Royal Baby and the response as manifestations of Patriarchy

doopa

Hi,

Witnessing the response to the royal baby I was quite taken by the implied Patriarchy that dominated so much of the coverage in the media.

Basically I would like to know/explore the idea that:
There a connection between belief in Monarchy and belief in Patriarchy?

Are all monarchists patriarchal at heart?
Is monarchism not a pure form of patriarchy?

The Corinthian

doopa wrote: »

There a connection between belief in Monarchy and belief in Patriarchy?

It may represent nostalgia for a past traditional, patriarchal time. Or knowing the British, just nostalgia for a past traditional time when they were a superpower.

However, as the succession to the British throne is no longer male-preference primogeniture, but gender-equal primogeniture (as of 2011), it's really just the luck of the draw.

clairefontaine

doopa wrote: »

Hi,

Witnessing the response to the royal baby I was quite taken by the implied Patriarchy that dominated so much of the coverage in the media.

Basically I would like to know/explore the idea that:
There a connection between belief in Monarchy and belief in Patriarchy?

Are all monarchists patriarchal at heart?
Is monarchism not a pure form of patriarchy?

The response to the royal baby is pure celebrity worship of these parasites. The media imbue just enough empathy so people don't see the parasitic exploitation of nobility. If people actually saw it there would be revolution.

doopa

clairefontaine wrote: »

The response to the royal baby is pure celebrity worship of these parasites. The media imbue just enough empathy so people don't see the parasitic exploitation of nobility. If people actually saw it there would be revolution.

Heh - thanks for the response but I was specifically interested in the patriarchal aspects of response rather than say the monarchial response. I'd like to focus on the implied patriarchy of the royal baby - e.g. the idea that Kate is now a 'proper' princess cos she had a baby. That kind of thing.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

the parasitic exploitation of nobility.

That's ironic...

doopa wrote: »

I'd like to focus on the implied patriarchy of the royal baby - e.g. the idea that Kate is now a 'proper' princess cos she had a baby. That kind of thing.

Don't you think that this is something that would reflect upon any royal consort? What if prince Philip been shooting blanks? I'm pretty sure you'll find historical cases of annulments where the genders were reversed in history.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's ironic...

Don't you think that this is something that would reflect upon any royal consort? What if prince Philip been shooting blanks? I'm pretty sure you'll find historical cases of annulments where the genders were reversed in history.

Wrong preposition. I meant BY the nobility and royalty.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

It may represent nostalgia for a past traditional, patriarchal time. Or knowing the British, just nostalgia for a past traditional time when they were a superpower.

I think that's it.

The current social and economic climate has a lot to do with that nostalgia, as it's noted (as opposed to widely researched) that nostalgia rises in times of deprivation, and that the nature of it tends to be melancholic unless it's associated with the reinforcement of some sort of long standing tradition, which tends to have a reassuring effect and strengthen that connection with the past.

I imagine it's to do with concepts of stability, and continuity and certainty in an uncertain world.

The birth of a future King fits that bill, if the euphoria engendered by little Georges arrival is anything to go by.

clairefontaine

Candie wrote: »

I think that's it.

The current social and economic climate has a lot to do with that nostalgia, as it's noted (as opposed to widely researched) that nostalgia rises in times of deprivation, and that the nature of it tends to be melancholic unless it's associated with the reinforcement of some sort of long standing tradition, which tends to have a reassuring effect and strengthen that connection with the past.

I imagine it's to do with concepts of stability, and continuity and certainty in an uncertain world.

The birth of a future King fits that bill, if the euphoria engendered by little Georges arrival is anything to go by.

All Britain has left is the past.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

All Britain has left is the past.

The British are a strange combination of the modern and archaic, combining a reasonably open and progressive society with an unshakeable grip on the past.

An English boarding school education has taught me not to attempt to understand the (often false) dichotomy.:)