By Ruben Bolling
Published 8:06 am Tue, Apr 26, 2011
Published 8:06 am Tue, Apr 26, 2011
I fear that I may be somewhat responsible for this whole English monarchy thing. I gave Oliver Cromwell a tuna salad sandwich that may have been well past its expiry date, and which may have contributed to his early demise. Is this a bad thing? -Percival Dunwoody, Idiot Time-Traveler From 1909
the british royal family are all immortal reptilians.
i read it on the interweb, so it must be true
why do you think it is that you can never touch or turn your back on the queen?
Those rules are for your own protection.
it may also explain why she is instinctually drawn to small children holding flowers ~ yum!
America you elect your head of state and what has that really given you?
Having a head of state with little power has many benefits. Obviously you guys are just jealous that we have a working Parliamentary system that can elect more than 2 parties!
Dear Anon, Here in the US we do NOT elect our head of state. We elect our representatives and our chief executive officer. Our head of state is the US Constitution — the first software monarch in history.
Har har har.
Really, I feel sorry for those two. Their personal lives are being laid bare for all to see. One of the points that I took away from King’s Speech was the fact that the modern royal family, for all their posh and decadent lifestyle, are essentially slaves to the IDEA of the monarchy. They will be very well taken care of, sure, but they essentially live in a zoo. I for one certainly wouldn’t trade places with them.
Our criticism should rather be focused on all the minority of slack-jawed, royal-following fankids who will be watching the wedding live on TV, so rapt with the spectacle that they daren’t blink. Once they stop paying attention, the media will stop shoving it in the rest of our faces.
If my “zoo” involves numerous palaces, castles, and country estates as well as a $3 billion family fortune, all the while having no real obligations or responsibilities whatsoever, I think I could handle that.
Well said. If I can fulfill my royal obligations in under 40+ hours per week not including the commute, there’s no downside whatsoever.
Well, he can start -right now- writing a document that will be released after grandma croaks and dad is even more irrelevant. Said document details why the country needs a civilian/normal/appointed/not-by-divine-right head of state and describe the transition. Do away with all the hereditary crap.
Make it to the history books for a good reason.
He’ll still live in his posh mansion and me commander of somethingsomething BS for the rest of his natural life.
He can abdicate and start the process.
Hell, maybe Sweden, Spain, Japan and the other atavist fools will jump on the bandwagon.
re: “The average Briton finds the whole thing preposterous.”
Given the amount of money spent on souvenirs, and the number of people expected to watch and attend the wedding, I don’t think the above statement is correct.
re: “Britain is a modern democracy.”
It is also a constitutional monarchy.
Funny that “Willy Windsor” doesn’t admit that his ancestry is mostly German. Hanover-Saxe-Coburg-blah-blah-foo-foo, no actual relation to the Plantagenets or Tudors.
Actually, they are related to the Tudors, Stuarts, etc., despite that branch of the family being Germans for a time. They were the “legitimate” heirs by the rules of succession, once all Catholics were legally excluded. All the royals in Europe are essentially one big extended family, more closely related to one another (in almost every sense, including genetics) than to their respective subjects.
Fair enough, but I still refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Henry VII’s claim (and who’s really to say he was any better than Richard III?). The Tudors and descendant Stuarts, post-Battle of Bosworth, are entirely separate from the Plantagenets, Yorkists, and Lancastrians (i.e., the line from the Norman Conquest).
Forget it – you can’t pass that to us and we ain’t take it back. We lost a frigging World War to get rid of our hereditary gits.
:-) Modern-day Germans are so pragmatic, unlike those sentimental British fluffheads. And of course we Americans are, as always, the very paradigms of rationality and world leadership. :-/
There’s nothing to feel sorry for. They’re nothing but inbred parasites, feeding off the public for generations.
They own most of Britain, their every whim is paid for.
Their security, which goes into the millions, paid for.
Their distracting weddings to non-inbred brood-mares – paid for.
Their East-End prostitute murder-rampages – covered up.
Half of them are closet psychopathic Nazis, the other half are stupid enough to the cover slip occasionally.
They might appear to be reasonable people on the surface, but they wouldn’t piss on you after they set you on fire.
In America, some ancestors managed to convince other ancestors that dynastic political power was a bad idea. Too bad they also convinced the same set that dynastic *wealth* is just fine. Thus enshrining the golden rule as “He who has the gold makes the rules.” Then they pass the gold to their kids ensuring the family remains in the rule making business.
Comic needs more princely bald spot.
Seriously, enough dissing the royals. Monarchs were an important step in uniting various social groups (be they tribes, clans, or fiefdoms) into larger groups, the precursors to modern nations. There were other ways of doing it too, but in a lot of cases it’s a politically powerful person uniting, and keeping united, a larger group of people for enough time for them all to consider themselves an “imagined community” (the title of a book about nation-state formation via shared news and language). We still have tons of monarchs and people who are monarchs in all but name. Even in the US, the President is king-like as he can break the law whenever he wants to (many examples known to BB readers, like warrantless wiretaps, Bradley Manning’s incarceration, and Presidential pardons are (imo) completely ridiculous) and we spend tons of money on historical and nostalgic elements of the Presidency.
Why does William speak like a stereotypical Cockney? He might as well be Dick Van Dyke as Bert the Chimney Sweep! Is it just too hard to make fun of Williams’ plummy posh accent in cartoon balloons?
Seriously, when William speaks it’s like a creamy BÃ©chamel oozing warmly into your ears.
He’s not descended from Medieval English anything.
The Windsor family are German in ancestry.
(prior to world war one they were called “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha”).
I don’t think this criticism is very interesting. The royals are an institution that serves little practical purpose, much like a museum, except alive. The value of a museum lies in it’s social, curatorial, and facilitating roles, not in it’s ability to turn a profit or produce a product.
I don’t understand why the Brits tolerate supporting these spoiled twits in luxury. Not one of them, down through the ages, has ever made a significant contribution to society. They make Paris Hilton look productive in comparison. Is it fun for the Brits to watch them? That’s the only explanation I can think of.
Britan should privatize their royalty, as we have. Paris Hilton is a wonderful example of how the free market is more efficient than government at supporting spoiled twits in luxury.
Now let’s not get hyperbolic. While I’m not a fan of the royals or a follower of their goings-on, even I’m aware that they spend an enormous amount of money and time working on charitable and beneficent causes around the world.
I doubt Paris Hilton could say the same.
They make Paris Hilton look productive in comparison.
Now, I consider myself to be in favour of a republic (albeit rather anti a lot of the politicians who’d put themselves up for president if it was available), but I have to say a qualified search and rescue pilot trumps a socialite for productivity as soon as they’ve found *one* person.
At least William is a rescue helicopter pilot compared to that heir.
I don’t know about that. There was the whole “let’s get together to beat off the Danish pillagers” thing around 1100 AD. Without a king, no country. Without a country, no Magna Carta. Without that, no recognition that a lord’s rights can be limited by his sub-lords, etc.
“I don’t know about that. There was the whole “let’s get together to beat off the Danish pillagers” thing around 1100 AD. Without a king, no country. Without a country, no Magna Carta. Without that, no recognition that a lord’s rights can be limited by his sub-lords, etc. ”
Danish pillagers stopped being amazingly pillagy in England after Alfred, King of Wessex beat up on them. With his lords. Gradually, they pushed the Norsemen more and more out of England.
In 1066, his Kingdom of England was annexed by William the Bastard (really)/Conqueror of Normandy (so..a cross between Norse and Frankish). The kingdom didn’t dissolve, he took over the Kingdom of England and largely fortified it. He then ordered the Domesday book.
I’m not quite sure where you’ve got the ridiculous idea that there was no kingdom in 1100 AD. In fact, we have no evidence of any period in Britsh history (not even English!) where there are not kingdoms. Before Alfred’s Wessex, we have Mercia, Northumberland and others (even including some British Kingdoms, like the long lasted Kingdom of Dunbarton). These all used a ‘noble’ caste of warriors to secure the interests of the country. Whopping people with an axe was the way to get on in the world. Alfred changed that somewhat. He made it so Kings had to whop people with axes AND be learned.
Even prior to Caesar’s abortive Roman Invasion, we have kingdoms in Britain – Cassivalus’, for example (although this are more Celtic-style tribes than ‘kingdoms’).
So…yeah. We have no period in history were some form of communal group got to together to fight the nasty invaders. They were trying that before Alfred, because the kingdoms had collapsed. They failed. It took a king in Wessex to save the country.
Please, people, learn history before making stuff up. It’s irritating. (Slight Argumentum ad Authoritas fallacy – Dark Ages history Graduate. I do actually know this stuff. Sources – Gildas, Life of Alfred, Bede’s ecclisatical history, The Tribal Hidage, Caesar’s Gallic Wars).
I was off by a couple centuries. Your description of the events is correct, but you seem to have misunderstood mine. My point, in reply to Alllie’s “Not one of them, down through the ages, has ever made a significant contribution to society” is that the very idea of “England” would not exist had not Alfred unified his noble thug peers to fight off the Danes. Regardless of their descendants’ current parasitic existence, English kings HAVE made some significant contributions to society, not only in their own country but elsewhere.
“I was off by a couple centuries. Your description of the events is correct, but you seem to have misunderstood mine. My point, in reply to Alllie’s “Not one of them, down through the ages, has ever made a significant contribution to society” is that the very idea of “England” would not exist had not Alfred unified his noble thug peers to fight off the Danes. Regardless of their descendants’ current parasitic existence, English kings HAVE made some significant contributions to society, not only in their own country but elsewhere.”
I did misunderstand you, quite badly as it turns out. My apologies!
“Beating off the oppressors” would have been a much more peaceful way of resolving the problem. Unfortunately, I don’t think it would have gotten rid of them; might have made them happier and nicer, though.
And how did those medieval-era (woops! Not really! Look it up!) butchers get to rule England?
Hmmm… they were invited. By the British Parliament, representing the people of England at least in theory. Because the English wanted better hereditary rulers than the ones they had available locally!
Well paint me Orange and tie me in a knot… It appears that the British promised these folks some special treatment, it wasn’t anything like what this here comic says at all!
Ahh, history. So inconvenient when one’s got a point to make that relies on people being misinformed.
The medieval English monarchy was mostly killed off by the French in the Norman invasion. The ones that survived the Danes, in any case. You could fairly argue that Harold II was the last “English” king of England.
It’s odd to refer to the Medieval English monarchy as having been killed off in an event halfway through of the Medieval period. The other half was a second Medieval monarchy of England, which happened to have been of Norman descent. The only reason not to count them as the English monarchy is retroactive xenophobia.
I’m English by birth, and I find the idea of the monarchy sickening. There are many arguments – “They help tourism”, “they help trade”, “they work hard”, “it’s tradition”, “what’s the alternative?”, “change would be chaos” and so on. Most of these can be easily debunked. But all of them are overshadowed by the simple archaic injustice of having a person given wealth and power (however little or indirect) just because they are born into a particular family. For me, it’s wrong, and should be changed.
I’m sorry but I have to know… what is “English by Birth”. I mean Brittish, English, Welsh or something else would do just aswell – “English by birth”?
@Allie: I have no idea why “english [people] by birth” keep theirs but ours, Sweden, are kept because of (Warning, history lesson ahead) the reforms that followed the year of revolutions in 1917 when fear of the Russian revolution rising civil unrest forced the government and crown to reform and reform quickly to avoid a revolution. Other things played in aswell of course but that realization that you could avoid revolt through reform is one of the main ones why ours are still around and also why we cling to the wet blanket called “social peace” at all costs.
I mean that I was born in England, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I lived there for 36 years before moving to the USA. I probably could have just dropped the “by birth” bit.
I realize that my british history is a little fuzzy, but William isn’t really descended from medieval head loppers, is he?
I believe in terms of the English monarchy, the only Tudor he’s descended from is Henry VII, the only Stuart he’s descended from is James I (and VI of Scotland). So not a lot of the head choppers.
Pretty much ALL of us are descended from medieval head loppers. The loppees tended to be less successful in passing on their genes…
Off with his head! Off with his head!!
Speaking as a fully tax paying Englishman, at least I get a public holiday. And the Indian Premier League is on from 10AM until 8PM on Friday, so win-win.
I heard that because of the holiday schedule, you can take 11 days off with only burning 3 vacation days.
it’s true. as a small employer this month has royally screwed me. ho ho. :(
still looking forward to the royal wedding. aside from the generic excuse for a part we will be watching with friends and family as it’s an historic occasion, part of an ancient tradition that I can’t see continuing for too much longer.
As a small business owner, I honestly don’t know how your small businesses can do it with the long vactions you guys have. Hell – if I am gone more than a few days I am worried I will come back to some Mad Max world.
Both William & Harry use the last name of Wales (that their dad is Prince of and Diana was Princess of even after the divorce).
Where oh where would Old Blighty Bee
Wifout it’s synted royalty?
So doancha skip the golden hat,
Just get you a piece wifout so much rat!
I would argue that the entire point of the British monarchy, at this point, is that it’s their brand for the Commonwealth of States.
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc., all a division of Britco, Ltd. Their logo is the queen. I think having this common thread makes British Commonwealth citizens feel that much more secure, knowing they have all these sister states throughout the world. We Americans can’t relate to that only in these most recent generations, b/c we are a “superpower”.
If they eliminate the royalty, then they eliminate the glory of their former empire, and without that, what will tie the separate states together? NATO just doesn’t have the same ring to it that the “British Empire” has.
As I understand it, the queen (if not the rest of the royals) has morphed into something of a government auditor – I’ve heard various prime ministers talk about how they feared meetings with her, because she knew her stuff, and would call them on bullshit. I kind of wish there were someone performing that function in the US.
Commonwealth of nations, rather.
Personally, I think the whole commonwealth thing was a brilliant idea, and that Elizabeth has been a remarkably good representative of the whole thing.
Having said that, cockney accents are hilarious and making fun of royalty is always good times.
I don’t want to get into a whole thing here, but as a “citizen” of the “British Commonwealth”, I’d just rather scrap the whole thing and become a republic or a parliamentary democracy with an elected Head of State. All the Commonwealth countries can remain within that group for historical reasons. India no longer has a monarchy but it remains in the Commonwealth. Historical ties are fine and ridding us (here in Canada) of the monarchy is not a denial of that history (no matter what monarchists claim). At the end of the day I’d like to be part of a fully independent country where, you know, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, whoever, can be elected to as the Head of State.
I only wish the average Briton found the whole thing preposterous, in fact they (we) are mostly well into it. Personally I find the wedding and the monarchy in general sickening and infuriating but my mac isn’t as stylish as illustrated.
Why is Middleton depicted as 50 years old and why is Windsor talking like Dick van Dyke?
If you removed “Willie Windsor” and the marriage references and replaced it with “Georgie Bush” and references to becoming president, you’d still be spot on.
Wait, why is SCTV’s Dave Thomas in the last panel?
Wait wait wait.
I thought that when the English monarchy was so kind as to let the people have a democracy (there was a lot of head-chopping going on in France – seemed prudent) they kept all the money. I thought the Queen of England was far and away the wealthiest person on earth, so much so that she was not listed on “richest person” lists because she was in a league by herself.
Is that true at all? Am I way off base?
I like the idea of a monarchy, at least in a country where there is historical precedent. It gives a bully pulpit to someone who can speak up for those who don’t have a voice. A fascist would have a difficult time dealing with a King or Queen. Obviously Italy’s weak king was an example of how NOT to act, when the hugely popular Mussolini effectively co-opted him. Currently Prince Charles has made architecture his cause, and of course Diana had land mines, etc. They DO serve a purpose…
However for the US, where would we go for royal ancestors? Lord Baltimore? William Pitt? Or perhaps the Iroquis might have someone in mind…
Britons like their royal family because it’s a sort of never-ending soap/reality which occasionally gives one the excuse to have an extra holiday or two (they’re having two 4-day weekends in a row, this month; God knows what we’ll do when the first royal baby comes around). And, like the weather, they keep people talking when there’s nothing else to say, hence improving social cohesion.
Specifically, people are quite excited about this wedding because 1) there’s a new excuse to drink and be merry for an entire day, which in turn means 2) there is extra demand for a lot of local produce, beer, marketing campaigns, etc etc, and 3) she’s quite the bird, much better than horse-faced Camilla and slightly-less-horse-faced Ladee-dee.
So please, dear Boingers, don’t be a bunch of Grumpy Old Men. If Paris Hilton could generate national holidays and improve the economy, you’d love her to bits.
So bread and circuses?
Now I might be able to buy that the British still have a use for these rich-hillbillies but why does Canada?
These twits will one day be deciding whether or not Canada can have a government. How fucked is that?
It’s not fucked; in fact, it works well, and has done for 200+ years.
The Royals only have token authority – if they ever chose to use it, they’d effectively be sealing their own fate. You really think the British Army would attack the people if the Queen went mad(der) and commanded it?
No, it’s fucked.
Well, that’s a cogent argument.
You really think the British Army would attack the people if the Queen went mad(der) and commanded it?
Actually, in the right circumstances, yes. I don’t really buy the idea that the monarch’s authority is all show; if push came to shove I’ve an idea it would turn out to be very real indeed and that the Army, asked to choose between the people, the people’s democratically elected representatives, and the magic of monarchy, would opt to obey the latter. After it being outrageous in principle, this is my main objection to monarchy.
And how often has that happened since, say, the time of the American revolution?
P.S. Think about the situation in the US – if the President (effectively your monarch – heading that way, anyway) ordered the Army to attack the people, would they do it?
It’s more likely than in the UK.
So I’m thinking yes.
Um. No. The armed forced already dislike Obama. And any English soldier has grown up under the Queen, and sworn allegiance to the Queen for their entire careers. Soldiers in the states see presidents come and go.
Further, have you been missing all the recent BoingBoing posts about how English troops (well, troops of police officers) enjoy attacking and abusing protesting youth?
Think about the situation in the US – if the President (effectively your monarch – heading that way, anyway) ordered the Army to attack the people, would they do it?
I have to wonder. Lately I’ve been imagining a story about a modern American civil war, akin to the popular uprisings in Libya, Egypt, et al. It’s a bit difficult to imagine the circumstances that would lead to a sizable percentage of the U.S. taking up arms against the rest of the nation these days. Last time it was a huge disagreement about slavery, and it seems like only holy war could get people riled up enough to bring the heavy guns to bear on each other. The easy way to visualize the seeds of such a conflict would be either as a result of the rise of a repressive American theocracy (maybe a President who out-Buchanans Pat Buchanan), or the revolt of the hard religious right as a result of the election of a genuinely liberal President. Shots get fired, tempers flare, flames get fanned, people overreact, hotter heads prevail, and eventually heads roll.
Now, why would such a situation make for such an entertaining Michael Bay movie if it happened to us fat, complacent Americans, when analogous situations are just depressing when they occur the world over? I don’t know why… but I’d pay $12 for that movie ticket.
Dude, go check out DMZ. Set in New York City, DMZ has a militia from Montana spreading over the US & stopping in New Jersey.
Dude! Doo-hoo-hoo oood!!!
Man, thanks for the heads-up! That looks awesome! I am so getting the first volume and checking it out ASAP.
I heartily second the recommendation of DMZ.
Reminder: The guillotine is an under-appreciated piece of technology.
“Reminder: The guillotine is an under-appreciated piece of technology.”
simple pull-chain-to-vote mechanism.
We British have a monarchy because we have no choice. Yet.
For the record, we did have a republic long before France or America. We tore our country apart, decimated our population, and executed a King to create it and we almost ended up with a dictatorship (and it was called a commonwealth).
I dislike the British monarchy and all the corrupt, class ridden hypocracy that it stands for (present government included) but there are no Nuremburg rallies here. Half a democracy is better than no democracy, as the revolutions in the Middle East will attest, but on Friday, I’ll be watching the cricket.
He’s covering the wedding for Canadian TV, hosehead.
The Royals are a foul, racist, pack of thick-as-pigshit, woo-mongering parasites. No amount of alleged benefit from their existence excuses their stolen hereditary privilege.
Where is John Cooke when his country needs him?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cooke_(prosecutor)Â
Hilarious, but I do have to admit that their system–and everything else there–works much better than just about anything in the U.S. This includes the NHS, and even the much-vilified British dentistry. I hope the reactionary trolls currently in power don’t succeed in Americanizing the U.K. Interestingly enough, in the U.K. reactionary trolls can only be elected if they pretend *not* to be reactionary trolls. But in the U.S. even liberal guys with decent educations–like John Kerry–have to pretend to be the knuckle dragging missing links that most Americans don’t even believe in.
I have to admit I always thought Prince Charles seemed to be a stand up guy.
Given the absolutely massive cost of switching /any/ commonwealth nation (let alone all of them) to a republic, I’d rather just put up with the occasional wedding bill and a few parade expenses (I’m a Canadian, so mostly just parade expenses, on our dime).
What cost? Absolutely HUGE swaths of law are predicated on the notional “Crown,” and can’t just be substituted in for “president” etc. It would require a massive constitutional change, which would require massive consultation, and a legal bill that would rival many Pentagon boondogggles (not to mention the non-trivial printing expenses for every government, and for the one-in-eleven lawyers who get fancy robes and the title Queen’s Counsel). As well, in Canada, there’s notionally the Governor General as a check on executive power, and the post has bizzarely regained relevance recently, so that’s even more evidence of the massive re-write that would be required.
I’m not going to defend the monarchy as “relevant” or suggest that they couldn’t stand to lose a few country estates, take paying jobs, etc, but converting to a republic is a heck of a bigger pain / expense than people think it is. The last time the English tried it, their taxes went up roughly tenfold to cover the cost (ironically, Charles I lost his head over, in part, taxation issues, only to have the subsequent republican governments dramatically raise taxes to fun various wars, projects, etc).
Nothing like a monarchy thread to bring the historians and lawyers out of the woodwork.
If it were mathematically POSSIBLE for my taxes to go up tenfold, I would be a happy man.
To everyone complaining that the house of Windsor is of German ancestry, watch a nice little documentary the BBC put together entitled “Are you 100% British” You will find the reality is that the extreme majority of “Britons” aren’t even descended of majority British (or even Northern European) genetics. Get over it, your island has been a path of trade and migration for millennia, being British descended really means being a genetic mutt. Same here in the U.S. only it didn’t take as long for us.
“God save the Queen/’cause tourists are money.”
True when Johnny Rotten sang it in the 70s, true now.
Dear Anon, Here in the US we do NOT elect our head of state … Our head of state is the US Constitution
Your head of state disagrees with you:
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Mr. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a German Descendant of Medieval Psychopaths.
On republicanism- the office of the head of state’s job isn’t to be an embodiment of fairness or post-enlightenment ideals. It’s job is to prevent a vacuum of power from appearing and then getting filled by some thug who’s mommy & daddy didn’t show them enough love as a baby. Much better to have these out of touch, ultra-pampered nut-jobs than a power-lusting politician or general. The royals have nothing to lust after, they want for nothing, so they’re stable and reliable. Nothing else matters.
Srsly? No one noticed that the “average Briton” in the second to last frame looks just like George H W Bush?
I fear that I may be somewhat responsible for this whole English monarchy thing. I gave Oliver Cromwell the idea to ban Christmas, since he was such a grinch. This may have contributed to horrible unpopularity. Is this a bad thing?
-Percival Dunwoody, Idiot Time-Traveler From 1909
gov’nor? you mean, guv’nor?
Does this mean we are elevating our daughters to be trodding on the masses when we call them ‘Princess’?!?
I had no idea!
I’ll start calling all those little girls Tarts. That sounds harmless enough!
In amongst all this discussion of the ancestors of Prince Will, and how ridiculous we British are for thinking it important (which most of us don’t, actually) I am surprised that nobody has noticed the unbelievable amount of attention that seems to be being given to the ancestry of your president, Barack Obama. The poor fellow has even had to produce his birth certificate for all to see, so that you may all know that he is the rightful King of America.
Perhaps one of you Americans (who are so perfect and wonderful that you have no compunction in criticising and mocking every other nation on the planet) can explain to me what the difference is between your obsession with the President’s birth and ours with the future King’s?
Meh. Pathetic sour grapes from the normally funny Tom the Dancing Bug.
Whatever your feelings about the pomp and circumstance, the English Monarchy is actually a very useful and effective diplomatic institution, and helps an otherwise declining country box far above it’s economic weight on the world stage.
It also serves a big added bonus of being a massive tourist draw (not to mention the wedding providing a sweet vicarious fantasy to millions of women the world over.)
It may be snarky but I don’t think it’s “sour grapes.” Many Americans honestly don’t understand the appeal of an institution which elevates certain people above the general populace by accident of birth. While it’s true we have our rich, our famous, and our financial and political dynasties, no American citizen gets titles or legal power purely through ancestry. Even a Bush or a Kennedy ostensibly has to go to college or run for office to be called “Senator” or “Doctor” or “Your Honor.”
Which isn’t to say the monarchy doesn’t offer a certain quaint charm, just that it’s not something we envy.
Proof that descendants of British tyrants aren’t necessarily interested in establishing decent sex lives.
OK I’m a republican, and was roped into watching the Royal Wedding by my wife.
Say what you want about the Royal family and Commonwealth politics, the taste levels for that wedding were through the roof. I mean they really set the bar. It was a perfect tension of elegance and restraint.
I particularly enjoyed the music, the Bridal procession “The introit” was wonderful, “Ubi Caritas” was sublime.
Despite being sick to death of hearing about the stupid Royal wedding, when I actually watched it I enjoyed it quite a lot.
I enjoyed the wedding, but there’s a certain segment of UK ladies that needs to go to the dressmaker and the milliner instead of the upholsterer and the taxidermist. Samantha Cameron, who was trashed by the media, looked great. Some of the others looked like furniture from the Addams Family mansion.
Good God yes. When I was talking about taste levels, those comments were strictly directed at the Wedding party, venue and music. The guests were a mixed bag, which was very entertaining.
And for Christ’s sake Harry, comb your damn hair.
It’s a sad day for fashion when the Queen looks hipper than most of the guests.
Also, I really want an open landau.
“Also, I really want an open landau.”
Just to pop down to the shops in?
Oh and FTR, when I see Americans mocking the way the British speak (and the food they eat), the irony stops the left hemisphere of my brain working for about ten minutes.
There is a missing credit on this one. It should say “Lettering by Dick van Dyke”.
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin