Live-commenting the royal wedding
Not live-blogging, since I’m going to be too busy watching TV and drinking coffee for that kind of high-maintenance posting. Instead we’ll just have an open thread thingy so anyone who wants to comment (including me) can do so.
If you don’t have a TV, this thing may work:
The BBC is supposed to be livestreaming it online too, I think, but their servers seem to be curled up in a ball on the floor, crying. UPDATE: BBC is back online.
UPDATED AGAIN: Now with pictures of The Dress.
68 Responses to “Live-commenting the royal wedding”
-
Violet Socks says:
I started out watching CNN, but their commenters are out of control. Non-stop inane yakking. Keerist.
April 29th, 2011 at 4:44 am EST -
ugsome says:
I’m streaming Stan’s Show on WFMU at the same time as I’m streaming the wedding. It’s an amazing audioscape that works really well together.
-
Yas says:
Violet, it is like you have crystal ball, she is wearing sleeves.
I really really hate the religious part of the ceremony. I am rolling my eyes at the priests.
Before this it used to annoy me that the press(and most people) would say man and wife when they were talking about the upcoming wedding. This annoyed me because I think they should be saying husband and wife instead of man and wife. Not sure if anyone else was annoyed by that or was I just overreacting.
-
cellocat says:
Yas, I agree. Man and wife = human + appendage.
-
Yas says:
I am actually surprised the ceremony is so religious. I guess I should not be surprised but for some reason I was not expecting a religious ceremony. I guess I just hate religion.
-
ugsome says:
Yas, you’re not overreacting, it’s completely annoying, but at least it makes the nature of the relationship completely plain. Having dealt with stealth kneecapper misogyny as much as anyone, I have come to appreciate forthrightness.
-
Violet Socks says:
The Anglican ceremony needs a serious overhaul. At least they removed “obey” from the vows, but the rest of that shit needs to go as well. Man this, mankind that, blech. And the passage comparing the husband & wife to Christ and the church! Blech blech blech. Serious overhaul needed. Also, double rings.
-
Violet Socks says:
Love the cut of that dress. Very Grace Kelly. Gorgeous, elegant silhouette. Personally I am not a big fan of lace, though, so I would have preferred to have the overbodice/sleeves of illusion or very sheer voile, something like that. Lace always looks busy and fusty to me.
-
anna says:
Ugh, Rowan Williams. Wasn’t he the one in favor of sharia law- but only for women of course. What an ass. And I’m not too thrilled that William has decided he won’t be wearing a wedding ring. Not that people don’t know he’s married, but it’s the symbolism, you know? The man doesn’t have to do anything, but the royal vagina must be clearly marked as owned.
-
Violet Socks says:
It’s my understanding that William just doesn’t like rings. Doesn’t wear any, and doesn’t want to start now. I can sympathize, since I also hate rings. I wore a wedding ring for a little while when I was first married but stopped. I hate rings.
I think the ceremony should be either double-ring or no-ring—same for both—but then the wearing of it should be optional. But the press always reads into things, so I suppose if they had double rings and then William didn’t wear his, yadeyadeyade…..
-
Nessum says:
Loved Kate’s (or is it Princess Catherine’s, now?) dress, the small bouquet, the not too long train, the hair pretty much as she always wears it. Made the woman shine through. Great choices. But couldn’t she have looked just a tad more … in love? (Yes, I am a sucker for big love and romance, sigh.)
And what’s up with English women’s hair, anyway? I mean, not only do they put absolutely ridiculous ornaments (hats?) on their heads, but it certainly didn’t look to me like there’d exactly been a run on hair dressers either.
-
Violet Socks says:
Re her title: http://abcnews.go.com/Internat.....d=13491491
-
Kali says:
Loved her dress. Very regal. Really suited her classic bone structure and dark hair. Violet, I disagree about the lace. I think that lace really sets off her gown as royal, instead of just plain old wedding dress. It wasn’t all over the place, so it wasn’t busy. I also liked that a woman designed her dress, and that it wasn’t sexy at all (I hate it when they sex up everything).
Agreed about the “man and wife” crap. I had a negative reaction to it too. Also, I think it was Diana and Kate who decided not to say “obey”. At least, the commentators framed it as their choice.
-
Violet Socks says:
Oh, I thought the dress was beautiful. I just have a weirdly sensitive threshold for lace, and almost always prefer it to be restricted to borders, etc. (Her veil was perfect.)
But overall a great dress. Gorgeous silhouette. I kept saying “Grace Kelly! Grace Kelly! Grace Kelly!” when the dress finally came into view.
-
someofparts says:
I’m watching it on one of the local Spanish cable channels. Enjoy the pageantry and practice my Spanish at the same time.
-
votermom says:
I love love love the dress. I love lace over satin so much that my own wedding dress has the same idea (but long sleeved with high collar, no train).
I confess I do not like the veil material — I orefer lace. LOL.Do you know everyone on NBC is calling her Princess Katherine. Idiots.
-
JeanLouise says:
The “man and wife” annoyed me. The comparison to the bride and the church hit a wrong note for me as well.
I’ll take the opposing view. I thought the dress and the veil both looked dated and I didn’t like either. OTOH, I loved the Maid of Honor dress.
I couldn’t care less who wears a ring as long as they make the choice themselves. -
votermom says:
Since the British monarchy created the CoE, I have no problem with them sticking with CoE religious ceremonies.
I like the way they say the last bit of the vow “till death us do part” instead of “do us part” and that bit where they said at the end about “I give thee my troth.”
Sorry, I am just a regency fangirl so this is like CANDY.I really like how they look really happy and in love. That’s the real fairytale part of it.
-
Branjor says:
***The Anglican ceremony needs a serious overhaul. At least they removed “obey” from the vows, but the rest of that shit needs to go as well. Man this, mankind that, blech. And the passage comparing the husband & wife to Christ and the church! Blech blech blech. Serious overhaul needed. Also, double rings.***
Totally agree.
Funny thing about the “man and wife” business though. One interpretation of it is that men don’t really get married. She becomes a “wife” but he doesn’t become a “husband”, i.e. he doesn’t get married, only she does. Another way to look at it is that he doesn’t become a “man” until he gets married (otherwise why pronounce him “man?”), but she only becomes a “wife”, having been a “woman” before the marriage ceremony, i.e. a man needs to get married to have his sexual identity but a woman doesn’t. This sexism of the marriage ceremony lends itself to all sorts of hilarious interpretations one can make for fun. -
ugsome says:
A very nice touch: “Handmade by a team at the Royal School of Needlework, the skirt bloomed with a floral design that incorporated the symbolic rose of England, thistle of Scotland, daffodil of Wales, and shamrock of Ireland.”
-
votermom says:
ugsome, also on the wedding cake
Each of the 17 different flower designs on the official wedding cake has their own individual meaning according to the Language of Flowers.
The cake is a work of art, imo.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/b...../lightbox/ -
Adrienne in CA says:
Man and wife is weird, but not fond of “husband” either. Look it up. I don’t need husbanding, and if anyone’s the master of this house, it’s moi. Apparently it was “wer” and “wif” in Old English, which sounds charming.
Love the dress, and her smile is positively triumphant!
*****A
-
Toonces says:
My favorite part has been the hats. I also loved the trees. I’m not a fan of lace either but now that I’ve seen Grace Kelly’s dress, it makes sense and seems sweet. The ceremony was cold and oddly hilarious. I went to sleep around the time Kate’s brother was asking everyone to “hate evil.” Charming.
-
Violet Socks says:
My favorite parts of the ceremony inside the Abbey:
–Harry sneaking glances back and saying things to his brother as Kate walked up the aisle;
–William’s expression and “You look beautiful” when Kate arrived at the altar;
–the way he looked at her throughout;
–the way they so obviously love each other—the mature, confident, joyful love of a true (longtime) couple;
–Kate’s brother’s audition for the remake of Terror in the Crypt;
–the Bishop of London’s homily;
–the expression on Prince Philip’s face as the Bishop’s homily strayed into save-the-earth territory (is this that rot Charles is always on about?);
–William and Kate’s bow/curtsey to the Queen;and that’s all for now. I’ll probably think of others in a minute.
-
Violet Socks says:
And the trees! Truly, the Abbey looked beautiful.
-
Violet Socks says:
The music! The music was fantastic.
-
votermom says:
the expression on Prince Philip’s face as the Bishop’s homily strayed into save-the-earth territory (is this that rot Charles is always on about?)
LOLOL. Missed that!
-
simplywondered says:
oh vi, bless you for being interested. i couldn’t find it in me to do other than seethe. i know; a bit rough for 2 people who have never done me any harm. just all these things get me going. i was working and had to get legal aid forms stamped in court so my homeless client could have my services for free (pretty much what i am worth, alas) but nobody would stamp them cos they were looking at her bloody dress. and then i heard a very sage MALE commentator say: ‘the dress sums up the woman’. yep! that’s all women are.
the thing i found illuminating was how when they get back to the palace you see all the senior military that are involved. the chieftain still has the housecarls around. we really have gone nowhere in thousands of years. delighted to hear that they sang jerusalem. billy blake would have died laughing that even the monarchy think his poem was a patriotic hymn to the established order. of course, he would have been arrested outside for making calling down god’s wrath on the monarchy.what a sad old cynical commie i am. still if it has entertained you, that is some value to it.
-
Nessum says:
Pippa, the bride’s sister, did an amazing job, caring both for the bride, her dress and bouquet and for the little bridesmaids – all the while looking lovely, smiling and relaxed. Impressive!
And I love this (from Yahoo) about the bouquet:
When it came to her bridal bouquet, Middleton, 29, enlisted designer Shane Connolly, the florist who decked out their Westminster Abbey venue with eight maple trees.
Comprised of a shield-shaped wired bouquet of myrtle, lily-of-the-valley and hyacinth, the bouquet “draws on the traditions of flowers of significance for the Royal Family, the Middleton family and on the Language of Flowers,” according to a statement released on the Official Royal Wedding Web site.
As a nod to her new husband, Middleton included ‘sweet William’ blooms. Keeping with royal tradition, stems from a myrtle planted by Queen Victoria in 1845 were also added.
Btw, did anyone catch what Harry said to William after having “sneak previewed” the approaching bride?
-
Nessum says:
And what Violet said about William. He seems like such a genuinely nice, caring person. I feel sorry for him though for going bald at such a young age; that sucks. But maybe Elton John could give him some advise, as he seems to suddenly be able to grow hair in abundance.
-
ugsome says:
I was at work while the wedding was on (I live in Paris) so I’m just watching the rebroadcast sans sound now. I must say,the British monarchy puts on a show like no one else, except perhaps the North Koreans with their Mass Games.
-
julia says:
And now, for a feminist perspective: It is infuriating that they say ‘Man and Wife’ instead of ‘Husband and Wife’, please everyone overreact, that’s our job. The woman is expected to lose her identity and take the man’s name. Or hyphenate her name. That would be fine if he hyphenated his name, too. They both lose and gain something and become partners. But of course, how often does that happen to us commoners?
As a radical feminist I abhor weddings. Marriage is about ownership, the man owns the woman and the children and anything she has or makes. Some of this has changed, but if you follow enough divorces in the US you see how much has stayed the same. Too many women are brought into poverty after a divorce because the years they spent having and caring for children and the household go unpaid, and all of the sudden she has to pay for everything. Child support covers very little and lots of men get away without paying it.
I certainly believe in gay and lesbian marriage, where the roles are not pre-determined and each couple can decide for themselves. Or create something else.
-
Violet Socks says:
As a radical feminist myself, I have absolutely no problem with marriage. What I abhor is patriarchal marriage.
I think it is a real mistake to believe that marriage itself—the pairbond of two humans—is inherently and inevitably patriarchal. That is, in fact, the argument of male supremacists, who would like us all to believe that patriarchy is universal. From a feminist standpoint it is, in my opinion, out of date and culturally myopic, as if the whole world and all human societies that have ever existed are just like ours.
Patriarchy is not universal. It’s not inevitable. Marriage, however, is. Humans make pairbonds. How those pairbonds are defined and structured by society—ah, now there’s the rub.
We don’t need get rid of marriage; we just need to get rid of patriarchal marriage. Reform! Transform! And in my own lifetime western marriage has been steadily transformed. There is still a long ways to go, but it is definitely changing. The very existence of gay marriage in our civilization is a great sign.
-
Violet Socks says:
simply, it’s so lovely to see you again! In your honor, here’s the clip of Jerusalem, which was utterly sublime:
The words, for those that don’t have their Blake down by heart:
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen!
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark satanic mills?
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England’s green & pleasant Land. -
Ciardha says:
Prince Phillip looked hideous in the red uniform- he looked like the Crypt Keeper. And Beatrice’s hat? That was one of the strangest hats I’ve seen. Prettiest dress- Princess Lalla Salma’s of Morocco
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures.....of+MoroccoBonus points- she’s a strong advocate of women’s rights in her country.
I love her beautiful curly chestnut colored hair too.
-
Sophie says:
Of course the ceremony was religous. William’s grandmother is the head of the Anglican Church as will he be in the future. The wedding ring exchange only became popular in the US in the early 20th century and only mildly popular in the UK after World War II. I married in London in 1975 with one ring just like all of my friends. I don’t remember ever seeing a royal wedding with an exchange of rings – maybe I’ve forgotten. These two people have lived together for seven years, they know each other, appear to love each other and seem to agree on issues important to them – whether William wears a wedding ring is not important.
-
Tabby Lavalamp says:
I’m not against the royal family per se (though don’t expect me to ever curtsy, bow, or prostrate myself in any way to any of them), it’s certainly a quaint tradition and I’m very happy that steps are being taken so it will be the eldest child, not the eldest son, who will take the throne from now on. I just have no idea why I’m supposed to care about this wedding, just as I have no idea why I’m supposed to care about Brad and Angelina or Victoria and Becks or any other celebrity couple. I don’t know them, they don’t know me.
It’s even worse with royal celebrities (or the children of celebrities). By being born to the right people, I’m supposed to care about them more than the billions of anonymous people on this planet?
Having just recently gone high definition, I was going through my channels and got part of the ceremony (whatever else I think about it, the whole thing was gorgeous in HD). I can barely tolerate religion at the weddings of people I know and love, so I didn’t stay watching it for long. I did, however, get to see one of the parts of weddings that cause me to rage…
“Who gives this woman…?”
SIT DOWN, OLD MAN! SHE’S NOT YOURS TO GIVE! -
simplywondered says:
vi – my thanks for your gift! i sniggered my way through jerusalem (much like harry, apparently) in the bedroom (tv on in the living room) and thought of blake’s undying opposition to all tyrants and the established forms of marriage. a mate of mary wollstonecraft and no fan of george III. what a geezer! i bet he liked alpacas too and would have loved this blog.
-
Violet Socks says:
Damn, it’s good to be rich. I must say this sounds like an absolutely fantastic party (except for the lamb):
Royal wedding: inside Kate and William’s extraordinary palace reception
This is killer:
At around 1.30am, reportedly under the instruction of nightclub-owner Mr Pelly, DJs took over, playing a range of popular chart hits including Mr Brightside by The Killers, followed by “club” and “rave” music, the booming bass of which could be heard by passers-by outside the Palace well into the early hours.
Buckingham Palace as the neighborhood party house, with the thump-thump-thump…it is too funny.
-
Gayle says:
Ok now that it’s over here is the ickiest thing to come about after the ceremony: Listening to a bunch of random tv and radio dudes saying how hawt Pippa is and discussing how much they’d like to “tap that.”
Eww.
-
kiuku says:
I love the dress, the way it shapes her sillouette and the lace sleeves is magnificent, very stunning, not sexy or unkind, but statuesque. She seems a tad more stately and royal than the prince she is betrothing herself to, idiotically. She is in command. She is indeed a royal in the wedding.
-
quixote says:
I’m late to the party, as usual, but maybe it’s still worth weighing in on the “man and wife” thing. What you’re seeing is the fossilized nature of ceremonies: that usage dates from a squillion years ago when “wife” meant “adult female human being.”
But, since those people (“those people”) are low class and generally icky, the word followed them into indecency and could be used politely only when applied to the “wife of a man” … which is what “woman” is a contraction of.
(In languages closer to their roots than English, eg Dutch, “wijf” can still be used to mean something with the same general connotations as “trailer trash.”)
It’s maddening, literally, i.e. it makes me crazy with frustration, that sexism is so embedded in the language, there’s no way to clean it up. Usage changes, though, when people’s minds change. That’s the only good thing.
…
Oh, and, I loved Kate’s dress and how well she wore it!
-
lalala says:
I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade or fairytale fantasy, so I will start off with what I enjoyed about this royal wedding.
Yes, I got caught up in it as well. Watched the entire thing. Loved Catherine’s dress and thought she looked beautiful although a bit too thin for my taste. For those of you who have been following her over the years, she was already a skinny girl but probably lost 20-30 pounds for the wedding.
The bad. I’ve always taken issue with Catherine taking on the full time job as William’s girlfriend ever since college. Someone I know has compared her to a concubine: quiet, seemingly submissive, willing to turn a blind eye to William sleeping with other women (and he has reportedly throughout their 9 year courtship). I wouldn’t go that far to rip her to shreds, but one has to view her resume as underwhelming for a modern woman who is both intelligent and well educated. Her only foray into the working world was as an assistant for several months at Jigsaw, a 2-weeks photographer’s assistant, and supposedly has worked in marketing for her parents’ party planning company. It has been presumed that she did not pursue a serious career because being unemployed was the only way she would have been able to go on average 11 vacations per year with William to keep an eye on him and sustain the relationship.
Marrying into the Royal family means being in a patriarchal marriage. That is slowly changing, but Catherine’s only duties are to keep her husband happy and produce a male heir to the throne. Other than that, she will probably take up at least a few charities (Diana at one point was on the board of 200 charities), but I have read that William is trying to ease her into Royal life by limiting her appearances and charitable work for at least the first several years of marriage.
There are obvious aspects to being a prince or a princess that are wonderful. The endless vacations, private estates, official trips at 5-star hotels and the best restaurants, personal servants, public adoration, fairytale wedding, etc. Who wouldn’t want that financial security and status?
Catherine seems well-suited and willing to perform these duties. She’s waited 9 years for her moment and I’m sure she and her family are thrilled. At the same time, the media scrutiny, duties to produce a male heir and be nothing more than her husband’s servant, and having to put up with possible cheating (which is well known and expected of Royal men) is hardly a fairytale for most women in the 21st century.
-
Violet Socks says:
Someone I know has compared her to a concubine: quiet, seemingly submissive, willing to turn a blind eye to William sleeping with other women (and he has reportedly throughout their 9 year courtship).
That does appear to be the standard line taken on certain celebrity-watching websites in America. The problem is that the people running and commenting on those sites actually have no information at all about the real lives of the celebrities they’re commenting on. I think those sites tend to be an exercise in projecting: people are comforted by imagining how miserable certain celebrities’ lives are, how much the men are cheating, how stupid and trapped the women are.
duties to produce a male heir and be nothing more than her husband’s servant
You actually think the Queen Consort’s job is to be a servant to her husband?
-
ugsome says:
lalala: Kate has probably established Grace Kelly/Audrey Hepburn as The Silhouette for the next ten years. I’m awaiting a spike in the incidence of eating disorders over the next few years. :(
-
Sameol says:
Doesn’t her family have something like $50 million dollars? She’d have financial security, endless 5 star vacations, private estates and all the rest of it regardless of who she married, if anyone. The idea that she gave up a serious career that didn’t involve working for her parents does sound like media projection. Being intelligent and educated doesn’t necessary equate to burning with a desire to pursue a career. Sure, many people have some sort of passion that they wish to pursue as a career, but many others would be just as happy to have endless leisure time to read and travel, finances willing. And what percentage of the children of incredibly wealthy business owners, male and female, choose to go down the easiest and most lucrative path? I would suspect a fairly high percentage, unless they have a real passion for some other field.
-
Nessum says:
Marrying into the Royal family means being in a patriarchal marriage.
I think it’s more a “comes with the territory when marrying royalty” kind of thing, regardless of gender. Prince Philip of England, Prince Bernhard, and Prince Claus of Holland, Prince Henrik of Denmark, and more recently Prince Daniel of Sweden all have married into what you might as well call “matriarchal marriages” with their wives definitely being the ones “wearing the pants”.
… duties to produce a male heir and be nothing more than her husband’s servant …
Believe you me if you change “husband” to “wife” the exact same applies to the commoner-turned-prince too.
Not defending Monarchy as such, only saying that they do play by other rules than the rest of us. And if you chose to marry into Royalty – well, for your own sake you better accept those rules.
-
monchichipox says:
Face it she would have looked good in a white burlap sack. She’s gorgeous but yeah I’d like to fatten her up just a tinch.
-
Carmonn says:
The kate media narrative doesn’t seem to be so very different from the Hillary clinton media narrative in a way.
From the moment she laid eyes on him at the tender age of 19 or 20, she’s been waiting, waiting, waiting desperately to become a Princess, sacrificing all other ambitions to this one overriding ambition. Putting up with cheating, disrespect, a subserviant role is a small price to pay in exchange.
From the moment she met Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham knew he would be the vessel to fulfill her ambition. She bided her time, waiting it out for decades, grudgingly accepting a subserviant helpmeet identity, putting up with the cheating like no strong woman ever could, but all worth it for the opportunity to finally use him to fulfill her brutal ambition. She’s both sad sack Stepford wife and overly ambitious Machiavelli, and can be faulted on both fronts.
Then there’s Michelle Obama. Despite it being somewhat evident that she may not be too keen on public life, she’s the President’s wife so she gets her share of “woman behind the throne” stuff, as if she schemed and maneuvered her unambitious husband into a position he didn’t want. Once again, she’s at once too subserviant and too forceful.
Or take, for example, Jennifer Aniston. She’d needy, clingy, desperate, as well as controlling, overambitious, unnatural for not being a mother, etc. Every famous woman does seem to attract a very stereotypical narrative and they do all seem to share certain threads in common.
-
Violet Socks says:
Catherine’s only duties are to keep her husband happy and produce a male heir to the throne
The number one duty of all kings/queens/consorts is to reproduce themselves. That’s William’s #1 job, actually, as well as Catherine’s. To have an heir. But as for the Queen Consort’s only job being to “keep her husband happy” — really, that’s just talking out your ass. That is not how the monarchy works. Actually, it doesn’t matter if she keeps him happy or not.
I suggest you look at the lives of Prince Philip, the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, and Prince Albert to get a sense of how consorts have functioned in the monarchy. They are not servants by any stretch of the imagination. They are, in fact, the highest-ranked personages in the land aside from their spouses, the monarchs. It is a life of incredible prestige and privilege, as well as responsibility. All consorts are extremely active in heading up charities and other institutions. They also have enormous scope to pursue projects that interest them, whether it’s wildlife conservation or art restoration or whatever. And of course there is the guaranteed spot in the history books, and the guarantee of same for one’s children.
It is kind of funny to me that naysaying the monarchy has become so prevalent that people actually wonder why on earth someone would want to be Queen. Really? You can’t figure that out?
As for Catherine, I don’t know if she is driven by a career ambition to become Queen, a personal desire to be married to William because she loves him, or both. For her sake I hope it’s both, so that if the marriage turns sour she will at least still have the consolation of her career choice.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
I have read that William is trying to ease her into Royal life by limiting her appearances and charitable work for at least the first several years of marriage.
I’m glad he has her firmly in hand, easing her way and limiting her, and all.
Patriarchy? What patriarchy?
Royal wedding = BLECCCH to me.
-
Violet Socks says:
Oh for chrissake. It’s possible to put the most unpleasant spin on anything if you want to.
William’s mother Diana was eaten alive by the palace courtiers. She was thrown into a situation with no guidance and no protection. William and Catherine are said to be determined to do things their own way, and William is said to be committed to keeping his wife from being gobbled up by the House of Windsor the way his mother was.
Would it be better if he did nothing to support his wife, nothing to help her? Then he would be Charles all over again.
-
Violet Socks says:
This is like a game of telephone. First lalala graces us with a totally slanted gossipy take of what she imagines is going on, then tinfoil hattie quotes it as if it’s real and proof of something.
For heaven’s sake, people, stop reading the celebrity gossip sites and projecting your negative fantasies.
-
cellocat says:
For a couple of years anyway, they intend to live without a staff (minus the security, that is). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....leton.html
I admit to hoping that their firstborn, if they have one, is a girl, and that Nick Clegg makes good on his suggestions that government ouught to change the male gender requiremnent for inheritance. It’d be nice to have a woman inherit regardless of the existence of (younger) male siblings.
-
votermom says:
George VI’s line of royals seem to be firmly in the mold of duty and service. Probably Edward VII’s horrible example is kept firmly in their minds. :)
(Charles imo acted like a @ss during his marriage to Di, but he seems to have come to his senses since then.) -
Violet Socks says:
I admit to hoping that their firstborn, if they have one, is a girl, and that Nick Clegg makes good on his suggestions that government ouught to change the male gender requiremnent for inheritance.
I don’t think it’s just Nick Clegg. The Queen chairs The Way Ahead group, which is the House of Windsor’s planning commission on how to sustain the monarchy into the coming generations. Fortunately, William has been a member of the group since he was at least college age, so he has input.
Getting rid of male primogeniture is definitely on the agenda, according to what Palace and Clarence House people say. It will have to be done through Parliament, I believe, but it is the wave of the future. The Swedish royal house has already gone that way, which is why the heir to the throne is Crown Princess Victoria, not her brother.
Another interesting thing: William is said to have wanted the Queen to make Catherine a princess in her own right upon marriage. The rules of that are arcane, but basically, only people born royal or specifically raised to royalty are entitled to be called Prince First Name or Princess First Name. Women who marry into royalty are supposed to be called Princess His First Name —which is why the late Diana’s pre-divorce technical title was The Princess Charles. But of course no one ever used that. It’s cringe-worthy and hopelessly patriarchal and old-fashioned.
At any rate, William is said to be strongly against the “Princess William” type thing and wants Catherine to be raised to the rank of Princess Catherine in her own right. Now, the Queen has not done that yet. Not only would it be unprecedented, but there is the Camilla factor to consider. Charles and Camilla are ahead of William and Kate in line, but obviously Camilla is not getting raised to the rank of Princess Camilla.
But here’s the interesting bit: two days after the wedding, a report credited to Clarence House surfaced that Prince William would be entirely happy for the public to use “Princess Catherine” to refer to his wife, even though of course it’s not official. And the same report quoted Buckingham Palace as saying the Queen was “relaxed” about this and ready to accept that the public would probably do it. That is amazing. I would like to see more confirmation of this report, but so far I’ve just seen the one story.
-
votermom says:
And the same report quoted Buckingham Palace as saying the Queen was “relaxed” about this and ready to accept that the public would probably do it.
That IS amazing. So far though officially she is still only HRH the Duchess Cambridge. I wonder if people will start calling her Duchess Kate. :)
-
Sameol says:
I read that all of the Commonwealth countries would have to reform their laws in order to get rid of male primogeniture, and because it’s complicated and it all has to be standard from country to country, it could take a long time. So if they have a girl and then a boy before the process is completed, I assume that she would be out of luck?
-
Violet Socks says:
Not necessarily. In Sweden it was done retroactively: Victoria and Carl Philip had already been born (she was a toddler and he was a baby), and Carl Philip was the heir. When the new rules went into effect, Victoria was made the heir and Carl Philip was demoted.
-
cellocat says:
If Queen Elizabeth can start making changes like that, it does somewhat ironically give me a little more hope for the future.
-
Nessum says:
While the change of law was retroactively put to effect in Sweden, that was’nt the case in Norway, when the law was changed there in 1990. The younger brother to an older sister kept his title as heir. Probably because he, contrary to the situation in Sweden, was at that point a young man of 18.
His firstborn is a girl though, so she’s first in line to the Norwegian throne ahead of her younger brother, while he’s ahead of her in line to the British throne … albeit far down the line, I’m sure.
And I really like the bit about William being happy with his wife being called “Princess Catherine”.
-
simplywondered says:
‘the late Diana’s pre-divorce technical title was The Princess Charles. But of course no one ever used that. It’s cringe-worthy and hopelessly patriarchal and old-fashioned.’
oh really, vi – you think that would stop us??? we’re british fer dogssake!
and sameol at 58 – why on earth would we wait for the commonwealth to do anything? (see above under ‘we’re british fer dogssake’).
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Violet. Please. You cannot possibly be objecting to my commentary on someone claiming that Prince William has “taken (his wife) in hand.” Feminism 101.
As for the wedding? So what? I don’t have to like weddings. In restrospect, I don’t even like my OWN wedding.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
i.e., lalalala was commenting as though what William is allegedly doing is a Good & Helpful thing. Do we no longer make feminist commmentary here?
-
Violet Socks says:
Tinfoil hattie, you miss my point. Lalala’s comment was tendentious in the first place. Yes, if she’d said that William beats Kate regularly to keep her in line, naturally any of us would have a feminist critique of that. But how about if William doesn’t beat Kate regularly and lalala just pulled that out of her ass?
The fact is that lalala’s comment about Kate is largely the product of her own imagination and the kind of anti-Kate gossip popular on various celebrity sites. It doesn’t accord with anything that is actually known about their relationship. If you read what close friends say about them, the picture is quite different. They seem very much an equal couple, and if anything Kate is the grownup in the relationship. Of course none of us really know the truth, but the point is, lalala’s comment was bullshit.
-
Gayle says:
Have a great holiday weekend, Violet!
I miss your posts but still shamelessly use your blog roll feed to catch up on others!
-
votermom says:
Violet, come back! We promise to behave! :)
-
propertius says:
I don’t promise to behave, but come back anyway.
I hope everything is ok in the Smoking Lounge.
