Steady on, Jonah, old bean. I yield to no one in my contempt for the wretched state of depraved contemporary London but tomorrow’s shindig will be one of the least unwholesome gatherings held in the metropolis in recent years. For a start, it’s not a “state” occasion, because Prince William is not the Heir to the Throne. So it’s what Buckingham Palace regards as “family.” See here: Minor royals like the Earl of Ulster and Lady Gabriella Windsor; viceregal eminences from the Queen’s realms such as the Governors-General of Canada and Belize; Commonwealth Prime Ministers and their spouses such as Sir Michael and Lady Somare of Papua New Guinea; colonial premiers such as the Chief Minister of Montserrat. Nothing to frighten the horses.
There are no foreigners — ie, the President of the United States or France — except members of other royal houses, most of which are distant kin of the Queen — the King of Norway, the Queen of Spain. The rest are from monarchies more or less installed by London when they were under British protection, which is why various Bahraini, Omani, and Kuwaiti princelings will be swanning about. The entire Middle East is a giant clogged septic tank of toxic waste, but, if you’ll forgive a rough generalization, the least fetid despots in the region are the toytown monarchs promoted by the Brits — and most of them were at the Queen’s Coronation, too.
Let’s keep a sense of proportion here. If you want revolting guest lists, try the U.N. Human Rights Council.
"If you want revolting guest lists, try the UN Human Rights Council."
Love it. Who cares about the royal wedding? Media Obsession de Jour.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI take it Steyn did not get an invite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy wouldn't the Heir Presumptive's wedding be as much a "state occasion" as the Heir Apparent's? As long as William does not himself pre-decease Elizabeth and Charles, he will be King, no other ifs, ands, or buts. There is no way of inserting anyone else in the line of succession ahead of him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHuman Rights? Revolting indeed - the UN is a joke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStrictly, I don't think William is the "heir presumptive". There is only an heir presumptive where there is not (yet - although the possibility exists - hence the "presumptiveness") an heir apparent. Charles is heir apparent to the Queen, so there is no requirement for an heir presumptive. William is simply the second-in-line, and would be replaced in that slot were he to predecease his father. William (if still living) will become heir apparent when Charles either succeeds or predeceases the present Queen: there is nothing "presumptive" about his claim - he is, in effect, heir apparent-in-waiting. (The Queen was heir presumptive to her father, Geroge VI, because there was always the theoretical possibility that he might yet have sired a legitimate male heir - an heir apparent.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteyn as usual cuts through the krap.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn this occasion, I think one of us Anglophiles should point out that Britain's decline pretty much tracks the decline of the monarchy. Am I the only one who thinks that, had Britain not reduced royal power (and that of the lords) to nothing, and replaced it with the technocracy that they have today, it would not be the desiccated, post-modern, multiculti crime-and-welfare swamp that it has become? In pursuit of ethereal notions like democracy and equality, they have handed control to a political/managerial class that is just as imperious and jealous of it's perogatives as any hereditary earl or duke. Democracy is good, but here is one area where the conservative impulse to favor long-established traditions and institutions over passing fads and utopian dreams could have saved a nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGod save the Queen! Her realm is probably beyond saving.
The wife and girls are getting up to watch it. My 9 yr old son and I could care less.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse