The F.T.'s Iain Martin says all that needs to be said here:http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/11/16/royal-wedding-create-your-own-pull-out-and-throw-away-supplement/ Indeed, he says all that will be said.
That's spot on. And now we can move serenely and loftily onward.
I hope Harry is organising the stag do. Beer, Birds and Blackpool.."its what the youngsters do these days maam" He will probably sell the image rights to hello or something.
But then, what doesn't the media overkill these days? They seem like a nice, level-headed couple, I'm sure it'll be a Good Thing. And that's all I have to say on the subject.
No, no, we will have lots more to say. I for one intend to troll leftist sites in the coming months and play the jolly, befuddled royalist. When they go into one of their crabby whines about how the wedding is a soap opera that distracts us from the latest ice-core measurements from Greenland or yet another African horror, I will reply: "Arguably, but surely you will agree Her Majesty looks lovely?" When my suggestion they lack a sense of ceremony and occasion is met with angry denials, I will say: "But, from a strictly aesthetic perspective, doesn't this offer the working classes more than a mock-burial of Mother Earth in a coffin?" Mom always said the whole point of the Royals was that you never run out of things to say about them. Mom proved it too.
Besides, just when we think we are sick to death of them and wish they would disappear forever, along will come some Yank to mock them and we will all immediately sign up with the virtual arm of the Yeomen of the Guard.
Sean: Some humorist suggested Harry might prefer a fancy-dress stag in Munich with a WW2 theme...Brit: Couldn't agree more. I also think she's a bit of a cracker.Peter: That sounds both enjoyable and very worthwhile work. But what I like about our attitude to the royals is that it's totally fine to be scathing about individuals whilst respecting the institution. For instance, despite supporting constitutional monarchy I think Charlie is a dick. If someone - even an American - put this latter view forward I would probably heartily agree with them.
Yes, Gaw, they don't come much dickier than Chuck. I treasure Brit's quip about how tiresome he is with his "ideas and trusts". But then, if you are talking about members of the Royal family who we admire individually, they've almost all been women for a very long time, all the way back to Queen Anne (compare Princess Anne to her brothers). Most of the kings and princes have been either feckless or roguish or mad and even when a noble and dutiful one like George VI comes along, he presents like a dry leaf easily blown away without his consort's ballast. The only exception I can think of is that irascible tyrant, George V. I suspect one could demonstrate republican sentiment varies indirectly with the strength of the female royals, and I fear the lovely Kate will be carrying quite a load.
Hi Gaw,It's not really worth a comment IMHO.A lot of hype over something that will probably be doomed to failure in a few short years.It's not doing business any favours by providing the populace at large 2 long weekends, one after the other, at a time when we are all supposed to be working our little socks off to help dig us out of this mess we are in.
Lighten up Yvonne!
Post a Comment