The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

America’s Royal Irony

By on 4.20.11 @ 6:08AM

The romantic obsession that betrays our egalitarian myth.

The couple has been shacking up for months and one celebrity gossip magazine claimed that the bride-to-be is pregnant, yet the wedding next week between Prince William and Kate Middleton is being ballyhooed with all the fairy-tale hype that marked the 1981 nuptials of Charles and Diana.

One might have thought the not-exactly-happily-ever-after denouement of that union would have cured Americans of their ironic obsession with British royalty. Contradicting the romantic mythology of that “Wedding of the Century,” it turned out Charles carried on an affair with his mistress, which led to a 1996 divorce, followed the next year by Diana’s death in a bizarre car crash while fleeing paparazzi in Paris with her Egyptian-born millionaire boyfriend, Dodi Fayed.

Romance is not logic, however, and a new century evidently requires a new “Wedding of the Century” to inspire new storybook dreams. And so we must brace ourselves for the transatlantic media onslaught leading up to April 29, when Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales — to accord him his full title — will wed Miss Middleton, the commoner who will be instantly transformed into Princess Catherine by saying those magic words, “I do.”

Conservatives, predisposed to defend all things traditional and hierarchical, might naturally be expected to admire the British monarchy. But the remarkable fact is that most of the Americans obsessed by the royal wedding (and the media shamelessly feeding that obsession) are not conservative. The Will and Kate wedding is being hyped, and the hype is being consumed, by Americans who see no contradiction between their commitment to egalitarian ideals and their celebration of hereditary privilege. Liberals who quiver in outrage that American millionaires pay only a 35 percent marginal rate on their incomes — an injustice they blame on the hated “Bush tax cuts” — nevertheless seem unembarrassed by their adoration of British royalty. But then again, liberals spent decades pining for the restoration of a Kennedy dynasty, so perhaps we should not be surprised by their fascination with the House of Windsor.

The New York Times, daily journal of American liberalism, has offered its readers gossipy chatter about the menu at the royal wedding reception and about the relationship between “glamorous and young” Miss Middleton and her soon-to-be stepmother-in-law, Camilla. The former Mrs. Parker-Bowles, whose long-term affair with Prince Charles was blamed for the disruption of his marriage with Diana, has evidently become slightly more sympathetic since her 2005 marriage to the widowed prince elevated her to Duchess of Cornwall. We are informed by Times correspondent John F. Burns that public-opinion polls in Great Britain “show sharply reduced levels of personal antipathy toward” Camilla, but that at least half the Britons surveyed favor the crown skipping a generation, so that the much more popular Will and Kate would take over after Queen Elizabeth’s death.

Dynastic succession doesn’t work that way, of course, but the fact that such polls are conducted and cited by reporters indicates how far democratic presumption has infringed the royal prerogative. Evidently, the Windsors nowadays must at least seem to care about public opinion. And merely seeming to care suffices to satisfy those whose passion for social justice doesn’t prevent them from being dazzled by the blueblood glamour. Among the rumored RSVPs to next week’s wedding is American rap performer Kanye West, who cited the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster as proof that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” This kind of contradiction — what, if anything, has the British royal family done for New Orleans lately? — is happily ignored by American liberals who fawn over the rich and famous, even while they respond with populist fervor to the class-warfare appeals of Democrats.

America’s enthusiasm for the pomp and pageantry of a royal wedding is such that few dare criticize it, but at least one inveterate iconoclast is having none of that deference. British-born Christopher Hitchens denounced the upcoming ceremony as “a regular human sacrifice whereby unexceptional people are condemned to lead wholly artificial and strained existences, and then punished or humiliated when they crack up.” That sort of anti-royal animus is rather a rarity stateside, where our Anglophile elite nowadays love all things British, including the Crown.

Little noticed, however, is how the rags-to-royalty story of Kate Middleton almost perfectly contradicts the dominant narrative of liberalism, which portrays poverty as hopelessly permanent. Kate’s mother was raised in what the British call a “council flat,” but what Americans would call public housing. After becoming an airline flight attendant, Carole Goldsmith married a pilot, Michael Middleton. Carole then started her own small business which grew so successful that her husband quit his job to join the firm. Their entrepreneurial success enabled Kate to pursue her education at St. Andrews University, which is where she met her future husband. Despite her family’s millions, the soon-to-be-princess is still a commoner (unlike William’s late mother Diana, whose father was the 8th Earl of Spencer) and, were it not for the wonders of capitalism, would probably never have been anything more.

American liberals can’t be expected to notice that, any more than they can be expected to comprehend the ancient traditions of inherited custom that a royal wedding rightly ought to symbolize. It was more than two centuries ago that Edmund Burke denounced the “barbarous philosophy” of modern egalitarianism in which “a king is but a man, a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order.” If nothing else, next week’s wedding will offer an opportunity to point out the irony of America’s romantic fondness for a most old-fashioned form of inequality.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) |

Robbins Mitchell| 4.20.11 @ 6:20AM

Well,America's liberals are always looking for crowns in all the wrong places..to paraphrase Jimmy Buffet...if it should happen that an American of the blood royal had a better claim on the Crown of St Edward than the heirs of the House of Windsor/Mountbatten,but was a dyed in the wool conservative/libertarian and a faithful Christian who didn't buy into 'global warming' or the socialist dystopian vision,they would disavow him in a heartbeat and ignore his claim to the Crown....I ought to know

Bob K.| 4.20.11 @ 10:10AM

It has been observed, can't remember where, that there are only two elective monarchies in the world: The Vatican and the US Presidency.

I think that old Joe Kennedy was the first person to really understand this and his heirs took the ball and ran with it (images of touch football on the White House lawn in those days come to mind) aided by a breathless, compliant and fawning press until the Kennedys began dissolving in their own excesses like the old european royalty have.

It has continued, aided more or less enthusiastically by the press, depending on who the current regent is in the White House.

The usurper "MacBird" (Johnson) was rejected. Nixon was never anointed. Ford and Carter never understood this. Reagan understood it at a gut level and rejected it. The Bush's were from the Patrician class and never behaved like Royalty and the press despised them for it. Clinton behaved like a dissolute Monarch and embarrassed his court followers in the Press but the current regent seems to understand our press's need for royalty and he does indeed act the part of Emperor. It appears to come naturally to him, possibly from his much discussed narcissism. But the press now has another King they can worship and fawn over and publicize and turn into the major celebrity in this publicity starved nation!

Dai Alanye | 4.20.11 @ 12:33PM

The Brits ought to send the Battenberg-Windsors to join the Stuarts, and select a new monarchial family--preferably one from from Australia with some Abbo ancestry.

Michael Tomlinson| 4.21.11 @ 5:55AM

I think it would be more fun if they were Jeff Foxworthy's "Redneck" cousins. At least they wouldn't be as wacky as the current royals.

Dave| 4.20.11 @ 11:04AM

If you're referencing the song "Lookin' For Love" (1980), then you're paraphrasing Johnny Lee, not Jimmy Buffett.

Tina B| 4.20.11 @ 6:45AM

The inherent phoniness of the American Lib is more than I can stomach. Most days.

I am surrounded by libs on the job and if they lived by their own crazy standards I could bear it. But they preach one thing and do another. I love them in Christ but their rhetoric blows me away. I will retire soon, and then, if I lunch with them, I will politely tell them like it is. With a smile, of course.

DG in GA| 4.20.11 @ 2:26PM

Tina, I hope you thoroughly enjoy that conversation! I, on the other hand, will NEVER be able to tell off the libs in my life, since they are family members. Perhaps one day when they can just write it off to senility, I will state what's been on my mind lo these many years...

Margie| 4.20.11 @ 8:07PM

I've always told the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Serving the Truth sets me free. Let them stew in their delusion~ we all must choose.
When Clinton was running for Prez I sent out cards to all my relatives telling them that if this man gets elected, more unborn babies will die, and our nation will suffer.
The thing is, even when it all comes true what I say, they still don't admit it. And still vote Democrat.
Some will never learn.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.20.11 @ 6:56AM

Anyone who has time to be fixated on nonsense like this most likely is eating free government cheese.

oldfart| 4.20.11 @ 7:21AM

Amen

Mike D.| 4.20.11 @ 7:52AM

Amen, on top of that. The last vestiges of a burnt out, rotted, and now failing socialist empire. The concept of monarchies always made me puke.

LarryK| 4.20.11 @ 9:58AM

Actually, monarchies in the bible worked out well when the king was righteous... but sadly that was a very small minority. I believe that our founding fathers came up with the best possible form of government if the constitution is followed. Sadly, again, that is in the minority.

"Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible."
— Frank Herbert

mames| 4.20.11 @ 2:50PM

Take another look, God warned them not to desire a king, He was told them that the King would become Law rather than the other way around. When God wants to teach you a lesson He lets you have what you ask for.

As for the royals of England. That country gets what it deserves by keeping those inbred leeches around. And if the little tramp that he is marrying were my daughter I would not be making a big deal about her impending marriage knowing that she has been in the habit of giving away the milk for free. The royals are the pinacle of depravity.

Negro X| 4.20.11 @ 7:53PM

Right on Bill.

All American American| 4.20.11 @ 7:49AM

I remember long ago when I was knee high to a grasshopper asking my mother why we shold care about the British "royals" since didn't we fight a War for Independence to be free of them? Yeah, this one boggles the mind.

The only consolation I have is this time around I have more than three channels at my disposal and won't be forced to watch this garbage on TV like in 1981.

mames| 4.20.11 @ 2:53PM

You will bah bah wa wa attaching her lips to the queen's ass. I thought these broadcasts libs really really cared about the little people - guess not.

Margie| 4.20.11 @ 8:09PM

Just one more to add to the list of why it's a good thing not to have Tee Vee.

Teaghan| 4.20.11 @ 7:51AM

Oh come one guys. It's fun and good escapism.

Mike D.| 4.20.11 @ 7:59AM

A good game of dodge ball is escapism.

Teaghan| 4.20.11 @ 10:45AM

I don't like dodge ball Mike.

Old Soldier| 4.20.11 @ 8:00AM

It's the nonsense my ancestor escaped from.

Mike D.| 4.20.11 @ 8:24AM

The last pathetic vestiges of a governing concept who's closing act was WW1. The Kaiser, Czar, and their German grandmother queen of England and the rest of the cast of Royal derelicts.

Oolong T.| 4.20.11 @ 8:32AM

And Kanye West is invited to royal wedding?

Wow! Are Will and Kate dazzled by Kanye's bling-bling? I'm afraid if Kanye drapes himself with his eye-poppin' hip hop gear, he may detract from the bride.

But I am delighted that Westminster Abbey will finally be blessed by the appearance of the dignified and august Mr. West. He will, no doubt, add an element of refinement to the tawdry ceremony.

Stay tuned, my darlings. Sit in front of your Tee Vee machines and drink it all up--all the punk and ceremony.

PJ| 4.20.11 @ 10:05AM

At least he didn't diss England like the Obamas.

I would invite Kanye West over the Obamas in a heartbeat any day. And the royals seemingly did just that.

The wedding may be a show of vulgarity but at least its somewhat honest unlike the hypocrisy & coarseness constantly being displayed at the White House.

r taylor| 4.20.11 @ 1:19PM

Hypocrisy and coarseness?

Obama is dignified and refined, far more so than George Bush, Jr.

Would be that Bush could have had half the dignity of Obama's demeanor.

Lisa| 4.20.11 @ 2:21PM

"Obama is dignified and refined, far more so than George Bush, Jr."

So, that's why The Chosen One spent the first two years of his presidency blaming his ineptitude on "the policies of the previous administration". Thanks for clearing that up.

Skippy| 4.20.11 @ 3:33PM

Dignified and refined.

"You think we're stupid?"

Yeah. Dignified.

Mike D.| 4.20.11 @ 4:52PM

As dignified as any teleprompter reading stool pigeon can be. So refined that he can't finish a sentence without pausing 14 times.

Malaria | 4.20.11 @ 5:41PM

He got through Harvard Law School.

From what community college did you graduate, Mikey?

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 6:03PM

We don't have his grades from Harvard. I graduated from UTMB (MD), and did my residency at UCLA. On my latest reboard in my specialty, in 2005, I had one of the highest scores in the country, an uncurved 92%. Sorry, I don't have much respect for the rigor of HLS compared to HMS (my MCAT was higher than HMS' average).

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 6:05PM

In addition, here's something fun for the Royal Couple to deal with (from today's American Thinker website):

"April 20, 2011
Muslim extremists threaten royal wedding
Phil Boehmke
With the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton fast approaching, the radical group Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) is planning a special tribute of its own for the happy couple. The extremist group has been behind a number of disturbances in Britain, most notably their disgraceful protests during the solemn Remembrance Day ceremonies last November. As loyal Britons paused for the traditional two minutes of silence in honor of their fallen heroes, MAC agitators burned red poppies and shouted “British soldiers burn in hell.”


The UK Daily Mail reports:


According to police, they have vowed to turn the wedding celebrations into a ‘nightmare.’ They plan a ‘forceful demonstration’ with thousands of protesters set to burn the Union Flag, images of the Crown, and the bridal couple.


[…]


Almost 5,000 Met officers will be deployed to combat disorder on April 29. Some are expected to rove around the West End to prevent a repeat of the TUC march trouble last month, when thugs attacked businesses and shops, laying siege to the Ritz hotel and Fortnum and Mason.


Scotland Yard has already rejected an application by Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) to stage a demonstration outside Westminster Abbey, but officers are still in discussions about demonstrations by the group elsewhere.


While police can ban major protests along the royal procession route, they are powerless to stop ‘static’ protests at nearby locations.


The British authorities, encumbered by their politically correct guidelines will have their hands full against a radical group seething with hatred for the culture and traditions of their adopted homeland. The MAC website carries images of Prince William and his best man in Nazi garb, pictures of dead Muslim children, a call for the Muslim community to join the protest and a clock which is counting down the time until the royal wedding. Their official announcement states:


We strongly advise Prince William and his Nazi sympathizer, to withdraw from the crusader British military and give up all affiliation to the tyrannical British Empire.


We promise that should they refuse, then the day which the nation has been dreaming of for so long will become a nightmare and that it will inshaa’allah (God willing) eclipse the protests in Barking Downing Street and the events of November.


Decades of multi-cultural appeasement and the uncontrolled flood of immigrants embraced by the Labour party have created an ideal atmosphere for radical groups like MAC to flourish and vent their anti-Western venom. Great Britain along with the other nations of Europe now face a well-organized and militant threat within their own borders, a threat which has grown out of their own weakness.


April 20, 2011"

Mike D.| 4.21.11 @ 7:09AM

A four year BA degree from U of M jackass. Heres another, unlike the comrade I have grade transcripts to prove it. Heres another one better yet. I can even prove I was born here.

Lisa| 4.21.11 @ 12:02PM

How do you know he went to Hah-vard when he refuses to release his official transcripts?

mames| 4.20.11 @ 2:57PM

If you find watching human decay it might be fun. I understand how the brits have gotten used to eating shit and returning to their own vomit but americans doing it? How inexcusable.

Dave| 4.20.11 @ 8:00AM

Actually, she won't be "instantly transformed into Princess Catherine" after the wedding. With rare exception, only women born to the title may use it before their given names. Thus, Diana was also never officially Princess Diana, although she is/was often (incorrectly) referred to as such.

Appleby| 4.20.11 @ 10:38AM

Thank you -- I have spent a wearying amount of time trying to explain this to my bedazzled Canadian confreres; although they concede that when Queen Elizabeth II (God bless her) married, her husband did not become King, but Prince Consort, the Princess Culture foisted on little girls from babyhood cannot be denied in its eagerness to crown every possible head.

As a practical matter, and as one who goes about every four years waving an Italian flag and yelling "ITALIA!" although I am not Italian, when the World Kickabout occurs, I say this Royal Fuss is just another way of having fun.

CalMark| 4.20.11 @ 2:42PM

Wait a minute here.

Charles was Prince of Wales, a personal title no different than Duke of Cornwall. Just as Camilla is known as the Duchess of Cornwall, Diana was Princess of Wales, and thus, legitimately "Princess Diana."

mames| 4.20.11 @ 2:59PM

WHO GIVERS A DAMN? I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS AUTHOR WASTED HIS TIME ON THIS.

Seek| 4.20.11 @ 7:10PM

There are Yanks, like me, who enjoy this. The Monarchy, with all its flaws, is still a magnificent and conservative institution.

Dave| 4.21.11 @ 8:51AM

Nope, she was Her Royal Highness, Diana, Princess of Wales, before the divorce. After the divorce, she was Diana, Princess of Wales (no HRH). Those were her official titles. The distinction is in the use of the title BEFORE her given name. Only those born to the title can use it in that manner. Look it up.

Dave| 4.21.11 @ 9:43AM

Technically, her title before the divorce didn't include her name. It was simply Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales. Her full official title before the divorce was Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales & Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. Wow, that's a mouthful. But as I said, CalMark, the title Princess Diana, used by the public and the media, was always incorrect. Prince Charles may use the title of Prince before his given name because he was born to it.

Louis Jenkins| 4.20.11 @ 8:18AM

Who really cares? We fought two wars with the British, and pulled their bacon out the fire on two other occassions. I'd rather not view the debacle of royalty, and will not. Better to watch a wrestling match, mow the grass, or pull my nails out with a pair of pliers.

Dan Hirsch| 4.20.11 @ 9:39AM

Who cares? Every Western girl who was ever read a fairy tale that ends with the Princess living happily ever after.

It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with childish dreams of everlasting happiness.

Men, mostly, have no tolerance for this kind of "fairy tale" because it has no basis in reality. No one lives 'happily ever after;' but that sad fact does not prevent a substantial proportion of our sisters from wishing for it.

Sheesh...ignore the broken UK. Except for learning from their mistakes, National Health, anyone?

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 10:30AM

As a permanent resident in the Commonwealth from 2006-2007, I was cured of any love for the Royals whatsoever. A worthless, untalented family.

Butch | 4.20.11 @ 4:12PM

But you have to admit that Prince Charles does the best Alfred E. Neuman ever.

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 6:06PM

Yes, Butch, that is true. He does do a good Alfred E Neumann. I withdraw my comment about Prince Charles being talentless. Touche'!

Seek| 4.20.11 @ 7:11PM

Doesn't the phrase "The King" tickle your ivories? Where do you stand on the Hapsburgs?

Derek Leaberry| 4.20.11 @ 8:23AM

The concept of monarchy evolved from the idea of having a head of a tribe which in turn came from the idea of the head of a family. Nothing could be more traditional and conservative. Societies that are the most rural, family-oriented, tribal and, yes, hierarchical, are the most conservative. Societies that are cosmopolitan, urban, anti-family and egalitarian tend to be the most left-wing.

It is sad that so many "conservatives" reject the natural conservatism reflected by hierarchical, family-oriented societies. Perhaps they ought to read more of Richard Weaver than Ayn Rand.

Matthew Quigley| 4.20.11 @ 9:04AM

What a load of monarchist crap!

A Conservative in this society esteems and holds dear the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. We do NOT value the artificiality of a class-based society reigned over by a group of welfare recipients (except for the two who are in the British military--such as it is--NONE of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas--their REAL name--have actual jobs! They live in public housing, draw a government check and inbreed. Sounds like trailer trash to me) who perform no useful social function.

I reject "royalty" and its associated pathologies in favor of meritocracy and an end to the welfare state...including elimination of affirmative action. The sole piece of entertainment I draw from this white trash spectacle is that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas excluded Barack Hussein Obama and his "charming" "life partner" Chewbacca from the guest list. Granted, Kanye West is probably more appropriately ghetto for this spectacle, but what else should we expect from the trash that is monarchy?

Remember, you can't have Eurotrash without trash...and that's the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas: Eurotrash.

Derek Leaberry| 4.20.11 @ 9:16AM

Boy, the Declaration of Independence was written by a slave-owning aristocrat(Jefferson) whose "all men are created equal" was not only hypocritical, it was an intellectual spasm by a man who imbibed too much of the French philosophes(the guys who spurred the French Revolution and two centuries of socialism). Jefferson's Declaration was meant only for white males; women and blacks need not apply. As for the Constitution, it was largely written by another slave-owning aristocrat(Madison) who had contempt for the intellectual maturity of the common man and an economic royalist(Hamilton) who had even more contempt for the intellectual maturity of the common man.

Vern Crisler | 4.20.11 @ 9:33AM

Nonsense. Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration blamed the slave trade on King George 3. All the founders thought slavery was an evil, but they had inherited it from their British forefathers, so could do little about it on a practical level.

All the founders were republicans, not royalists. Hamilton was with Washington fighting against the royalists. His belief in strong government was occasioned by the difficulties he and Washington had with the Continental Congress. It was so weak they almost starved to death at Valley Forge for want of help from Congress. Washington had to rely on French money to finish the revolution.

They rejected the idea of the common man -- which is a Progressive idea. They were familiar with the excesses of mob rule, and the Constitution was as much a restraint on mob democracy -- the common man -- as it was on government.

Derek Leaberry| 4.20.11 @ 12:11PM

Although I agree that Jefferson was intellectually opposed to slavery, he did nothing in his private life to eliminate slavery. Furthermore, my point is that Jefferson never regarded blacks or women as equals, a point you can't or won't refute.

Hamilton was an economic royalist in that his maneuvers as Secretary of the Treasury resulted in Wall Street dominating the United States economy. Wall Street wags the tail of the US economy, so much so that Wall Street in 2008 could demand a bail out after the financial schemes on Wall Street crashed and burned. Furthermore, although Hamilton was nominally a republican in politics, it was he who created the office of president to be almost royal in its powers. If conservatives this year become frustrated that Obama gets the better hand over Boehner and Ryan, blame Hamilton for carving out the office of royal president. I suggest reading Ron Chernow's biography to understand Hamilton better.

As for most of your second and all of your third paragraph, I absolutely agree with your conclusions.

mames| 4.20.11 @ 5:25PM

And to what would Jefferson have release them? Being free and black at that time was no picnic. His slaves were ,like Washington's, treated quite well for that cultural setting. He provided skills training for many not only for his own purposes but in the hopes that they would have a trade they could take with them. Some of the most beautiful craftsmanship at Monticello was done by these tradesmen. He tried several times to have the practice banned and his ideas were rejected not only by the continental congress by by the new Congress as well. He came to the conclusion that the constitution had within it the seeds to eliminate slavery as time progressed. It took about 70 years to finally kick in and slavery was abolished. He bought some slaves out of concern for their health; his slaves were quite healthy and lived in better quarters than most. He did what he could to keep families together. He learned from them about the tribal battles that was making it so easy for one tribe to sell off another. He learned horticultural practices from some of them as he was so interested in planting for flavor and production and some of their techniques he adopted. He also felt that the industrialization of the north would eliminate the excuse for slavery as machines could do far more than pure back breaking labor. He said, "I fear what the almighty has in store for us for allowing this abominable practice among us." He was a man of flaws and imperfections but the ideas he believed in and laid down in writing were revolutionary and beautiful and lead to a freedom never experienced by the masses in all of human history.

Margie| 4.20.11 @ 8:20PM

mames,

Bravo! Great and informative post. I appreciated it very much.

Anthony| 4.20.11 @ 11:32AM

Mr. Obama is that you? Now that the NCAA basketball tournament is over, and your teams got crushed, are you now spending your time monitoring TAS as you destroy America with your feet up on the desk in the Oval Office?
The only "intellectual spasm" you and your ilk comprehend is the spasm of death you wish for America.
UCONN in 2012 Mr. President? How about Palin crushes Obozo in 2012? Yeah, I like the sound of that.

Derek Leaberry| 4.20.11 @ 12:13PM

Child, you are difficult to understand. Perhaps you should add English Composition 101 to your college schedule.

Anthony| 4.20.11 @ 2:59PM

Hey Bro, my English is just fine. Perhaps your reading comprehension is hampered by the fact that any attempt at communication is made all the more difficult when one is smoking crack.

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 6:07PM

As do I, Anthony.

Lisa| 4.20.11 @ 2:36PM

During the hype over the Chuck/Di nuptials, I remember some pundit pointing out that Diana would be the first 100% British person to marry into the British monarchy in 300 years! In fact, Prince Philip had to drop his German surname before he married Princess Elizabeth because of post-war anti-German feelings. The upshot is that she has more Germanic blood running through her veins than he does, even though they are both great-great grandchildren of Queen Victoria, who spoke German until she was 3 and never fully mastered English, which - irony or ironies - is a Germanic language!

Robbins Mitchell| 4.20.11 @ 2:52PM

You are mistaken...the family name was changed from Battenberg to Mountbatten at the outbreak of WW1 by Phillip's father,Lord Louis Battenberg/Mountbatten due to anti-German sentiment in England at the time...Philip's patronymic has always been Mountbatten

Lisa| 4.20.11 @ 10:08PM

Sorry, friend, but you are the one who is miskaen. Phillip's father was Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark; his mother was Princess Alice of Battenberg. Louis Mountbatten had no sons; he was the son of Louis Alexander of Battenberg, a German prince.

Sean| 4.20.11 @ 8:26AM

This is all geared towards women. Who by the way vote for Democrats more so than men.

Oolong T.| 4.20.11 @ 8:46AM

Wimmen on The View

I'm looking forward to hearing the wimmin on The View chatter about "the royal wedding."

Whoopi and Bahbra will, as usual, give us their intelligent analyses.

You can count on these View wimmen to always deliver shimmering commentary, no matter what the subject.

Can't wait!

Clint| 4.20.11 @ 8:43AM

Yeah, and Democrats pander to American Queens.

Edith| 4.20.11 @ 8:50AM

American Queens? I'm afraid I don't get your meaning.

Bawney Fwank| 4.20.11 @ 9:04AM

Oh, Shut Up Edith.

JimH| 4.20.11 @ 9:16AM

At the risk of sounding sexist I think royal weddings are of far more interest to American women than American men. I think this is largely because of all the princess fantasies as girls and romance novels as adults.

Alan Brooks| 4.20.11 @ 9:29AM

And in real life guys cheat on their spouses not infrequently. How long did it take his father to cheat on Di? How long will it be until sonny cheats on Kate?

Faithful? wash your mouths out with soap.

c. j. acworth| 4.20.11 @ 6:00PM

Bingo! I was wondering when someone would suggest starting a pool on how long these two will last! I bet three years, tops. Whatta ya say, throw in a buck?

Alan Brooks| 4.20.11 @ 8:04PM

They MIGHT last, but they will cheat on each other. Which young royals have not cheated on each other? Both Andy and Fergie did.

You can be sure all the other young royals didn't take cold showers and eat saltpeter cookies.

Lisa| 4.21.11 @ 12:21PM

Diana had been around the Royal Family her entire life. Heck, Chuckles even did the horizontal mambo with Diana's sister! Yet she was shocked - shocked! - that Chuckles was doing the horizontal mambo with Camilla -- while Diana was doing the horizontal mambo with James Hewitt!

If Kate and Willie are smart, each will let the other have their fun and keep their mouths shut about it.

maximumrandb| 4.20.11 @ 9:41AM

There is far too much rancor over this. The Queen, like the Japanese emperor and the royal chiefs of state (they are NOT heads of government) of the other monarchies like Spain, Norway, Netherlands et. al. are a symbol of the nation and provide continuity to their past...tradition if you will. I think that is why conservatives support it.

Citizen Jerry| 4.20.11 @ 10:23AM

You're right, Robert. We do have an "ironic obsession with British royalty." Otherwise, millions of people would never have bought into the meme of the Kennedys as some sort of American royal family.

Anthony| 4.20.11 @ 10:36AM

I realized Western Civilization was in its death throes when the Brits and the entire "civilized" world went completely mad over the death of Princess Di.
That whole weekend, with the non stop coverage of every arcane aspect of her funeral, and the spectacle of blubbering fools crying and moaning and acting like one huge Oprah audience, over a dippy Hollywoodesque woman, who could care less about them, led me to believe we only had a few more decades left.
Looks like I was right, Obozo got elected in 08. Insanity completed.

Lisa| 4.20.11 @ 2:09PM

I confess that I allowed myself to get caught up in the orgy of grief after Diana got smashed up because she didn't buckle up (let that be a lesson to you, kids) until I watched Looney George Clooney hold a press conference to self-righteously slam the media for their "role" in her death, then the celebrities at the funeral waving to the crowd as though they were at a movie premiere. Who the hell invited Richard Branson, Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg, and Elton John, I wondered? Then it occurred to me that this was what "Shy Di" was all about: a frivolous, utterly shallow creature whose concern for the less-fortunate lasted as long as it took the cameras to get her good side!

Were Wee Willie just another rich brat, do you think they'd hyping this ridiculousness like a bunch of whores fighting over a $20 bill? No, it's because he's Diana's son, and, as with Obama and the Kennedys, the media has these romantic visions of this chippy dippy that have zero to do with the facts or reality. They never learn and will never learn.

Sarah| 4.20.11 @ 10:44AM

As an aside, I must correct an inaccuracy in the article. Miss Middleton being able to attend St. Andrews was NOT because of her parent's budding entrepreneurial spirit, but because her father had a relative (his father? grandfather?) who left in his will a trust that was to pay for the education of their children - Kate, Pippa and James (?). Even though they were rapidly growing wealthier, they still could not afford the pricy expense of THREE children going to St. Andrews without that legacy.

While I'm not as starry-eyed about this wedding as I was Charles and Dianna's (I was only a child at the time), I do enjoy hearing about weddings in general. I will not, however, be staying up until God knows when or getting up at the crack of dawn to watch this one.

Alan Brooks| 4.20.11 @ 11:32AM

This is funny, a child once asked if Di was called Di because she Died.
"Princess Die? why did she have to DIE?"

Dai Alanye | 4.20.11 @ 12:41PM

Another brilliant non sequitur.

Minuteman| 4.20.11 @ 4:06PM

That reminds me of the joke going around contemporous of that wedding: Where is Prince Phillip spending his honeymoon? Indiana, of course.

TooMuchoBoleres| 4.20.11 @ 5:47PM

Yeah, and that reminds me of the joke going around about Princess Margaret?

Where is Princess Margaret going to have her teeth bleached? At the Saatchi Gallery after hours, of course.

pokie boy| 4.20.11 @ 5:48PM

Too clever! My sides are splitting!

Brenda Dale| 4.20.11 @ 5:49PM

Hilarious, TooMuchoBoleres. Give us another.

TooMuchBoleres| 4.20.11 @ 5:53PM

What did the Queen Mother--just before the death rattle set in-- say to the Angel of Death?

Don' t olvida apagar las luces, Elizabeth.

Wrong name?| 4.21.11 @ 10:44AM

Minuteman, Prince Phillip honeymooned "Indiana"? I'll bet his wife was not amused.

Pat| 4.20.11 @ 1:06PM

Oh, c’mon, why does someone always have to spoil the fun? There are many reasons for the intense interest in the Royal Wedding – and mentioning Conservative vs. Liberal philosophy relative to English royalty is as silly as debating the political leanings of Mickey Mouse, Nemo’s dad or Shrek – someone definitely needs a time out here in order to lighten up. Reasons for our interest are many: American girls are brought up on a steady diet of princesses by moms who, in turn, were brought up to love the princess image. Disneyworld offers a chance for your daughter to be photographed with and talk to 3 different live Disney movie princesses dressed in appropriate costume - both a testament to our multi-generational interest in princesses and Disney’s superb marketing savvy.

Commoners like us Americans are intensely fascinated with the trappings of royalty – secretly, many of us would love to ask a Royal what it is like to be royal, how does a prince or a king or a queen live their daily lives, what fascinating insights would satisfy our understandable curiosity? We’ve even created a pseudo-royalty in America – the “First Lady”, the various dukes and duchesses of Hollywood. A steady diet of celebrity stories in the American press is an obvious substitute for what the English do with their peers of the realm.

And, like many among the English, some Americans publicly disdain royalty. These poor folks desperately desire the acclaim and elevated status of the royals for themselves. Since they will never achieve such social acclaim, they publicly sneer at the royals out of frustration.

Of course, the cure for too much royalty envy is a focus on the mundane – for example, what does the Royal Commode look like – similar to our commoner toilets or does it have added features? Is the toilet paper monogrammed, extra soft and are there English firms which provide the necessary bathroom accoutrements with elegant business signs which boast: By Appointment to the Crown since 1647.

DG in GA| 4.20.11 @ 2:34PM

Pat, you raise a good point here. We American women really ARE brought up on a steady diet of "princess" "happily ever after" love stories, which are also heavily pushed in the media. Young women today spend (or their parents do) a fortune so they can have a "Disney Wedding" at either Disneyland or Disneyworld. The aisle runner even says, "And they lived happily ever after..." It's a fantasy and women just eat it up.

William and Kate are just two more celebrities for the media to cram down our throats. Frankly, if more Hollywood types were willing to broadcast their weddings (or if someone would PAY to broadcast their weddings) we'd have a steady diet of this nonsense in this country.

But notice, after the heavily hoopla'd weddings of his brothers, Prince Edward chose to marry his wife in a small, private ceremony. Much classier, in my opinion.

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 6:13PM

Link for bathroom companies with fixtures in Buckingham Palace:

http://www.bathroomslocally.co.....alace.htm.

Sorry, Pat, I couldn't resist. Took me two minutes to find it.

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 6:15PM

http://www.bathroomslocally.co.....alace.htm.

Sorry. The above is the website.

Occam's Tool| 4.20.11 @ 6:20PM

Sorry. TAS keeps breaking up the website. The rest of it, following co is as follows (including the co) co.uk/london/central-london/buckingham-palace.htm.

Pat| 4.20.11 @ 6:35PM

Occam, thanks, I believe you. And whoever provides the porcelain for Obama's buttocks probably brags about it as well. It's a funny world when you look at the foibles of our species.

Lisa| 4.20.11 @ 1:46PM

"The former Mrs. Parker-Bowles, whose long-term affair with Prince Charles was blamed for the disruption of his marriage with Diana, has evidently become slightly more sympathetic since her 2005 marriage to the widowed prince..."

Uh, "widowed prince"? Charles and Diana were divorced the year before Diana died. Doesn't anyone do even the most basic research anymore?

Sarah| 4.21.11 @ 11:20AM

Religiously speaking, he was widowed, since they obtained a civil divorce, but not a religious divorce/anullment.

CalMark| 4.20.11 @ 2:59PM

So, Kanye West gets invited to the wedding? Not surprising, given the tacky tastes of QE2's grandkids.

They make the rounds at trendy clubs, police bodyguards doing the driving. Prince Chuck's boys used to pick up young women in bars ("I'm a prince. Want to come see my castle?") Then there's the faddy, super-expensive designer clothes.

The all insist they just want to live "normal lives." (Except with money and privilege and stuff.)

The Royals are just an upper-class version of Fred Flintstone. Their personal mores are much worse, their tastes are just as tacky, but what they DO have is impeccable table manners, the breeding that breeds insufferable snobbery--and a whole lot more money than Fred & Wilma could ever imagine.

Richard Baker| 4.20.11 @ 3:37PM

Had a friend, now sadly departed, who was 24 years in the RAF and who remarked that we Americans couldn't wait to be rid of the monarchy in the Revolution but everytime a Royal comes here we fall all over ourselves. Derek was correct in his observations. Is it because the Royals are the ultimate celebrities? Hanged if I can figure it out.

Anthony| 4.20.11 @ 4:31PM

"America's Royal Irony" may very well be the exposure of the greatest hoax and fraud perpetuated on a governed society since human societies were organized.
I speak of the Jerome Corsi book that has hit the Drudge site, which may very well expose the entire web of lies and deceit that is Barack Hussein Obama.
Mr. Corsi, you all may recall, is the vet who took on the lies and deceit of John Kerry and his "sanitized" version about his military history in Viet Nam.
Mr Corsi singlehandedly brought down Jean- Francois, something the hapless George Bush could and would never have accomplished.
If I were Obozo, I'd get the dictatorship up and running ASAP.
History is repeating itself with the left and the LSM who, have turned with vicious savagery on anybody who has asked legtimate and Constitutionally required questions of Obozo's past.
The more the obfuscation persists, the greater the stink has become..... and now Corsi has arrived, once again.
Wow!! if this blows the entire Obozo myth sky high, we're on the verge of civil war. You enablers on the left, be you media, pols, or just plain drones, had better hightail it to France when the dodo hits the fan, because it's gonna get real ugly real quick. Comprende?

scythe| 4.20.11 @ 7:12PM

Psst..here's the real story. The only people obsessed with this wedding are those in the media using it as a news story to fill space, those who use it to avoid telling the populace important news and the rest of the morons in the MSM who think it is important or are trying to convince us it is. Maybe if we become wrapped up in this garbage we'll forget Obongo is bankrupting the country? Fat chance. The rest of us couldn't care less.

Tannyn| 4.20.11 @ 7:39PM

Oh, I dunno, I'm very Conservative, and enjoy following the Royals...BTW, Diana WAS a commoner, as was Queen Elizabeth's mother; neither was born Royal, neither was a peer.

CalMark| 4.20.11 @ 9:30PM

You're right. Royal-watching is kind of fun.

And at the end of the day, you can say, "Thank heaven they're not ours!"

Lisa| 4.20.11 @ 9:57PM

Both Diana and the Queen Mum were each the daughter of an Earl, hence "Lady Diana Spencer" and "Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon"; their fathers were peers. Each had more blue-blood in their pinky than Kate has in her entire body.

D. Singh| 4.21.11 @ 3:58AM

Sir

Mr McCain wrote: ‘Little noticed, however, is how the rags-to-royalty story of Kate Middleton almost perfectly contradicts the dominant narrative of liberalism, which portrays poverty as hopelessly permanent’.

It is that contradiction that the gushing sentimentalism at the late Princess Diana’s funeral explains.

The Left-liberals repeatedly tell the mass of people that poverty is ‘hopelessly permanent’ but the forthcoming marriage of a commoner to a ‘prince charming’ acts as a counter-example to that superstition.

Women, especially, will vicariously experience that it is possible (just possible) that if one ‘poor’ woman can meet and romance her ‘prince charming’ then it is possible for another woman to do so and live happily ever after in a palace.

It was Diana’s untimely death that shattered that dream full of hope: many women discovered that palaces are sometimes made of glass.

marshcope| 4.21.11 @ 4:35AM

Back in the '70s the international media gave great coverage to Anne's wedding and for a brief period tried to make her actually charming and likable. Where is she now?

KyMouse| 4.21.11 @ 10:55AM

I remember the press calling her "the rabid llama."

KyMouse| 4.21.11 @ 10:53AM

Years ago, I was on a helicopter that was going to give a brief tour to the king of Sweden. Our helicopter had flown to a designated spot to pick him (and several attendants) up.

Through my headset, as the Swedes walked toward us, I heard the pilot tell his co-pilot that we were going to hover right above the ground, instead of actually landing. The king would just have to step up, like other mortals.

The flight went fine, after the guys in front got in their little dig.

Seek| 4.21.11 @ 11:30AM

Americans have a hunger for royalty. Any number of romantic comedies and dramas from Hollywood have had this theme. Think of: "The Princess Diaries," The Princess Diaries II," "Kate and Leopold," "Lord of the Rings," "Maid of Manhattan," "Enchanted," "The Prince and Me" and "King Ralph." Not to mention the Oscars going to last year's "The King's Speech." Secretly, we Americans want to be King or Queen, if only for a day.

Francis W. Porretto | 4.21.11 @ 12:17PM

People refer to "American egalitariansm" as if it were real. It's not and never has been. The whole idea is a fabrication of the Left used to beat our "natural aristocracy" over the head.

Apart from that, Americans have been looking for a king pretty much since Franklin D. Roosevelt. One could argue that our regular disenchantments with our presidents is due to their inevitable display of sub-Arthurian character. Don't expect that to change any time soon...and don't expect Americans to cease to be fascinated with the vestigial royal houses of Europe.

Renaissance Nerd | 4.21.11 @ 3:13PM

The article and comments were a lot more interesting to me than the upcoming wedding. It hovers on the periphery of my awareness, but not until today did I know the date. I can't wait until it's over. I not only care nothing for royalty, I detest celebrity every bit as much. I'm fully aware of the desire in practically everybody (including me) for some 'noble' to look up to, but I reckon only good deeds as being worth of my admiration, so I look for accomplishment rather than...I dunno, what do you call celebrity? I guess it's simply an illusion of being familiar to many. Modern tech makes it a much closer illusion than was ever possible before, but it remains an illusion--fans don't 'know' the objects of their adulation, they merely know of them, at best know a lot about them. Actually knowing them would spoil the charm of the illusion.

There have been kings of England who were impressive and noble, perhaps even deserving of their thrones...no really, I'll think of one if you give me a moment...Henry V despite chevauchee? Edward I despite rape of Scotland? James I despite the deportment of the Borderers? He gave us a new Bible, after all. Alrighty, here's one: Alfred the Great. Can't think of one in the last millennium to whom I'd unreservedly bend the knee. And that goes double for France and triple for Spain.

marshcope| 4.21.11 @ 7:54PM

Reading Seek's comment on works of creativity about royalty I thought of those two great songs "From a Jack to a King" and "Queen of the Silver Dollar," and the recent movie "The Last King of Scotland," and there was that classic song about French royalty "Louie Louie" as well as Stan Frieberg's "You've come a long way old King Louie."

general summerall| 4.21.11 @ 9:42PM

According to Paul Kendall's old bio of Richard 3rd he was well loved in northern England because he took care of the people in the area; he may have murdered like crazy in London, but they loved him in York. A recent bio of Farmer George 3rd holds that the English people loved him, even if they hated Queen Charlotte and all thei kids. And the most loved king of the French people was Henry 4th, the common man's idea of a king

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:03PM

is good

More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain

More Articles From Special Report

The Inoperative Jay Carney

May 23, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/20/americas-royal-irony

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|45 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|39 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|21 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|19 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|8 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|11 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.