Wedding of William & Catherine: Reflections on the Royal Wedding


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was not referring to Michael walking her down the aisle. I was referring to when her father continuously putting her hand in William's - more than once! That is archaic and implies a woman is property. That is what bothered me.
 
I was not referring to Michael walking her down the aisle. I was referring to when her father continuously putting her hand in William's - more than once! That is archaic and implies a woman is property. That is what bothered me.

I'm not acquainted with Church of England wedding traditions, but IMO it appeared to be part of service customs. I'd have to go back to the other BRF royal weddings to see if the same happened with the other couples.
 
I was not referring to Michael walking her down the aisle. I was referring to when her father continuously putting her hand in William's - more than once! That is archaic and implies a woman is property. That is what bothered me.

Ah, I see. Well then we should probably stop people from using common phrases such as "my daughter", "my wife", "my husband" since they also suggest some form of possession akin to "my car", "my house" or "my dog.

I have been to many Protestant (not just Anglican) wedding ceremonies in the UK, Canada and the US where the minister utters the phrase "who giveth this woman to this man" and the response comes from the father of the bride or in a few cases both parents "I/We do".
 
Last edited:
I was not referring to Michael walking her down the aisle. I was referring to when her father continuously putting her hand in William's - more than once! That is archaic and implies a woman is property. That is what bothered me.

Although in the Luxemborgh wedding, Stephanie's elder brother walked her down the aisle, when they reached the altar they were met by her father (elderly and in a wheelchair) and with support, I think the gesture was that it was the father giving away his daughter.

I'm trying to think back to William and Kate's wedding and trying to remember if the phrase "Who gives this woman in marriage" was used. That is also a big part of some weddings still. Along with placing his daughter's hand in William's and perhaps answering "Her mother and I do", I see it not as "possession" being given but the parent's blessing on the marriage.

I most definitely had my father walk me down the aisle and "give" me away. It was a very touching moment for the both of us.
 
Ah, I see. Well then we should probably stop people from using common phrases such as "my daughter", "my wife", "my husband" since they also suggest some form of possession akin to "my car", "my house" or "my dog.

I have been to many Protestant (not just Anglican) wedding ceremonies in the UK, Canada and the US where the minister utters the phrase "who giveth this woman to this man" and the response comes from the father of the bride or in a few cases both parents "I/We do".

Its just my views on how women should be treated in society, particularly during a wedding. Even though it may seem touching for the father or both parents to give away the bride, it stems from the days where women were property. Even more so, repeatedly putting the bride's hand in the groom's indicates that she is property and can't think or speak for herself.

If Michael had simply walked Kate up to the altar and went to sit with his wife, then that would've been OK. But to stand there and do that thing with her hand really bothered me. I don't think Sophie's father did that when she married Prince Edward.
 
I'm trying to think back to William and Kate's wedding and trying to remember if the phrase "Who gives this woman in marriage" was used. That is also a big part of some weddings still. Along with placing his daughter's hand in William's and perhaps answering "Her mother and I do", I see it not as "possession" being given but the parent's blessing on the marriage.

Then why not have someone stand in for Diana and give away William?

I'm pointing out the placing of the hand in this wedding because I can't think of any other royal wedding that had the same thing.
 
Sonjapearl said:
I was not referring to Michael walking her down the aisle. I was referring to when her father continuously putting her hand in William's - more than once! That is archaic and implies a woman is property. That is what bothered me.

Could you show me where he does it repeatedly? I watched the wedding in full and never saw this.
 
I watched it as well. Not only did I not see Michael Middleton repeatedly pass Catherine's hand to William I did not see him do it at all. I did see him pass Catherine's hand to the Archbishop of Canterbury who then joined her hand with Williams. Maybe I need new glasses and missed all this passing of hands around.
The Royal Wedding Vows - YouTube
 
Could you show me where he does it repeatedly? I watched the wedding in full and never saw this.

Why have someone stand in for Diana? Why not both fathers give their children away?

Actually I think it is just the practice that went along with a girl walking down the aisle with her father. She was daddy's little girl, until her wedding day and now she's another man's woman. It isn't about property it's about a little girl all grown up. There is a lovely song: White on White by Danny Williams.
 
Why have someone stand in for Diana? Why not both fathers give their children away?

Actually I think it is just the practice that went along with a girl walking down the aisle with her father. She was daddy's little girl, until her wedding day and now she's another man's woman. It isn't about property it's about a little girl all grown up. There is a lovely song: White on White by Danny Williams.

You would think in that case she would also be Mommy's little girl and then a grown woman.

And the phrase "another man's woman" made me shudder.

I think the practice is a bit anachronistic and sexist personally.
 
Sonjapearl said:
Its just my views on how women should be treated in society, particularly during a wedding. Even though it may seem touching for the father or both parents to give away the bride, it stems from the days where women were property. Even more so, repeatedly putting the bride's hand in the groom's indicates that she is property and can't think or speak for herself.

We know women are not property, and that we can think/speak for ourselves. To think the gesture of placing the bride's hand in the groom's is an indication that she can't think or speak for herself is IMO rather insulting (especially in this day and age where more than ever women don't need men to provide for us). People don't see the giving away of the bride, or placing the bride's hand in the groom's hand as transferring property. That may have been the origins of the tradition(s), but that is not the tone, spirit (or whatever you want to call it) in which they are done today.
 
Yes, I think the tone and spirit of the gesture has very much changed and I am sure that individual brides will see it in their own way. I think that for many women, the two most important men in her life will be her father and her husband (obvioulsy I am generalising here as some women will have a female partner and/or no father). A father will often see his daughter as someone he wishes to protect and look after, which is the same as her husband or at least look out for her and care for very much. So in a way the gesture of "giving the bride away" should perhaps be more of a gesture that the father is allowing someone else the priviledge of being in such an important position in his daughters life, kind of reliquishing unto another the important male role in his daughters life.
Gosh, I do hope this makes sense, cos I'm not suggesting that women need a male role model or a man in their lives to look after them - I'm just guessing at the unique bonds between a woman and her father and the new bonds with her husband.

I have often heard of a brother or mother giving away their sister/daughter. I gave my sister away at her wedding in the absense of our father. I think her view was that it was traditional to be walked up the aisle. I certainly didn't hand her over like a set of spanners on Father's Day, but she was nervous and felt better when I was there. Maybe it's just nice to have someone familiar walking up that long aisle with you.

This reminds of the purpose of having bridesmaids - it's traditional but are they really necessary these days?!!
 
I was actually 'given' away by both my mom and father. It was nice to have both by myside. When I was growing up, I always pictured dad by myself.

I really dont think any 'women bashing' is meant by daddy giving his little girl away. The church has been built on hundreds if not thousands of years of tradition. You dont change tradition. If tradition changed, then it wouldnt be called a tradition.
 
From what I recall, I thought that Michael Middleton just made a mistake. They get down the aisle and he automatically moves Catherine's hand to William's. But then he realizes he's not supposed to do that until the priest asks "Who giveth...", so he takes her back, then does the official handover with line, on cue. The multi-hand-transfer was a blooper.

The practice on the whole does have very patriarchal roots, which many brides disagree with. Most weddings I've been to, the dad has simply walked his daughter up the aisle and released her, and she takes the groom's hand on her own, to erase any hint of 'giving', 'women are property'. Just like Michael tried to do here. He's supporting his daughter, not owning her. But Will and Kate decided on a traditional ceremony complete with giveth-ing away the bride. The roots are sexist, but I'm sure they know that. They decided to do it anyway.
 
if the tradition had bothered W&C I'm sure they would have changed it - they made many changes to the day that were their own.
 
This is what happens when there is no news to talk about, people start looking too deep into meaningless things. It's tradition, nothing more. Stop making mountains out of mole hills. As a black woman a lot of traditions I take part in are rooted into a history of slavery; that doesn't change the fact that we do them. As someone else said why have a best man or bridesmaids if we are going to start nitpicking.
 
I thought most churchs had eliminated the question 'Who gives this woman to be married'. We didn"t use that form all the way back in the 50's when I married. When my youngest son married, the parents escorted both people to the altar. First the groom and then the bride. The brides Mother and I lite separate candles on the altar. Then after the vows were said, the bride and groom each took a candle and lite the unity candle, then blew out the separate candles. I don"t really think any bride is considered property to be given away. Unless maybe in some undeveloped countries. Not in the modern world.
 
Why have someone stand in for Diana? Why not both fathers give their children away?

Actually I think it is just the practice that went along with a girl walking down the aisle with her father. She was daddy's little girl, until her wedding day and now she's another man's woman. It isn't about property it's about a little girl all grown up. There is a lovely song: White on White by Danny Williams.

What does that have to do with my question exactly? :whistling:

She's not another mans woman, you are actually making it sound like she's property just passed off. Not everyone is a daddy's little girl, that again is incredibly patronising.
 
What does that have to do with my question exactly? :whistling:

She's not another mans woman, you are actually making it sound like she's property just passed off. Not everyone is a daddy's little girl, that again is incredibly patronising.
Let's not forget that (at this point in time) christianity is extremely patriarchal. Most christian sects dont allow for the ordination of women, and in fact treat them as second class citizens. And there's that whole 'Women be submissive to your husbands' shtick in the bible http://bible.cc/1_peter/3-1.html . Another reason I am an atheist.
 
Let's not forget that (at this point in time) christianity is extremely patriarchal. Most christian sects dont allow for the ordination of women, and in fact treat them as second class citizens. And there's that whole 'Women be submissive to your husbands' shtick in the bible http://bible.cc/1_peter/3-1.html . Another reason I am an atheist.

Christianity by tradition is patriarcal but I do believe that it has moved up enough with the times that they do not treat women as second class citizens at all. Then again, like different brides and grooms, each congregation tend to vary on different societal and liturgical traditions. What works and has meaning for a couple in a deep south Baptist ministry may be completely different for the urbane New York up and coming bride and groom.

The beauty of various beliefs and traditions is that it works for them just as you being an atheist and me being of the old religion and Susie Creamcheese down the road wants the line "as long as we both shall choose" instead of "as long as we both shall live" in the ceremony works for us. A wedding ceremony is a celebration of two people becoming one and whatever traditions they choose to leave in or omit is totally their self expression on their day.
 
Why are some people so h*ll bent on destroying traditions?
William and Catherine had a beautiful High Anglican wedding ceremony and both of them strike me as traditionalists.
Remember the Queen is Elizabeth II by The Grace of God , and although the world is becoming more secular by the day, HM is a Christian and Defender of the Faith as are the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
I believe the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to be the champions of the Protestant Reformed Faith and the Settlement of the Church of England.
I pray that the Duke of Cambridge will be one of the most religiously conservative Sovereigns of the last 200 years.
 
I liked the trees lining the aisle.
The maple trees that had been brought in to decorate the main walkway of Westminster Abbey had been chosen to represent the celebration of English Arbor Day.

I liked the wisteria, lilacs, and azaleas which were draped over balconies and pews at Westminster Abbey.
Catherine, whose college background included studies of art history, wanted to pay tribute to "the language of flowers".
She chose only those flowers that would be in season in the month of April.

:thistle::thistle::thistle::thistle::thistle::thistle::princess2::lancasterrose::tudorrose::lancasterrose::tudorrose::lancasterrose:

One write-up of the Royal Wedding Day stated:

At 11a.m. on the wedding day, a Rolls-Royce pulled up to Westminster Abbey carrying Kate Middleton and her father Michael. As they arrived, church bells were ringing, and within moments Mr. Middleton would escort his daughter to the start of her new life.

A truly beautiful write-up. :heartflower::heartflower::heartflower:

In Life Story William & Kate, it was written:

Her (Catherine's) smile was the most perfect accessory of them all.

Truly Catherine has an absolutely lovely smile!! :flowers::flowers:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I liked the wisteria, lilacs, and azaleas which were draped over balconies and pews at Westminster Abbey.
Catherine, whose college background included studies of art history, wanted to pay tribute to "the language of flowers".
She chose only those flowers that would be in season in the month of April.

:thistle::thistle::thistle::thistle::thistle::thistle::princess2::lancasterrose::tudorrose::lancasterrose::tudorrose::lancasterrose:

What I thought really was sweet is that in her bridal bouquet, she carried Sweet Williams. :flowers:
 
I thought the flowers were outstanding all the way around. I particularly liked the trees as the scale of the cathedral could be overpowering.
 
I thought the flowers were outstanding all the way around. I particularly liked the trees as the scale of the cathedral could be overpowering.

It was quite an unique touch to the Abbey and the trees were replanted after the ceremony was over. It was touching too that for a lot of the wedding plans, Kate worked with Charles on some things. Shows that they'd already had established a warm relationship before the wedding.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the people in Kate's wedding party were related to William in some way except for Pippa if course. Also I think all if George's god parents are associated with William and not Kate. Anyone have any ideas on why this is?
 
I think it was just a case of who had young children in the family. Margarita and Louise are William's cousins. Tom and Grace are his godchildren. Laura is Camilla's granddaughter. Billy is Jamie Lowther Pinkerton's son.

Kate only has 3 first cousins - 2 adults and 1 teenager. They don't have any kids and neither does Pippa and James.

As for George's godparents, there are several that overlap both of them. Since they both went to St Andrews, a lot of their friends are friends both of them. Ollie Baker lived with them. Emilia went to Marlborough with Kate and then St Andrews. Jamie worked for both of them.

Being together for so long, there really isn't his friend and her friends but our friends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom