The Royal Wedding: Is The Coverage Media Overkill?

Fast Eddie VII, The original Prince of WHales

LOL

I should have known -just read "The King´s Speach"

Whoa . . . you're way behind . . . if his grandma don't outlive him, he'll be Edward IX.

Too many Eddies, not enough time.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/jackalope/2011/04/a_really_stupid_hat_royal_wedd.php
Vagina Hat

And, that girl looks insane without the hat. Is she coked up or what?

I didnt find the clitoros. Then i thought... typical male

LOL!!!

That is not a vagina , that is a symbol of authority for the emissaries of the overlords of the REMULAK planetary system. It only looks like a vagina to an earth person.






NOW THATS A VAGINA

Those poor girls, saddled with Fergie's terrible taste and build and their father's mouth full of large teeth. You have to wonder why someone close to them wasn't helping them with their outfits, and that guy, Treacy, who made the hats - what was HE thinking?? He's supposed to be such a talent - why would he have a) let them walk out of there like that (particularly Bea), and 2) marred his reputation to such a degree? Her hat was just plain hideous and pointless.

There's a website devoted to Bea's other horrible hats

I didn't care much for many of the head gear out there - there were a few tasteful ones (Carole Middleton), but Camilla was wearing a huge white sombrero-type thing, Victoria Beckham's didn't do anything for her, and all those crazy fascinators! I mean, it's an ACCESSORY, people.

I understand that it is now only a symbol of the evil that is a true monarchy, but why celebrate and maintain the symbol? I'm not really talking about wedding coverage, that is no different from celebrity coverage and people are given what they want. My objection is to the continued existence of the constitutional monarchy.



I find the presidential deference in America silly as well but I do think there are fundamentally important differences in that the president was actually elected to lead the country and isn't a symbol of non-representational governance.

When the monarchy has real teeth it is often evil, and keeping benign symbols of this around is something I don't find worthwhile. Dynastic power and wealth are will forever be with us but we need not grant them constitutional officialdom.

I vacillate between thinking how horribly like their mother they look and act - wearing awful clothes and walking like her, so awkwardly - and then getting mad at myself for being one of the multitude that should not be paying a bit of attention to such lame things.

Poor "Crazy-Eyes" Windsor.

Well, I can't disagree with that...except that I do consider the Presidency to be now pretty irrevocably a symbol of power and wealth (if not INHERITED necessarily...but if you look at some of your recent dynasties it has been) as well...since you have to be more than a millionaire to even think of running.

Perhaps Obama is an exception to this?Not sure.

I don't disagree with what you are saying.

But I think that maintaining the monarchy, even as a symbol, helps to maintain a long continuity of tradition as an important aspect of British history that endures, despite the ephemeral nature of the elected government. However, in this day and age, I find it a little odd that the national anthem should still be "God Save the Queen"--as though the monarchy was absolutely essential. It's not, it's a symbol of British history, and, in it's more positive aspects, a symbol of British national pride.

And, the monarchy allegedly contributes to boosting tourism. Whether this helps them to earn their keep is certainly debatable.

We really don't have much pomp and circumstance connected to our presidency, beyond what is generally accorded to an elected Head of State. Ours is much more about respect for the office, as our highest elected national representative and leader, and less about the person who holds the office at any given time. The president represents the people of the United States, and not any particular family dynasty or bloodline, and any natural born citizen can aspire to the office. And just as he was elected to the office by the people, he can be removed by the people if they are dissatisfied with his job performance.

Once the media began exposing the private lives of the Royal family, in the middle of the last century, I think their days became numbered. When they were considerably more remote, and shrouded/protected from prying eyes, they were able to maintain a mystique they no longer enjoy.

My vote for best dressed would be The Beckman's:

David was truly spectacular.

I didn't like Posh much though. She was too dark and gloomy in both outfit and affect (David was bubbly and smiley and chatting with everyone, she looked bored and dour).

And after my eye acclimated to the British morning wedding way of dressing, she seemed too boring, even with the fascinator.

I think Beatrice's outfit had potential, there was something about the colors and the way she and her sister looked together that threw it off. If they'd each been with a male escort I think they would have looked less jarring.

In general I liked the whimsy and creativity on display.

Should a pregnant woman wear such high heels? She could fall right on her royal butt.

I agree though that she looked spectacular!

Poor women......all in the same outfit

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382613/ROYAL-WEDDING-Spotted-unlucky-women-leopard-print.html

Bad enough that she dressed like a ghoul for the wedding, but he had his order pinned on the wrong side when they arrived. Before they made it inside, someone nabbed him and re-pinned his award.

I read that her shoes had been custom-modified, with an extra high platform added on the front so the angle inside the shoe wouldn't be as great.

Those shoes are ridiculous looking.

When they get that high, they look like someones idea of a joke/parody of a shoe.

Christ, the arch of her foot is completely vertical. That just looks preposterous.

"unfortunate" - you are being way too kind.