Royal Wedding

Wow, lots of points I'd like to reply to. I rather gather that the enlightened Americans of this site don't think all the Brits live in thatched cottages in a theme park, talk like Hugh Grant, loved Mrs Thatcher and go mad about the monarchy. I'm a republican (small R) myself, but have a lot of sympathy for royals trapped in the monarchy, with constant media attention, masses of perfectly sensible things they're not supposed to do, etc etc. There are worse things in life, but many better. I do wish William and Kate well as I would any couple I didn't positively dislike. He seems a decent if rather ordinary guy (surprising given his background, dysfunctional family, rancorous marriage break-up etc) and wile I don't get any impression of what sort of a person she is, she's sexy as hell, fantastic legs and a nice arse. Yes, "Big Willie" does mean the same here and I can only assume she was referring to his penis and it is either very big or very small. Bit disappointing, really, that he doesn't call her "Big C..." - or should that be "Small C..."?

I agree that a constitutional monarchy has the advantage that it separates the quasi-religious symbol of the nation stuff from whoever has the most actual political power (so no crown for you, Rupert Murdoch). I remember thinking that when Tricky Dicky was US President. However, a number of countries (for example, Ireland, India, Germany) have a powerful Prime Minister and a relatively weak President elected in some way, who still can intervene if things are going way off course and help sort out the mess if an election doesn't lead to an obvious government. These people have a bit more authority than our monarchs now, and it seems to work well. They do the representing the country, presiding at big set-piece events stuff but also act as a check on overmighty Prime Ministers.

Camilla - I don't find her sexy now, though she looks kind of homely and amiable. Brits tend to see her as a frump and forget she was quite a looker when young, when Charles first met her and was told "back off - she's a Catholic".

Maybe if we get rid of the monarchy we can still keep the royal soap opera.

I don't know if William is a spanko, but Kate is certainly spankable. If he isn't, then, maybe we should offer our services.

Well, yes, sometimes. But does the name of Giorgio Napolitano ring any bells? No? Thought not. He's actually been President of Italy since 2006, but he doesn't seem to be able to stop Berlusconi doing what the fuck he likes (or should that be 'fucking who the hell he likes?)....

Italy is a special case. No one has been able to stop the mafia either. I don't think their primeminister's sex life is of much importance, unless of course you are Mrs Berlusconi!

Possibly so, though if David Cameron started consorting with underage hookers I think there might be a few remarks made. More to the point is that Berlusconi owns about three-quarters of Italy's media, using most of them to promote his own products and complain about how he's persecuted by the press (that little bit of it that isn't in his own pocket). If Il Signor Presidente Napolitano has any reservations about all this, he's keeping a remarkably low profile...

I think the girl was seventeen! It wouldn't even be underage in the UK. I never vote as it only encourages them and I detest politicians of all political parties but how could anyone vote for a politician who betrays his wife!

You know we turned down this deal several centuries ago and we have our own bridges; could I interest you in the one in Brooklyn perhaps? Grin!

IIRC the royal salespeople who were sent to keep our ancestors as clients of British royalty were extremely aggressive, in fact outright pushy, especially that one called Lord Cornwallis.

Selling the British royal family to France circa 1790 would likely have worked best in the long run, someone like Maximilien Robespierre undoubtedly could've figured out how to deal with them so that they wouldn't be an encumbrance in the future.

Still, perhaps the royals have their usefulness in Jolly Olde England today, reminding people nostalgically of the 'glory days' when Britannia ruled the waves and the sun never set on the British Empire, and helping to give many of the commoners "bread and extravagent ceremonies" to focus upon.

Besides, my wife loves all the 'pomp and circumstance,' well after the wedding she was watching a repeat of a program on BBC America speculating on what Kate Middleton's wedding gown would look like. I told her that it would be like me currently watching an analysis of the Packers-Steelers matchup in Super Bowl XLV, but I was instructed to either stop commenting or leave the room.

So I left, thinking about "La Guillotine" and missed opportunity... --C.K.

Fair point, Phil. I did think of Italy and left it out of my examples! But I think before Berlusconi some Italian presidents were quite useful when a government had just been defeated and someone needed to gently bang heads together. After all, before the present system, Italy was a monarchy and the King totally failed (if he even wanted) to control Mussolini!

CrimsonKid: the only people associating the monarchy with the glory days of empire now are (1), American, Japanese etc tourists; and (2), left-wing republicans who see the empire quite simply as oppression and the monarchy as part of the same system. We have moved on. We do not sit around nostalging about when we ruled India. Nearly fifty years ago a British Prime Minister (Labour) could insist that we were a great power. If our current Prime Minister (Conservative) made that a key point in a speech people would laugh. Why is the monarchy still quite popular? Well, (1) because we tend to dislike big changes (probably why were probably about to reject a change to a fairer voting system), and (2) because it is a kind of feel-good soap opera. It dropped in popularity when it became dark soap opera. Monarchy as soap opera was actually invented gradually in the later days of Queen Victoria's reign and given a big boost by her son Edward. It roughly coincided with the seeping away of the last vestiges of monarchical power.

The monarchy is part of the old class system we had in this country. It still exists but it's importance is thankfully diminishing albeit slowly. If you are my age you probably sung "All Things Bright and Beautiful" as a child.

The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
God made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate.

In other words don't rock the boat! Grovel to your betters and that of course includes Royalty. Should we ever forget our places the tabloid press and the BBC are there to remind us. Not that the Queen isn't an admirable women who does her best but the idea that anyone is better than anyone else because of an accident of birth I find foolish. Still, otherwise quite sensible people seem to love it so who am I to complain? Of course I wasn't complaining, just stating the blindingly obvious!

That's very interesting! I'm not really a "horse person" but a friend did own a working cattle ranch back in my high school days, so I have a couple years of very utilitarian riding in my distant past. (No, I never owned a cowboy hat, but I have personally "fixed" a few young bulls. I still shudder at the experience)

The other thing that caught my American eye during the wedding coverage was the lady's hats. Hats are not a big part of a lady's formal wardrobe here in the USA, so I was surprised to see so many hats in the crowd. Many of them seemed to be somehow secured on the head a a very unnatural, if jaunty, angle. I found myself wondering how many of them would stay attached throughout a long and vigorous trip across someone's lap.

Guy