Friday, 29 April 2011

.....and it didn't rain on their parade.

Well, that's over - until Harry's turn, I presume. But that event is not going to have anything like the razzamatazz which today's did.

Had it playing whilst I was reading 'King John'.

Will Will ever put a foot wrong? Unlike Harry, he seems to have lived a relatively gaffe-free life up to now (well, apart from one or two over-extravagant and unnecessary uses of a Royal Air Force helicopter for his own private needs) and he conducted himself impeccably here too.........Prince Andrew's daughters with hats which would have been more appropriate to the Mardi Gras in Rio.........Sarah Ferguson, (Duchess of York still, despite her divorce) conspicuous by her absence. Uninvited and presumably still well out of favour since that sting which caught her agreeing to sell access to the Royals - though it must have hurt to have her daughters there escorted by her Ex. (I'm pretty sure she was and is close to Will. She was, after all, very close to Diana.) Pity. ............Tony Blair also not invited. Particularly strange considering that most of us think that his finest hour was in the wake of Diana's death. He says it's "not a big deal." If that's true, good for him, but I bet Cherie was seething............Those who were invited included ambassadors from distinctly worse-than-dubious regimes - among them, Saudi Arabia, North Korea - and Zimbabwe, for goodness sake!............Elton & David singing their little hearts out (caught on camera a bit too frequently, methinks, but he is, at least, known the world over.).........Posh and Becks - she looking rather sour (as so often), he as soft, approachable and good-looking as ever (except for the tats)...........Rumours flying around that Catherine's brother (who gave the scripture reading) is gay. I'd like to say "So what?" (I didn't even know she had a brother), but if true, can only be helpful, provided he doesn't wriggle and deny it. But, stressing again the 'if', I hope he manages to conduct himself more decorously than I used to, because the tabloids will be just waiting and wanting to pounce. If he's hetero it would be laughed off as "Ha ha, what a lad!" but if gay it'd be "Look! He's bringing the whole Royal family into disrepute!" Certainly not at all bad-looking, though.............oh, and what was all that about "for richer, for poorer" ?!*!
And, not least, the actual marriage conducted by that 'Great Betrayer', the bushy-bearded Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. So gay-friendly before he was appointed by Tony Blair to gasps of horror from Church conservative 'traditionalists', while the rest of us rejoiced - rather prematurely as it turned out. But the former need not have worried. It didn't take long for the worm to turn and ever since he's been more concerned with appeasing his homophobic bishops and clergy than with any notions of fairness, justice and equality. Only last year one of his leading bishops called on all homosexuals to "repent". Was he slapped down? Not a bit of it. Not even the mildest word of admonition. Williams is just too afraid of bringing about a clamour calling for him to resign - and he's still spectacularly failing to avoid a split both on this issue and on women priests and bishops within his Church, with scores of his clergy, and, indeed, many congregations, converting to Roman Catholicism. ("Good riddance!" I say. They'll certainly find comfort there.) Williams' tenure of office as Archbishop will be ending shortly anyway - but there's not a single sign of hope for progressives amongst his likely successors.

Anyway, that's all by the by.

Will and the newly-titled Duchess of Cambridge will now be the target of paparazzi more than ever. Let's hope they can stand up to the increased intense pressure.

Finally, and even though I say it myself, I have to concede that for occasions of pageantry, it's one thing that the Brits do rather well. (Though I so much wish they'd dispense with the Queen's Guard wearing those bearskin helmets made from real bear. Totally unjustifiable and unacceptable these days. They've tried synthetic materials but apparently there's a problem when it rains. The solution is simple. Just change the uniform! Because it's tradition doesn't mean it's sacrosanct.)

Okay, so after a few criticisms and some plaudits, let's now get back to normal, colourless routine.


  1. I don't honestly think that the 'bringing into disrepute' charge would be levelled at someone because they were gay - not even in the royal family - not these days. I mean - not with Stonewall acting in schools at the government's behest and with Canterbury out of favour for failing to welcome us to to get marries in his churches. He's for the chop - and soon!

    The whole thing is most unfortunate. I mean - Pete and I weren't allowed to declare a bank holiday when we were marries. What's the bloody difference? They're just toffs and deserve to be taken down a peg or two.

  2. Micky, yes, I admit that the 'gay = negative' tag is not as widespread now as it used to be, with the dishonorable exceptions of the 'Daily Mail', 'News of the World' and a few more. But it's certainly nowhere near as pervasive as when it was invariably taken as a 'given'.
    As for the public holiday, I'm not complaining myself, but I'd love to be around when a Royal has a gay wedding. It's surely just a matter of time. If a public holiday is declared then, that really would signify progress!

  3. I think the wedding was lovely. Catherine looked so strong and confident, quite unlike Diana who looked like she was peeing her pants throughout her wedding.

    It didn't take long, but approximately 7 minutes after the wedding was over the TV commentators started going on about having a baby and an heir to the throne! Oh lord, I hope we don't have to listen to that mess for the next few years.

  4. I agree, Cubby. On the whole it was quite impressive. I wasn't going to watch it until I realised that it could well be the last such pageant I may have the chance of seeing - the next being, if not Harry's wedding, then (to be brutal but factual) the Queen's funeral followed by Charles' coronation. But even the latter is unlikely to have so much goodwill aimed at it as yesterday's ceremony did.
    I've never heard any of our commentators yet talking about their first baby, except in the general context of dispensing with male primogeniture, which I mentioned in my previous blog - but give them time! I reckon they may not have long to wait in any case.

  5. I enjoyed the wedding, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts more. You presented some facts of which I was not aware.

    Many eyes were on bad boy, Harry, but I thought James stole the show. He was absolutely stunning. I did not know that he runs a very successful bakery business. One of the blogs that I follow was equally impressed and named him named him "Saturday Morning Man."

    My favorite moment during this show was when the camera caught The Queen taking a little 'snoozette.' Considering her age, she can be forgiven.

    All in all, it was a fun diversion from all the bad news to which we have been subject.

  6. Wow, that's quite a commendation in your first sentence, Paul, which I'll remember when I want to be cheered up. Thanks.

    James? Is that Catherine's bro? (I can't remember his name.) Yes, he's quite a cracker - and he carried out his duty with aplomb and no sign of nerves.

    I was a bit worried that Her Maj might fall off her chair she looked so slumped over. But she did well. It'll be sad when we see her walking with a stick, but that time can't be far away now.

    I agree that the whole thing was a pleasant distraction. I doubt if we'll see another such for a very long time.

    Showing how little I follow the ins and outs of Royalty, I only learnt today from my sister that Cath is older than William, by one year. Makes a refreshing change.

  7. Sorry, to disappoint you Ray; I didn't see the royal wedding. I don't know if I'm disappointed or not. I've seen pictures and have heard it recounted way too many times, but I like it best seen through your eyes.

  8. That's really some praise, Kyle - and coming from you it's a double compliment.
    To be honest, I am a bit of a Republican, but find it difficult to get too worked up about the subject while Her Gracious Majesty is on the throne - but not for much longer, surely. When Charles and (the lovely) Camilla take over I expect my Republicanism to undergo a resurgence.
    The strongest motive for my watching this wedding was that at my age (arriving at 65 in Autumn) it's possibly the last grand celebration that I'll ever see. Though Elizabeth's eventual funeral is bound to be a grandish affair, it'll hardly a joyous occasion.