Amal is Mrs Clooney

The Doughty Street Chambers website


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not surprised. Their seat cards at the wedding reveal that she has changed her name.

But apparently it is upsetting the feminists that she didn't keep her name. Not sure of who Eleanor Robertson is how wrote this article?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Amal Alamuddin took George Clooney's name? Oh please – put your torches and pitchforks away


This fight has been on permanent loop for decades – and the feminists who fruitlessly perpetuate The Issue That Must Not Be Named are often unacceptably ignorant


Amal Clooney, prominent human rights lawyer, has today started advising the Greek government in its bid to reclaim the Parthenon Marbles. Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin, acquired the 2,500 year old classical Greek sculptures in the early 19th century through a possibly-dodgy deal with the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. Having always intended them for display in the British Museum, they were placed there in 1816, where they remain to this day.
Greece has been making efforts to get them back for a while, to which the British respond with arguments like “but then we might have to give back all the other stuff we’ve pillaged” and “what if they get damaged”, which seems weak when you consider that Elgin’s original transport ship actually sank on the way home and the Marbles had to be retrieved by a team of divers. It’s the world’s most famous case of cultural restitution, and I will follow it with keen interest.
Oh, and also, Amal Clooney, née Alamuddin, recent bride of famous actor George Clooney, has possibly changed her last name to either Alamuddin-Clooney or just straight up Clooney. Predictably, everyone is losing their minds.
Whether or not women take their husband’s name upon marriage fires up feminists like almost nothing else. The couple’s celebrity status adds fuel to the blaze, as well as Alamuddin Clooney’s status as a high flyer in her own right. As a broad generalisation, the two sides boil down to “that’s patriarchal nonsense in obvious need of rejection” and “leave her alone, it’s none of your goddamn business”. These positions crop up again and again in feminist debate over everything from leg-shaving to breastfeeding, but name changing has become a totemic issue that has us grabbing our torches and pitchforks at a moment’s notice.
The real problem is that a conception of feminism centring individual choice runs into problems when we consider that all of our choices are mediated by language and culture. This is true for everybody: nothing that we do or say can spring fully-formed from an inner well of volition, unmediated by social forces. The way we conceive of agency is itself influenced by what we’re taught about our own subjectivity. Of course it’s a two-way street, and critical awareness of how we’re shaped by norms enables us to tinker with and change them according to what we think should be happening.
Resisting widely-accepted norms involves varying levels of inconvenience and risk, from women getting funny looks on the bus if they’ve not shaved their legs all the way through to rape and murder for more grave “transgressions”. This is where the structurally relevant choice lies: how will I navigate a social space that assumes I will take my husband’s name? How much effort am I willing to make?
For an issue as materially trivial as name-changing, it’s just a waste of time to pick over one person’s motivations for doing it. We’ve been having this fight on permanent loop for decades, and it’s been an embarrassing diversion from more important considerations. On top of this, the feminists who tend to fruitlessly perpetuate The Issue That Must Not Be Named are often unacceptably ignorant of cultural perspectives other than their own, which are frequently (although not exclusively) white, middle-class and liberal.
Naming practices are deeply embedded traditions with very long histories, and they differ significantly depending on the culture to which you belong – even the subcultural context, ethnic, socio-economic, familial or otherwise, within one country’s borders. The political valences attached to taking your husband’s name are different for different groups of women, but the arguments we hear most centre the perspectives of feminists with a prominent platform.
Unsurprisingly, these feminists belong to the same white, middle-class, liberal group for whom name-changing is a crucial issue of personal identity, tied up with career concerns, symbolic ownership of children, and self-reflexive displays of autonomy.
There’s nothing wrong with keeping your maiden name for these reasons. But refusing to acknowledge other perspectives indicates arrogance, and universalising this one, highly particular set of values risks de-legitimising other values and choices that might be just as crucial for different women.
The conversation, if we must continue having it, should shift away from aggressive dialectic and towards respectful sharing of narratives. Only through asking, listening, and reflection can we identify which issues stand in the way of all women being able to select options that are best for them, their families and their communities.

When did Amal ever announce she is a feminist , the whole thing is ridiculous. She is still the woman she was, only her last name changed.

The entire point of feminism, which people often miss, is for women to have the space to make the choices they want to make. Good for her for doing what she wanted to do.

 Oh yeah, she's doing what G.C. and Stan Rosenfield want her to do. Obvious now. 

Not knowing Amal personally I certainly hope she has a strong constitution for standing up for herself and ignoring all the noise that is out there and some of it on this site. There will be a lot of criticism of her, not just the name change. The kinds of cases she undertakes, how she dresses and how she leads her life. I don't doubt that she and George talked about the unsolicited publicity she would receive once she became George's wife. George is a pro at knowing the pitfalls and I'm sure he wants to arm her to the extent she may not be experienced in handling the wide ranging media blitz that she will face surrounding cases she undertakes. She also has her mother as a role model. BarIa being a journalist has probably had talks with her.

Hopefully after a time the media will get bored with following her and she won't be in the spotlight as much. IMO I don't think she likes the attention she has received going into Greece. It can seem a bit embarrassing but I'm sure in some ways the attention is at least shedding more light on the issue of the Elgin marbles and some would say would be to Greece's advantage.

I think Amal Clooney will be well able to cope with
"The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."
I agree with the things that Donnamarie has written
above.

Here is my opinion based on keen observation.

I think we will see a lot more of this and I think George wants us to. Someone mentioned awhile back (can't remember where I read it) that  Stan is an old-fashioned type of publicist, an image-builder. I think that is what we are seeing now. Amal Clooney is emerging as a fashion icon, treated like a royalty, compared to Jackie O. Everywhere she goes the media knows in advance so the paps are ready and every time she is styled to the max. In my opinion the reason the media always knows is because George is informing them. It has been a build-up since the engagement.  He is making them into Hollywood royalty and a big league Power Couple.

Why is he doing this? I don't know. But it isn't because he loves her. It isn't because he is gay and married a beard ( then he needn't go to all this trouble.) It isn't to get back at Stacy (he only needed to get married to do that.) He can't be that envious of Brangelina (that would be silly).

He is also spending an awful lot of money, which is unlike him.

Maybee he needs good PR, reinvent himself again in Hollywood (but why go to all the trouble of building an image for her?).  The "royalty aspect" worries me. America only had one "royal family" and that was the Kennedys. I never thought he go into politics but I am not so sure anymore. Something is going on  and we are only seeing the beginning of it.....

If I had married George Clooney I would have changed my name in a heartbeat. They should just let her do what she wants to do and leave it at that. It's her life anyway!

George would have to erase the minds of millions of people here in the US if he were planning to go into politics (plus somehow get all the media reports off the internet and in media publication archives about his womanizing, and drug use and partying) to ever consider running for office.

So I don't think it's political.

If something is going on maybe it's about his humanitarian work? I am as clueless as everyone else.

Silje wrote:Here is my opinion based on keen observation.

I think we will see a lot more of this and I think George wants us to. Someone mentioned awhile back (can't remember where I read it) that  Stan is an old-fashioned type of publicist, an image-builder. I think that is what we are seeing now. Amal Clooney is emerging as a fashion icon, treated like a royalty, compared to Jackie O. Everywhere she goes the media knows in advance so the paps are ready and every time she is styled to the max. In my opinion the reason the media always knows is because George is informing them. It has been a build-up since the engagement.  He is making them into Hollywood royalty and a big league Power Couple.

...that was me!  

The most interesting part about this whole name thing is that whenever you see George's name in print, especially in a headline, it always reads "George Clooney...".  However, I have seen numerous headlines in the media lately that only say "Amal...", no last name at all.  She has risen to the levels of the other well-known one-names like Madonna and Cher and Prince.  Even George could not do that!

All you have to say is Clooney and everyone knows who you mean. There is only one Clooney. Amal worldwide I don't think has achieved that recognition ... yet.

Donnamarie wrote:All you have to say is Clooney and everyone knows who you mean.  There is only one Clooney.  Amal worldwide I don't think has achieved that recognition ... yet.

Not necessarily true, depends on the audience.  There is George, Rosemary, and Nick.  However, no headline just says George, but they are just saying Amal.

They would have to print  the surname of George Rosemary and Nick,becos they are relatively common names,

But Amal?

The other thing of course is that its a printing expedient, isn't it? Her surname is a mouthful and very long in print terms......

party animal - not! wrote:They would have to print  the surname of George Rosemary and Nick,becos they are relatively common names,

But Amal?

The other thing of course is that its a printing expedient, isn't it? Her surname is a mouthful and very long in print terms......

I absolutely agree with you.  I just found it fascinating that she has been in the headlines with only her first name.  Her star certainly has risen quickly.  She should get down on her knees and thank George.  Wait...

Don't want to nitpick but I disagree. IMO I think in some circles Amal is making a name for herself but Clooney has name power across the spectrum and has had it for many years. Don't think Rosemary or Nick today have that going for them.

Just to be clear it's George's last name that I am referring to. Of course you can't reference just George and have people immediately know who you are speaking of. Amal has an unusual first and last name. So if you follow news about Clooney then of course Amals name will be familiar. If you don't follow Clooney you won't necessarily know who she is. But there will be exceptions. The more her cases are in the spotlight the more prominent her name will become. Don't think she's there yet. IMO.

Donnamarie wrote:Just to be clear it's George's last name that I am referring to.  Of course you can't reference just George and have people immediately know who you are speaking of.  Amal has an unusual first and last name.  So if you follow news about Clooney then of course Amals name will be familiar.  If you don't follow Clooney you won't necessarily know who she is.  But there will be exceptions.  The more her cases are in the spotlight the more prominent her name will become.  Don't think she's there yet.  IMO.

I do not disagree with you or any of the other comments about this subject.  It was just an observation.

I think Amal is probably a traditional woman and wanted to take George's name nothing wrong with that. As for George spending his money we have no idea how much he spends. Now all of a sudden Amal is being controlled by George and Stan really? How about since they are now a family she simply wanted to have her husband's name.

I appreciate your observation and agree that Amal has certainly become a recognizable name to many. Just think a year ago no one outside certain legal circles even knew who she was. Good for her.

E online has a story tonight that Amal bought George a newlywed gift. Murano cocktail glasses that they used during their wedding celebration. Twelve of them at $100 for each glass. And napkins. Don't know if it's true but just putting it out there.

Silje wrote:Here is my opinion based on keen observation.

I think we will see a lot more of this and I think George wants us to. Someone mentioned awhile back (can't remember where I read it) that  Stan is an old-fashioned type of publicist, an image-builder. I think that is what we are seeing now. Amal Clooney is emerging as a fashion icon, treated like a royalty, compared to Jackie O. Everywhere she goes the media knows in advance so the paps are ready and every time she is styled to the max. In my opinion the reason the media always knows is because George is informing them. It has been a build-up since the engagement.  He is making them into Hollywood royalty and a big league Power Couple.

Why is he doing this? I don't know. But it isn't because he loves her. It isn't because he is gay and married a beard ( then he needn't go to all this trouble.) It isn't to get back at Stacy (he only needed to get married to do that.) He can't be that envious of Brangelina (that would be silly).

He is also spending an awful lot of money, which is unlike him.

Maybee he needs good PR, reinvent himself again in Hollywood (but why go to all the trouble of building an image for her?).  The "royalty aspect" worries me. America only had one "royal family" and that was the Kennedys. I never thought he go into politics but I am not so sure anymore. Something is going on  and we are only seeing the beginning of it.....

I agree with everything you say above. I think it is image creation at its finest. George wanted her to do the Elgin marbles so she is, in a blaze of carefully orchestrated publicity as you say. There will be more to come as apparently there is a full scale press conference tomorrow. More media coverage for Amal and the marbles. And as you also say, I agree that he wants them to be a Humanitarian high profile power couple. I think Amal will push any human rights cause that George fancies, and also any she comes up with provided that both George and Stan agree with it. Which won't involve anything anti Israel.

The fact that George didn't seem to want a proper honeymoon with Amal speaks volumes about what this relationship is really all about. Married only a week or so and he took off to another country and I don't believe he is in Greece or he would have been spotted. He waits 20 years to get married again but doesn't want to enjoy a decent amount of time alone with his wife after the wedding? Instead Amal is capitalising on the wedding publicity to rush out and champion George's favourite cause at the moment in a full blaze of maximum publicity.

I think Amal will get involved in the Sudan next. I think maybe George saw that he lacked the gravitas to be effective as an advocate himself. But she has the law degree and the legal connections. Maybe if she gets involved in the Sudan she will have more credibility. 

As you say, this is just the beginning. I think she's being used by George, but is herself fully into the idea of being a humanitarian power couple for the money, the lifestyle, her ego and the fame. It's not like she will have to work much. People like Geoffrey Robertson will do the hard work and she will just bring the media attention and make appearances. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the plan.

He is currently shooting a movie with Sandra Bullock after having appeared at the New York Comic Con last week.  (see other topics)

You nailed it Globalchick. 

Hmmmm... This is ridiculous. Amal had taken on the Elgin Marbles in 2011 before there was a George Clooney in the picture. The way I see it is that Amal just went back to business as usual as far as work is concerned. Same with George. Which is what any other married couple would do. You can't live in the afterglow of the wedding and honeymoon forever.
As far as a honeymoon or spending time together, they kind of did that over the summer in Como. And they have a lifetime together where everyday is a honeymoon hopefully.
As far as style and fashion, I don't really see it either. A lot of the clothes Amal is wearing, she owned pre-George: you can see that from the pre-George pictures that were posted about Amal ( not sure how those were obtained but they were posted). I am talking about the very divisive and controversial floral jumpsuit. The pants she was wearing in Greece, she wore before ( with a white top, cute statement neckless and raincoat).

I am baffled by the fact that some people can't accept that the woman has taste. She may not always go the conservative way in her choices but she definitely knows how to dress. What has she done to generate so much negativity? Can someone please help me understand?

fridadereval wrote:

I am baffled by the fact that some people can't accept that the woman has taste.  She may not always go the conservative way in her choices but she definitely knows how to dress.  What has she done to generate so much negativity? Can someone please help me understand?

She's married George.

fridaereval, Amal has done nothing wrong. If she was not with George this would not be an issue. As Doug Ross so rightly stated "she married George". That's it. fridaereval, I think your comments above are shared by most of us on this forum. Those few who spew negativity about Amal and, even George, obviously should look at themselves before being so damn critical of others.

This whole hatred of Amal is ridiculous she has done nothing to deserve it.They spent the summer together planning their wedding and a week or so after how long is a honeymoon supposed to be. George said himself they both were going back to work right after the wedding. She dresses the way she always has she has good taste and knows what to wear when.

I think the other women he dated were easy targets for scorn. Amal not so much , there are no naked pictures or endless boyfriends. She has a career and is educated. All of which she earned on her own. There are people who can't except her and want negative so invent it .

Exactly. She is what she is and she does what she does. Nobody in her profession has a bad word to say about her.

And for some who trivialise, I'm just wondering if they could do her job, and at the level she is.............

Thank you everyone . It was just bothering me to see all this negativity. I mean, not to say that we should all worship at the "Amal and George" pedestal, but some admiration and respect to the woman's achievements are not over the top either. And of course for George as well.

Ah, but being nasty is so much easier than being decent and nice. More satisfying too!

Globalchick, do you have a calendar? As mentioned above, Amal has been involved with this case for years before she met George. And considering they left Venice on September 29, and he didn't turn up in NYC till October 8, that's a week and a half for a honeymoon, after an entire summer together. A week's honeymoon is about average where I live. How long is a honeymoon on your planet?

Celebitchy have a fun article on the name changing. And a pic of her drinking a glas of red wine (no preggo) and there is a plate of breed in front of her on the table (which I hope she is planning to eat. Not the plate.)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why is everyone freaking out about Amal Clooney’s name change?

• October 15, 2014
  
• By Kaiser
  
• Amal Alamuddin
  

   
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Here are more photos of Amal Clooney (formerly Amal Alamuddin) out and about in Athens, Greece yesterday. Apparently, she met with the Greek Minister of Culture, then she and her law partner went to lunch. Where Amal was photographed sipping some wine. This is surprising! First of all, I didn’t know she drank alcohol. Second of all, I’m sure that photo will be used as photo evidence that she’s not pregnant with a honeymoon baby. Damn it, Mrs. Clooney! I was hoping that you would get knocked up quickly. Duggar it, Amal!
As for this whole Mrs. Clooney/Amal Clooney name change… I’m actually really shocked by the outpouring of media coverage and handwringing over Amal’s choice to change her name. Granted, I was surprised that she didn’t hyphenate because that would have been my choice for her: to become Amal Alamuddin-Clooney. She could have kept the sing-songy poetry of her maiden name while acknowledging her new husband. Plus, it would have been consistent personal branding, as I said yesterday. People got to know her as Amal Alamuddin and changing your name mid-course will lead to brand-confusion.
But, at the end of the day, it’s her choice. Everyone has an opinion though. Even the fancy intellectual media/new sites have been running “think pieces” about whether Amal should have changed her name. The Guardian defended her choice. Salon basically said it was a peasant-y choice that 86% of American women make (I’m guessing the 14% that don’t change their names read Salon).
In all of the discussion, I feel like there’s one theory that hasn’t really been discussed: maybe she wanted a more “Anglo” name? I too have a hard-to-pronounce/spell last name and maybe Amal is just tired of endlessly spelling out “Alamuddin” to people she encounters on a daily basis. She’s tired of the “What kind of name is that?” questions and the “What’s that? I’m gonna need you to spell it.” No one ever asks a Clooney how to spell their name. (Incidentally, my mother had one of the most Anglo maiden names ever and she loved her married Indian surname so much, she kept it after she divorced my dad.)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The only part of katie's post that I enjoyed was the "divorce" part. 

Hey, just saying what others are thinkin' and hopin' and wishin' and plannin'...

Ha ha Lorna!  See I admit too, I have no fake boyfriend to one to dream about when I'm wide awake in the middle of the night after a bad day!   Although I do agree with Katiedot - the Alamuddin-Clooney, while a mouthfull, has a very nice rhythm.  I would have kept it.  I'd be curious about her family background and what tradition usually says about a wife taking her husband's name when you marry from a different country or cultlure.

She should have kept her name ! And she should have been on that panel investigating warcrimes ! She really is a fool !

She is no fool, She knows what she can handle in her career and life. She did what she wanted and changed her name. Women do it all the time since when did doing something traditional become a crime.

Atalante, are you a George Clooney fan?

She's no fool - She hooked George!

Atalante wrote:She should have kept her name ! And she should have been on that panel investigating warcrimes ! She really is a fool !

I'm glad that in this world women are allowed to make their own decisions in their own lives and not be forced to live by the dictat of anonymous posters on the internet.

Dictat ? Hello ???  ... I used the word "should" ... And she did accept at first no ??? 

You used the words 'should have'. As in she has no choice in the matter; this is what you wanted her to do. Dictat.

Dictat, oh no. Why are you so upset ? Do you know these people, G.C., Amal, etc personally ? I don't think so.  And she did accept, didn't she ? And then Stan Rosenfield popped up, no ? 

I'm not upset. I'm just wondering why you're inventing stories and presuming to tell Amal how she should live her life.

Inventing stories ??? I've read articles that popped up here on YOUR forum. You should reread them.  Or take a holiday. 

You may have read, but you don't seem to have understood. Maybe try re-reading? Or take a holiday.

Katiedot wrote:You may have read, but you don't seem to have understood.  Maybe try re-reading?  Or take a holiday.

Don't you find this exchange exhausting?!