intended that way, and I don’t think you are ‘the worst’ or anything of the sort. (I’m sorry you feel that way about me, and that I’m not ‘a grown-up human being,’ but there’s not much I can do about that.)

    There’s a reason I made a critical comment on this post and not one about pictures of cats. Cat pictures, for the most part, are value-neutral – and there’s nothing wrong with a little frivolity!

    If you’re going to talk about the royal wedding without so much as mentioning gender and class issues here, though, I’m going to call it out, same as I would if someoneone posted ‘OMG look at these cute high-heeled shoes’ or ‘I love America’s Next Top Model’ on a feminist blog without any mention of how those things might be problematic from a feminist standpoint. It doesn’t mean they’re a bad feminist for liking (or engaging with) those things, but a little critical analysis would be nice. Cats, plates, and such, so far as I know, don’t have problematic elements deserving of analysis. There’s the difference.

    You’ve explained now that you *don’t* care about the wedding, which wasn’t quite the impression I got from your post, so thank you for making that clear (as Rae said, you used a lot of the same imagery as the popular media), but as I said above, I’m not trying to criticise *you* for what you think about the royals, personally, I’m just responding to this particular post. I believe that from a class standpoint, pro-monarchism isn’t progressive, and it’s events like this wedding that prop up a system that ought to be brought down. (To clarify, I’m not trying to say: ‘you, Jill, are propping up the system,’ I’m talking about the wider cultural narrative)

    And to the other commenters, yes, Jill can write whatever she wants to. But anything written on a public blog with open comments is surely inviting commentary? I’m commenting in good faith here. I don’t think I’m deserving of quite so much scorn as I’ve received.

  59. Did someone say… monkey dance? Because I just found the best song ever:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxB9EgvbnFU

    Also, cats are totally not value-neutral. I mean, the crazy cat lady stereotype certainly comes from somewhere. So anyone commenting on a feminist blog about some cats should be called out for failing to note the problematic elements deserving of analysis. Pro-crazy cat ladyism is not progressive, and it’s events like posting cute pictures of cats without critical analysis that prop up a system that ought to be brought down.

  60. Thanks, Natalia. Mocking my writing style is a real great way to get your point across. Yeah, I’m not fantastic at explaining myself succinctly. I’m trying.

    I’m going to step away from the comments here for a bit. I thought people could maybe disagree without being unkind, but I guess insulting and mocking me is more fun.

    So yeah, I’ve ‘got the vapors’ now. Social anxiety will do that to a person. Probably means I shouldn’t comment on internet posts at all, but I’m usually good at picking the right places. I’ll come back to respond to anyone wanting reasoned discussion when I’m in a better frame of mind for it.

  61. I have to support Astraia here – whilst this may be Jill’s blog, I am not sure that this was what I was expecting when I came here, considering it is a feminist blog. I am not keen on the royal wedding myself, and part of that feeling stems from the fact it is a patriachal reinforcement that the most important thing a woman can do is marry her prince and live happily ever after. I am not sure we can look at the dress, the ceremony etc as feminists without considering the bad message the day generally gives out. And I wish the Sex Pistols would play on the Thames 😉

  62. Actually, I’m not mocking your writing style – I’m making a point. Virtually ANYTHING one writes about can be “called out” – or did I make up the crazy cat lady stereotype on the spot? No, I did not.

    If you’re prepared to make yourself the arbiter of what is “value neutral,” you ought to be prepared for the possibility that other people may find this ludicrous.

    The problem isn’t with criticizing the “royal wedding” (the phrase alone is beginning to give me hives) – it’s specifically with the notion of “why is this on a feminist blog”, something that many people who write and comment here have been through roughly about a BILLION times, and something that is basically an attempt to restrict discussion to what *you* think is appropriate.

    Actually, this discussion has already been interesting. Lori talked about how the pageantry hides the fact that the real work always takes place after the wedding. Kristen J. has made a very good point – Kate Middleton won’t be able to pee without journalists getting involved. Insomniac has talked about the best commemorative items and the fact that the real value of this wedding is people getting some time off. Hugo has talked about the sentimental aspects of this event. Gretel will only watch on YouTube – but hey, she thinks that Harry’s hot. You know what these responses all have in common? They don’t fucking try to dictate what can and cannot be discussed on a feminist blog – and how said discussion should take place.

    If you don’t get why that in itself can be highly problematic (another overused word I’m beginning to get sick of, incidentally), you really do ought to step back and think things over.

  63. I, personally, am curious as to what Kate’s dress will look like. I guess that makes me a naughty, naughty feminist!

    And SERIOUSLY, does every post that mentions things that are traditionally problematic (weddings, modeling, ect) have to break down or even mention the issues when there have already been many posts on the site discussing those very problems? Can’t it just be sort of ASSUMED when we read a post like this that the problematic aspects are being taken into consideration because THIS IS A FEMINIST SITE SO OF COURSE THEY ARE. Of course traditional het weddings are filled with bullshit and we all know that but why can’t we just talk about the friggin’ cake and the damn dress?! I WANNA KNOW WHAT THE DRESS WILL LOOK LIKE, DAMMIT.

  64. I don’t have a problem with posts about weddings. I don’t have a problem with posts about pretty foofy dresses.

    Prince William’s mother was picked out of the herd of young virgins of “good” birth by his father because the woman he actually wanted wasn’t deemed “appropriate” for him to marry. His parents’ marriage was a failure from the start: they seem to have hung on for fifteen years because divorce would be politically embarrassing. His mother’s death in a car accident a couple of years later was politically such a relief to the Royal Family that it seemed logical to many people that they must have arranged it.

    Prince William gave his mother’s engagement ring to his fiance. We’re all supposed to think this is glamourous and sentimental. I think *ugh*.

    Kate Middleton is marrying in to more wealth and privilege than most people can imagine. Her husband, barring accidents, divorce, abolition, or abdication, will become the head of state in due course, as will at least one of her children. Guests at her wedding will include heads of state who will be taking a break from massacring their subjects who’d kind of like a democracy please: but neither of the two most recent Labour Prime Ministers are invited, as both of them fall below her new family’s social radar. Her future brother-in-law likes to dress up as a Nazi at fancy-dress parties. Her husband’s great-grandmother was a strong Nazi sympathiser.

    Dressing this kind of crap up into “ooh, I wonder what she’ll be wearing!” is like putting a flower into a pile of stinking semi-liquid dogshit.

  65. I’m totally watching live. Luckily I’m in the CET time zone, so only an hour later than the UK (but that also means I had to stay up alllll night to watch the Oscars!)
    I’m also greatly anticipating the dress!

  66. Seriously though, why is it an issue if women like this wedding, or for that matter other weddings? Given our evolution, love for high status people and their shenanigans is likely imprinted deep within our genes. There is no reason to deny things that bring us happiness just because it doesnt agree with an ideology.

  67. Echoing the sentiment that not every post need be weighed down with qualifiers anticipating every possible critical complaint a person might have about the topic. We’re intelligent people here with highly-developed senses of humor (amirite? …right? …Bueller?) who deserve more than pearl-clutching and hand-wringing.

  68. So I watch the morning shows while I eat my breakfast in the morning, and I noticed that as the week goes on the talking heads are dressing less like New Yorkers (since they all are, pretty much) and more and more like stereotypical Englanders. This morning Barbara Walters, who is usually pretty snazzy for a woman in her 80s, was dressed like this:
    http://www.artpictures.co.uk/images/jl8813.jpg

  69. When the history of intra-feminist blogosphere blowups is compiled, the royal wedding will no doubt take its place alongside issues of body hair removal and the publications of Jessica Valenti as one of the epic loci of conflict.

  70. I would love to see more feminist blogs – if not this one – discuss how this “royal wedding fever” plays into the British colonial and imperial legacy, and, you know, the violence and genocide and racism and so forth of all that ish. I feel very odd about how criticism out there is mainly gender-based. These people would not be splattered all over our non-British newspapers were it not for the subjugation of other peoples, of which the monarchy has been a proud figurehead; which is not to say that all poc hate the royal family, but rather that I think there are more issues with how the royal wedding goes down than just princess stereotypes or whatever.

  71. saurus: I would love to see more feminist blogs – if not this one – discuss how this “royal wedding fever” plays into the British colonial and imperial legacy, and, you know, the violence and genocide and racism and so forth of all that ish. I feel very odd about how criticism out there is mainly gender-based. These people would not be splattered all over our non-British newspapers were it not for the subjugation of other peoples, of which the monarchy has been a proud figurehead; which is not to say that all poc hate the royal family, but rather that I think there are more issues with how the royal wedding goes down than just princess stereotypes or whatever.

    Yeah! Hell, I’d be impressed that anyone knows enough about British monarchy to write that piece.

  72. Christopher Hitchens actually wrote a pretty good piece that touched on that (his main focus was on the mOnarchy as an institution and less on the empire aspects).

    saurus:
    I would love to see more feminist blogs – if not this one – discuss how this “royal wedding fever” plays into the British colonial and imperial legacy, and, you know, the violence and genocide and racism and so forth of all that ish. I feel very odd about how criticism out there is mainly gender-based. These people would not be splattered all over our non-British newspapers were it not for the subjugation of other peoples, of which the monarchy has been a proud figurehead; which is not to say that all poc hate the royal family, but rather that I think there are more issues with how the royal wedding goes down than just princess stereotypes or whatever.

  73. If we’re going into that game, I can tell you why my late father loved the monarchy. Born into a Jewish family in Vienna in 1935, his life and the life of everyone of his relatives was in danger when the Nazis took over Austria in 1938. My grandmother desperately applied for emigration to other countries, and was rejected by the likes of France, the USA, Canada, even Brazil. My father’s family was accepted by Britain. When he was four, the family got out, just in the nick of time, and were settled in the English countryside and treated with kindness.

    My father, who died in 2006, always noted that were it not for Britain’s distinctive welcome to refugees (unmatched even by the States), he would be dead and his children simply would not be. His love for the British was less John Bull sentimentality and more a realistic appreciation for a particular kind of openness his family found nowhere else.

    Britain’s legacy of colonialism is problematic, of course. And it is part of the pageantry of the royal family. But we need to remember that for a great many people, including the California-born son of a Viennese-born Jewish war refugee, Britain has also been a greater beacon of hope and refuge than any other land, including the one with a great big statue of a woman holding a torch. And fondness (not reverence) for the monarchy as a symbol of that openness is a big part of why I’ll be watching in the wee hours of tomorrow morning.

  74. …monarchy as a symbol of that openness …

    Maybe ask some Africans or Indians about that. But then the darker you are, the less you count in these affairs.

  75. Well gee, one of the ways I avoid getting “the vapors” is by reading feminist blogs for an alternate perspective! But I don’t really want to get into a meta-conversation about (feminist) blogging, which will inevitably consist of staid tautologies like “Jill can write about what she wants” “But people can also comment what they want (within the bounds of the comment policy)” and “But you could just skip the post!” Instead, I’ll try to be constructive and provide some of the sort of analysis I felt was missing.

    @Saurus – That’s a great point. It’s really interesting how most of the commentary is focused on gender rather than colonialism, because they’re certainly both relevant. I wonder how the wedding is being covered in former British colonies? It seems like it’s not that different from how the story’s being covered in the Western media, at least based on English-language versions that I could find on Google (like the Times of India and Bangla News). I wonder if there is more coverage of the colonialist aspects of the wedding obsession in former British colonies that simply hasn’t been translated or published online?

    A couple of wedding stories I found interesting:
    – Anarchists stage naked protest of royal wedding
    – Stamp with William and Kate on it can be split in half; Kate’s side is worth less.
    – Gay activists congratulate royal couple and protest in favor of gay marriage

  76. rae: Well gee, one of the ways I avoid getting “the vapors” is by reading feminist blogs for an alternate perspective!

    Your problem isn’t that you didn’t find what you wanted, it’s that you tried to shame Jill into providing your specific requirements.

    It’s a blog, not a vending machine. If you want to see discussion of the feminist aspects, START ONE. That’s what the comments are for.

    But don’t berate Jill and question her dedication to feminism because she put up a post you found insufficiently deep. ESPECIALLY when you can’t be arsed to peruse through the archives and find multiple posts discussing the exact thing you’re whining about being missing from this post.

    Sweet mother of pearl, that’s exactly the kind of shit that drove me away from blogging, and frankly, I don’t know how Jill’s managing to stand it because it’s only gotten worse since I’ve left.

  77. Aspects of the Royal Wedding that may not have occured to American outsiders for whom it’s all about the foofy dresses:

    If Kate Middleton were Catholic, this wedding wouldn’t be happening. William is allowed to be heir to the heir to the monarchy so long as he doesn’t become a Catholic or marry one.

    Edward VIII gets constantly touted as the almost-Nazi king. But he and his brother, and both the women they married, were – like most aristocratic, wealthy, white people in the UK at the time – all quite sympathetic to Hitler and pro-appeasement to the nth. Hugo may wish to believe that the British monarchy are symbolic of the British openness that welcomed Jewish refugees: I think it would nicer to actually be grateful to the people, not the king.

    You can also listen to Johann Hari talking about the Royal Family here.

    Look, the institution of monarchy is not silly. It’s not something cute and interesting. It’s not like small plates, or cats, or cute dogs (they do exist). It’s a terrible institution, a business for keeping a small group of highly-privileged wealthy people in enormous power. It’s a vile thing: we should get rid it.

  78. Uh, apparently pointing out that there are unaddressed cultural aspects of royal weddings not covered in this post is shaming? You’re reading something into my posts that I did not write (especially since my posts were short and included qualifiers like “I don’t begrudge Jill’s enjoyment of frivolous girly things” and backtracking to use more neutral language and add context when people found the word “gushing” too strong/inaccurate). I’m sure your readings is indeed influenced unhealthy way disagreement is handled among commenters on this blog, but I’m not so sure you’re correctly classifying me in this category; I was just trying to provoke some discussion about the issues Jill didn’t have the time or inclination to cover. We need to be able to constructively critique each other without criticisms or counter-criticisms rising to the level of personal attacks or freak-outs.

    So much for trying to be constructive and getting away from that boring old conversation on blog etiquette that keeps happening here. Maybe instead you’d like to discuss why it is the stamp with the royal couple on it sets the value of Kate’s side as less than the side with William on it? Because I blame the patriarchy, and secondarily the system of hereditary monarchy…and I find that a much more interesting discussion.

  80. rae:
    Uh, apparently pointing out that there are unaddressed cultural aspects of royal weddings not covered in this post is shaming? You’re reading something into my posts that I did not write (especially since my posts were short and included qualifiers like “I don’t begrudge Jill’s enjoyment of frivolous girly things” and backtracking to use more neutral language and add context when people found the word “gushing” too strong/inaccurate). I’m sure your readings is indeed influenced unhealthy way disagreement is handled among commenters on this blog, but I’m not so sure you’re correctly classifying me in this category; I was just trying to provoke some discussion about the issues Jill didn’t have the time or inclination to cover. We need to be able to constructively critique each other without criticisms or counter-criticisms rising to the level of personal attacks or freak-outs.

    So much for trying to be constructive and getting away from that boring old conversation on blog etiquette that keeps happening here. Maybe instead you’d like to discuss why it is the stamp with the royal couple on it sets the value of Kate’s side as less than the side with William on it? Because I blame the patriarchy, and secondarily the system of hereditary monarchy…and I find that a much more interesting discussion.

    You’re being revisionist. You accused Jill of gushing, of not living up to what you think a feminist blog should be, and you demanded that she address things to your liking. You completely ignored it when people pointed out that the “weddings” tag includes posts specifically addressing the points you wanted to see raised.

    Hell, yes, that’s shaming.

    This isn’t about “blog etiquette.” This is about you not taking responsibility for your attempts to feminist-shame Jill. It’s something that happens frequently here, and on other blogs, because readers develop feelings for the blog and extend that into feelings of ownership over the bloggers. It’s wrong, and it’s damaging.

    Hell, you get the content for free here. Moreover, you’re quite free to raise any damn points you see are lacking in the comments — look at what Yonmei did just three comments above this one! You want a discussion, start one your own damn self. Don’t accuse Jill of fucking gushing and deliberately ignoring things you want to see addressed in THIS POST, RIGHT NOW, OR YOU DON’T THINK SHE’S FEMINIST ENOUGH. Especially when you know damn well none of that’s true.

    Take your butthurt and find another blog if this one doesn’t push the right buttons for you.

  81. Just FYI, the old lie that the Brits don’t care about the royals and it’s all the Yanks — UK sales of memorabilia related to Wills and Kate are estimated to approach the tens of millions of pounds. And it’snot all sold to American tourists. The editorial page of the Guardian doesn’t speak for Middle England (I mean, I wish it would, but it doesn’t.)

  82. Hell, you get the content for free here.

    And there isn’t a single professional blogger on Feministe, which makes this a hobby blog run for fun. This isn’t Gawker or Jezebel or Slate or Salon. This is a group of ladies writing for their edification and your entertainment.

  84. Prince William gave his mother’s engagement ring to his fiance. We’re all supposed to think this is glamourous and sentimental. I think *ugh*.

    I dunno – I agree with most of your comment, but I also think that William is also just a human being who loved his mother. It makes sense for him to have kept that ring, and to give it to the woman he loves. He lost Diana way too early – whatever else she might have symbolized, to the monarchy, to the world at large, she was also just a person who had a couple of kids and whose kids were then deprived of her in a tragic manner. We may sit back and talk about how Diana and Charles’ marriage was a sham, and we would mostly be correct, but William is one of two people who’s a product of this sham and what exactly is he supposed to do with that? Shit, at the very least, he’s marrying his long-time girlfriend, not a random woman who was picked for him because she was virginal and “pure-bred” enough. We’ve got both Charles and Diana to thank for that, really, in spite of what their lives were like, they very quickly realized that they wanted their kids to at least have a shot at being happy – in that sense, they were very good parents.

    I dunno, I think royal weddings are crap and won’t be watching (though I did pick up a suitably hilarious Wills & Kate postcard for our newspaper’s photo editor while in London recently – because it is hilarious), but I think that it can also be easy to forget that at the end of the day, these people are only people.

  87. Puh-lease. My first comment didn’t even mention feminism. The second described the content as “annoying” not as un-feminist or a major moral flaw. I described the thread as a whole as gushing, which is not even that strong of a condemnation IMO, and I took it back when it was pointed out that it’s probably too strong of a description. Anyway, I’m done engaging with you now. I think you should examine the language you’re using and consider whose approach has been mere disagreement and whose has been shaming and derailing to the point of refusing to even talk about the actual topic of the thread.

  88. Oh, and also? Obviously there are other wedding posts on Feministe, many of which I have read. But there are some really intriguing implications of a British royal wedding in particular relating to colonialism, monarchy, cultural symbolism, etc. that no one seems to want to explore.

  89. rae: I think you should examine the language you’re using and consider whose approach has been mere disagreement and whose has been shaming and derailing to the point of refusing to even talk about the actual topic of the thread.

    I am duly chastened. Forgive me, Great Feminist Gatekeeper Mama. I WILL EXAMINE MY LANGUAGE! Gaia forbid I should use unapproved language.

  90. rae: But there are some really intriguing implications of a British royal wedding in particular relating to colonialism, monarchy, cultural symbolism, etc. that no one seems to want to explore.

    If you see a gap, fill it. Don’t stand around pointing at the gap, demanding that someone else examine it for you.

  91. Um, I did try. See my response to Saurus @ 80. Perhaps you’d like to join the conversation? It’s a little hard to have a conversation by talking to yourself.

  92. The thing, also, about William and now Kate, is that they’re both merely very prominent members of an oppressive system. It’s useless to pretend that the monarchy isn’t founded on violence and blood – which historic dynasty or, for that matter, modern nation, isn’t?

    What’s great about post-colonialism is that it has argued against the false binary of “the West & the rest”. Westerners aren’t the only human beings who are agents – whether they invade, or observe, or study, or get to shape the world historic narrative. The post-colonialists I like are keenly aware of who gets to write history – but also just as aware of the fact that if you’re alive today, you have a violent ancestor to thank for it: whether you’ve got dukes and kings in your bloodline, or hardy nomadic tribes. The big difference is in who had the most power and prominence or who is perceived as more important – and that varies depending on your location. If you’re American, for example, it’s statistically true that you *likely* have no clue who the hell someone like Tamerlan is, but Russians *to this day* write folk songs about him and feature him in movies. There are still rumours, to this day, that a person like Stalin feared the so-called “curse of Tamerlan,” and most of the Western world is like, “WTF? Tamerlan?”

    In this context, the fascination with Wills & Kate and the wedding depends on various geo-political factors. Hugo is absolutely correct to point out that there are historical reasons, for example, why someone like him may consider this event as a symbol of good – and another person may consider a symbol of something downright evil. The history of this particular royal family is as much about oppressors and oppressed as it is about shifting allegiances, betrayals, and historical moves and missteps that have all contributed the present situation.

    The British royal family, for example, sat daintily on its behind when Czar Nikolai II was imprisoned with his family. They made no moves to rescue someone like Nikolai – even though he was a close relative (not just a cousin a dozen times removed), hell, Nikolai looked so much like King George V that it’s downright comical, for anyone who has seen pictures of them together. The British royals, however, had various political reasons to do jack shit when Nikolai became Lenin’s prisoner. End result? ***Trigger warning, folks!*** An entire family, including a helpless little boy suffering from hemophilia, is slaughtered in a basement. The grand duchesses, Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastastia are finished off by the soldiers using dull bayonets, probably because the jewels sown into their corsets acted as a kind of bulletproof vest. Another branch of the Russian royal family is blown up in a mine and left to bleed to death for days! Awesome way to go! The British royal family goes on sipping its tea. ***End trigger warning, ladies and gentlemen!***

    And yet for someone like Hugo – he probably wouldn’t be around today if it wasn’t for that particular crown and some of their decisions. And that’s just as valid of an issue to explore here, imho.

    And furthermore, is my Russian photo editor “internalizing the oppressor” by asking me to bring back a hilarious Wills & Kate postcard from London? Or is she just making fun of the wedding? Is it both? She sure as hell couldn’t give a shit about how Nikolai & his family were slaughtered – because even people of similar backgrounds can disagree on how to relate to major historic events. That postcard is now sitting on her workplace desk.

    Incidentally, Kate looks lovely in that postcard, Wills looks sadly like a horse.

  93. zuzu: you’re quite free to raise any damn points you see are lacking in the comments — look at what Yonmei did just three comments above this one!

    Yeah, but actually I agree with rae all the way down the line: I wish I’d said so before, but I’d thought it would be obvious I do.

    The Metropolitan Police have declared public protest of the Royal Wedding in London forbidden, people. You think this crap is worth celebrating?

  94. I dunno – I agree with most of your comment, but I also think that William is also just a human being who loved his mother. It makes sense for him to have kept that ring, and to give it to the woman he loves.

    I get that, and in a way I even agree – except that it also seems to be part of the way the creepy use of Diana Spencer by the Royal Family is being whitewashed over. I was 14 when the first version happened: wheeling out the ring for the remake reminded me of the thin, nervous girl (not too much older than me then – seems horrifyingly young to me now) who was marrying a middle-aged man whom we now know to be planning on breeding children on her and having his mistress on the side, and expecting her to deal with that without complaining.

    Most of the adults inside the Royal Family who supported that arrangement are still alive.

    I think that it can also be easy to forget that at the end of the day, these people are only people.

    On the contrary, I think, as this post and most of the comments to it evidence, it’s way too easy to think of these people as only people: I think upthread you actually expressed pity for Kate Middleton for deciding to become a wealthy celebrity with first-hand personal connections to immense political power because of the loss of personal privacy involved in that decision.

  95. I was 14 when the first version happened: wheeling out the ring for the remake reminded me of the thin, nervous girl (not too much older than me then – seems horrifyingly young to me now) who was marrying a middle-aged man whom we now know to be planning on breeding children on her and having his mistress on the side, and expecting her to deal with that without complaining.

    That’s your perspective and my perspective. For Prince William, those are his parents and his grandparents and that’s his reality. I don’t expect him to rend his clothes and douse himself with ashes and go “I renounce all this and am going to live in Antarctica!” He very obviously loves his family too much for that to happen, and takes his job as a symbol seriously. So he’s a regular prince, but not a fuck-up either. If I was in his position, I’d probably be shooting heroin into my eyeballs.

    I think upthread you actually expressed pity for Kate Middleton for deciding to become a wealthy celebrity with first-hand personal connections to immense political power because of the loss of personal privacy involved in that decision.

    I did?! And?… Actually, it was Kristen J. who did that, but in a way, I agree with her. Being a wealthy celebrity has major downsides. Some people handle it well, for others, it’s a struggle, and others shoot aforementioned heroin into aforementioned eyeballs.

    If I were to pick a way to suddenly acquire first-hand personal connections to immense political power, I’d aim to become a grey cardinal figure – quietly plotting, being chauffeured around in inconspicuous yet nice cars, and then sitting back and writing my shocking tell-all memoirs at the ripe old age of 80 to get back at all of my political enemies. I wouldn’t become Kate Middleton, no thank you – although I’d maybe bang Harry once or twice.

  96. Yonmei,

    That was me and yeah, that’s my version of hell. For pity’s sake, the media attention likely *killed* the grooms mother. You might consider that for some people never being able to do anything outside public scrutiny would be extraordinarily painful. Half the things I love to do require annonymity…hanging out in the park with M and our dog, going to random restaurants on Saturdays, wearing PJ’s for a middle of the night stroll on the beach, meeting up with my friends for coffee at our favorite coffee house, waking up on Saturday and deciding a roadtrip to the place with the thing is exactly what we should do today. Hell, she and Will probably can’t take a couple of days, stock up on frozen pizza and beer, and sit in their PJs for an epic video game marathon. So, yup, pity…cause those things are awesome.

  97. For pity’s sake, the media attention likely *killed* the grooms mother.

    No. Getting drunk and getting into a car with a drunk driver and failing to wear a seatbelt killed the groom’s mother. The only person in that car who survived was Diana’s bodyguard – who was wearing a seatbelt.

    You might consider that for some people never being able to do anything outside public scrutiny would be extraordinarily painful.

    I do consider it. If Kate Middleton’s one of those people, she should have ditched William some time ago. Don’t give me the “But she’s in LURVE” line: we’re grownups. She’s got the option of getting immense wealth and celebrity and access to political power, or, well, not. Her choice.

  98. Being a wealthy celebrity has major downsides.

    And Kate Middleton had the option of avoiding all of those major downsides by just going “Nope, you’re not worth it” and buzzing off. She doesn’t now – as one of Diana’s sisters is reputed to have said to her the night before the wedding, it’s too late now they’ve put your face on the teatowels.

  99. No. Getting drunk and getting into a car with a drunk driver and failing to wear a seatbelt killed the groom’s mother. The only person in that car who survived was Diana’s bodyguard – who was wearing a seatbelt.

    The media’s role in Diana’s death should not be overstated – but neither should it be ignored, imho. She was a hunted figure who played her own games with the media – and lost.

    If Kate Middleton’s one of those people, she should have ditched William some time ago. Don’t give me the “But she’s in LURVE” line: we’re grownups.

    Hm. I certainly married someone because I’m “in LURVE” – in spite of having to make some major sacrifices. And yes, enduring increased media attention *is* a sacrifice for many people, especially when you consider that Kate Middleton’s family is wealthy, and the idea that she married William for his money is probably incorrect.

    I’m also uncomfortable with the notion that anyone is in the position to decide what Kate Middleton “should” or “should not” do, besides Kate Middleton herself.

  100. So…

    1) Last time I checked, a woman had every right to get drunk and then get in a car *that she wasn’t driving,* with the reasonable expectation of living through said ride. Hence the designated driver concept (in her case, an employee).

    2) Drunk people are actually *more* likely to live through crashes, to the distress of families who have loved ones killed by drunk drivers.

    3) If she wasn’t wearing her seatbelt, that may well have been what killed her, yes–combined with the falldown of the designated driver idea (drunk chauffeur). But I’m uncomfortable with the women shouldn’t drink or they deserve what they get feel of the rest of your post. If I’m misreading, sorry–I was quite young when this all happened.

    Yonmei:
    For pity’s sake, the media attention likely *killed* the grooms mother.

    No. Getting drunk and getting into a car with a drunk driver and failing to wear a seatbelt killed the groom’s mother. The only person in that car who survived was Diana’s bodyguard – who was wearing a seatbelt.

    You might consider that for some people never being able to do anything outside public scrutiny would be extraordinarily painful.

    I do consider it. If Kate Middleton’s one of those people, she should have ditched William some time ago. Don’t give me the “But she’s in LURVE” line: we’re grownups. She’s got the option of getting immense wealth and celebrity and access to political power, or, well, not. Her choice.

  105. It IS nice to have something happy on the news for a change, and as a (former? not sure) part of the British Commonwealth, it’s kind of a big deal, especially after years of controversy among the royal family.

    That being said, I enjoy sleep. A lot. So I didn’t watch. I’ll probably check out the pics at some point. (I’m not sure I even get the channel it was aired on)

  106. Pingback: Wedding kerfuffles at Hugo Schwyzer

  107. Yonmei: I do consider it. If Kate Middleton’s one of those people, she should have ditched William some time ago. Don’t give me the “But she’s in LURVE” line: we’re grownups. She’s got the option of getting immense wealth and celebrity and access to political power, or, well, not. Her choice.

    Fuck that. You may think love is pointless or “childish” but I don’t. And yeah, I’d make enormous sacrifice for love and my SO has made his own sacrifices. Some of those sacrifices might seem like a bonus to others, but to us…they were painful choices. So yeah, I call bullshit.

  108. Last time I checked, a woman had every right to get drunk and then get in a car *that she wasn’t driving,* with the reasonable expectation of living through said ride. Hence the designated driver concept (in her case, an employee).

    Of course. But last time I checked, being a drunk passenger (and Diana wasn’t drunk into unconsciousness) did not exempt you from fastening your seatbelt.

    Also, if we want to consider the role of the world’s media in chasing them to get their money shot, consider also the role of the world’s media consumers who regard the British Royal Family as wonderful reality TV. You too are part of the pack that chased Diana.

  109. I agree with everything Yonmei says. I’m sick of reading sentimental cant like Hugo’s. Yes she looked gorgeous, and I’m sure they’re a lovely couple, but there’s something horrible about witnessing such blatant privelege at the time of unprecedented cuts to Britain’s public services. “the monarchy as a symbol of that openness…” seriously? only recently there was a big fuss because Harry was caught on film using racial slurs like “paki” and “raghead”.

  110. Yonmei:
    Last time I checked, a woman had every right to get drunk and then get in a car *that she wasn’t driving,* with the reasonable expectation of living through said ride. Hence the designated driver concept (in her case, an employee).

    Of course. But last time I checked, being a drunk passenger (and Diana wasn’t drunk into unconsciousness) did not exempt you from fastening your seatbelt.

    Also, if we want to consider the role of the world’s media in chasing them to get their money shot, consider also the role of the world’s media consumers who regard theBritish Royal Family as wonderful reality TV. You too are part of the pack that chased Diana.

    WTF? I’ve never bought a tabloid or a magazine other than This Old House, Game Informer, and the occasional Architectual Digest. Don’t confuse empathy with being a fangirl.

  111. Yonmei: But last time I checked, being a drunk passenger (and Diana wasn’t drunk into unconsciousness) did not exempt you from fastening your seatbelt…You too are part of the pack that chased Diana.

    So she committed suicide and we handed her the gun? Hyperbolic, much?

  112. Kristen J: That was me and yeah, that’s my version of hell.

    Great. Kindly remember not to marry a member of the British Royal Family, and you’re just fine. Or convert to Catholicism. Then you’d never be allowed to.

    Florence: So she committed suicide and we handed her the gun? Hyperbolic, much?

    I love it when people make up hyperbolic statements, attribute them to me, and then claim I’m being hyperbolic.

    If, as a point of principle, you do not like the kind of focussed attention being given to members of the British Royal Family, then do the principled thing:

    1. Don’t write blog posts like this one and the next RW on twitter.

    2. Don’t comment on them approvingly, joining in the focussed attention

    3. Don’t identify yourself with the reality TV show, having “empathy” with people who have none for you.

    4. And of course, don’t buy or borrow or watch commercial media which is paying attention to the Royals.

  113. and the next RW on twitter.

    on Feministe. Duh. I couldn’t bear to look and refer to it by name, but its the one which is all over the silly hats.

  114. WTF? I’ve never bought a tabloid or a magazine other than This Old House, Game Informer, and the occasional Architectual Digest. Don’t confuse empathy with being a fangirl.

    Reading tabloids, in print or on the internet, often crosses the line from fangirlism into creepy voyeurism. As a journalist, I have mixed feelings about it all. Creepy voyeurism helps keep a large chunk of workers in the media afloat – but it *does* fuck up people’s lives, often beyond recognition. That’s why I try to restrict my interest purely to public events. And while I’m *at* public events myself, I make a point of not approaching people who clearly don’t wish to be approached, even if I am working. Though now that I’m showing quite a bit, I sometimes get approached myself, mostly with innocent questions such as “so who are you expecting?”

    3. Don’t identify yourself with the reality TV show, having “empathy” with people who have none for you.

    You mean… William and Kate don’t really care about my healthcare troubles and maternity leave paperwork and the high cost of establishing residency in Russia? I… I don’t quite know what to say.

  115. I love it when people make up hyperbolic statements, attribute them to me, and then claim I’m being hyperbolic.

    So this happens a lot to you?

    Don’t identify yourself with the reality TV show, having “empathy” with people who have none for you.

    Therefore I should reserve all empathy for people whom I have met and who have expressed empathy for me? That’s an excellent way to live, and totally meshes with everything we believe about social justice!

    1. I find it’s productive to keep engaging in a conversation to make the point that this conversation shouldn’t be happening and we should all be ignoring the topic of said conversation.

  117. Yonmei: If, as a point of principle, you do not like the kind of focussed attention being given to members of the British Royal Family, then do the principled thing:

    You mean do things according to your principles right?

    1. Don’t write blog posts like this one and the next RW on twitter.

    Right. Don’t comment on an event that is taking over an entire city. Not a problem for me since I don’t blog or tweet.

    2. Don’t comment on them approvingly, joining in the focussed attention.

    Right. Because they are the demon spawn undeserving of any positive or empathetic understanding or recognition. No thank you!

    3. Don’t identify yourself with the reality TV show, having “empathy” with people who have none for you.”

    I don’t know how I could have identified myself with a reality tv show. The closest I get to “reality tv” is watching TOH since I was 5. WRT empathy, I show empathy, as far as I can, for all suffering. That’s my core principle.

    4. And of course, don’t buy or borrow or watch commercial media which is paying attention to the Royals.

    Right. Do not watch the news. Sorry no. I have shit to do in life that requires watching the news.

  119. I watched the royal wedding and enjoyed all the pomp and pajentry. I was glad that Kate didn’t promise to “obey” but still, there was a lot of sexist language in the wedding. YUCK! The sermon was OK but if the priest was realistic, he would have admitted that most of the time, marriage still upgrades men and downgrades women.

    Also, the Prince needs to wear a wedding ring.

  120. Pingback: Per the Wills and Kate debate: yes, losing your anonymity can, in fact, suck « Natalia Antonova

  121. I don’t know how I could have identified myself with a reality tv show.

    What else do you think the Royal Family’s public aspect is? You’re meant to get all goopy over their romances, you’re meant to empathise with all their troubles and pains. You’re meant to care about their lives. You’re not meant to notice (as Jill pointed out to us joyless people in the other thread) that they’re friends with tyrants, that the British police were arresting people in advance who were suspected of showing up to protest the event, that on the same day as plans to cut the NHS by 37% the British taxpayer was expected to fork out millions for the wedding of one of the richest young men in the country.

    I don’t know how you could identify yourself with this reality TV show of wealthy and powerful people, but apparently you’ve managed it.

  122. zuzu: If you want to see discussion of the feminist aspects, START ONE. That’s what the comments are for.

    Apparently Jill thinks that discussion of anything but the dresses and the hats is evidence of a joyless life, though.

  123. Yonmei:
    I don’t know how I could have identified myself with a reality tv show.

    What else do you think the Royal Family’s public aspect is? You’re meant to get all goopy over their romances, you’re meant to empathise with all their troubles and pains. You’re meant to care about their lives. You’re not meant to notice (as Jill pointed out to us joyless people in the other thread) that they’re friends with tyrants, that the British police were arresting people in advance who were suspected of showing up to protest the event, that on the same day as plans to cut the NHS by 37% the British taxpayer was expected to fork out millions for the wedding of one of the richest young men in the country.

    I don’t know how you could identify yourself with this reality TV show of wealthy and powerful people, but apparently you’ve managed it.

    Ummm…no, I said I pity how she’ll be treated by the media…full stop…the rest of that is your imagination. I’m not all goopy over anything. I don’t give a shit about their wedding or weddings in general. It seems pretty damn useless to me, but – hey – not my country or my tax dollars. If they want to spend it on hoopla, oh well…we spend ours bailing out corporations that layoff workers.

  124. There’s two discussions going on in this blog – a frivolous one about hats and the one here, which is more serious. But when I say “more serious,” I don’t mean necessarily “useful” – because way too much time is being spent talking about how people ought to feel about the royals and their weddings. Can’t we just agree that responses to such events can be varied? Or, for that matter, fairly nuanced? Yonmei, you’re still going on about how Kirsten J. should feel no pity for Kate Middleton, or whatever – how is this contributing to, say, the royals’ place in history? The tax issues? Kirsten J.’s a goddamn adult, she can feel whatever the hell she wants to feel. Talk about patronizing, seriously.

  125. The following I agree with.

    “I get that, and in a way I even agree – except that it also seems to be part of the way the creepy use of Diana Spencer by the Royal Family is being whitewashed over. I was 14 when the first version happened: wheeling out the ring for the remake reminded me of the thin, nervous girl (not too much older than me then – seems horrifyingly young to me now) who was marrying a middle-aged man whom we now know to be planning on breeding children on her and having his mistress on the side, and expecting her to deal with that without complaining.”

    But here’s the thing. What, exactly, does that mean about the young man who’s getting married (I know he’s going bald and all, but he is quite young) and his wish to give the woman he loves his mother’s ring? What do we know about his motivations for doing so?

    I think the monarchy is a ridiculous institution that we should probably get rid of, and I also think that what happened to Diana is an excellent example of why. But those two young men, one of whom will eventually be king, are also two young men who lost their mother when they were just children. One assumes that this upset them. One might reasonably assume that they miss her. If William is any sort of decent human being, one might also guess that perhaps he would like to avoid seeing his wife to be meet the same fate that his mother did (he’s already off to a good start there with the actually marrying your girlfriend rather than some teenager you barely know part). To then express a reaction to one of them wanting to give a woman who he wants to marry his mother’s ring as “ugh” seems, well, a little churlish. And disconcertingly unfeeling.

    I think it’s possible to separate one’s feelings about the institution (corrupt, wasteful, needs to go) from one’s feelings about the young man who’s getting married (lost his mother as a child, marrying someone he actually appears to like, apparently trying to avoid taking the same path his father did). If some people are unable to do that, make that separation, then hey, that’s OK, even understandable. What’s less understandable is the urge to attack other people for feeling any basic human compassion for the individuals involved.

    (That goes for anyone expressing sympathy for the inevitable moment when the British tabloids will turn on Kate Middleton – yes, she’s rich and about to get a lot richer, but she’s also a person, and our tabloids are downright evil to anyone they get in their crosshairs, especially if that person is a woman. If the woman happens to be rich, skinny, beautiful, and famous, do we suddenly switch off any feminist sympathy towards the expressions of sexism that are sure to be headed her way? I don’t think so.)

  126. Yonmei: Apparently Jill thinks that discussion of anything but the dresses and the hats is evidence of a joyless life, though.

    I ask this in all seriousness: Are you in university? Because you have all the hallmarks of the university feminist who has not yet discovered that irreverence and feminism can not only coexist, but are two great tastes that taste great together. I went through that phase myself.

    Also, you fail at reading comprehension. And mind-reading.

  127. Because you have all the hallmarks of the university feminist who has not yet discovered that irreverence and feminism can not only coexist, but are two great tastes that taste great together.

    Er, Zuzu: Jill is the one you need to direct that comment to: she’s the one who’s asserting that irreverence and feminism cannot co-exist, that anyone taking a political view must therefore be leading a joyless life. Never understood that point of view.

    Me, I’m still sad that the police managed to stop Queer Resistance’s Royal Wedding Zombie March with pre-arrests because I think that would have been awesome.

Comments are currently closed.