Wednesday, November 17, 2010

William and Katy up in a tree...

So Royal Billy and mainstreet Katie are finally getting married, but not until next year so there’s no need to get too excited just yet. The good thing is that with the sort of lead-time the cheap-crap industry now has some time to spin up and flood the market with commemorative plates, mugs, ash-trays and whatever else they can manage to squeeze a crappy likeness of the happy couple on. I am quite sure that all those investors who spent a bundle on this stuff way back when Chuck and Di tied the knot (1981) are just salivating at this coming opportunity to add to their collections. Thirty years is a long time to have waited, but for the serious crap collector, it will no doubt have been well worth the wait. And just think, in about fifty or a hundred years all of this stuff will start showing up on some future version of Antiques Roadshow where some “expert” will declare, “Holy crap! You spent actual money on this stuff?” Heh.

Now something that struck me back in ’81 with the run-up to the Charles and Diana nuptials was when the official Royal family doctor announced to the waiting world that the blushing bride had been examined and she was, in fact, a virgin. Oddly enough a similar announcement was not made regarding Charles, which could mean either of a couple of things. Perhaps this meant that Chuckie had already busted his nut, or even more likely it was just assumed by everybody that Chuck was so obviously a virgin that to announce it would only be redundant. Anyway, what I am getting at is, I have to wonder whether we are going to find out if Kate and William are “pure”.

It has to be said, they are a pretty good looking couple (although in my alpha-hetro way, I think that she is way hotter than he is, and considering the genetic lottery he won by following in his mom’s path, looks-wise, the fact that he is even coming in second in this race is pretty good), and this suggests that one or both of them may have (to be delicate) “made the beast with two backs” once or twice previous to their current relationship. And the people have a right to know.

Or do they? I think a lot of people shouldn’t be trusted with anything any more challenging than a rubber ball, but then this isn’t the quaint old days of the early 1980’s and in our brave new world of Facebook, Twitter, LoudmoutH and all the other social networking web-sites a lot of what normal people call “privacy” doesn’t even exist any more. At least it doesn’t to a significant portion of the world’s population. Who is, or is being, rodgered by whom is pretty much open domain info these days and thus, the “rodgering” act isn’t as private as it once was. Or, by implication, as important. Maybe sad, maybe not, it is just the way it is.

I admit though, even back in 1981 I found it bizarre that Diana’s sexual situation was announced to the world’s press. In the first place I didn’t care if Diana had ever been “active” or not and in the second place it was none of my, nor anybody else’s business. The ginks at Buckingham Palace saw it differently though and so the announcement was made and we were all just a little bit wiser, or not. With any luck at all these self-same ginks are no longer at the Palace, having been put out to pasture or made into glue or something, and the current generation of Palace ginks doesn’t feel it is necessary to humiliate the happy couple. I think you call it respect.

Anyway… Humouroceros

PS: If either of these kids has been “active” in the past, I wonder how long it will be until the first tell-all book shows up. Wouldn’t that make a nice little wedding keepsake?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home