You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Cal Thomas: Wedding of the ... what?
2011-04-29
Count me among the abstainers. I won't be watching over-the-top media coverage of Friday's wedding between Prince William and the "commoner," Kate Middleton.
After the "wedding of the century" of William's mother and father in 1981 and the ensuing drama that led to their divorce in 1996 and, eventually, her death on Aug. 31, 1997, the wedding of their son is unlikely to match the earlier nuptials in pomp or circumstance.

Pete Broadbent, the bishop of Willesden in northwest London, demonstrated just how cynical we have become about these fairy tale weddings. Last November, the bishop compared the couple to "shallow celebrities."

He said their marriage is bound to fail. "I give the marriage seven years," he wrote on his Facebook page. But he wasn't through. He went on to trash Prince Charles and Princess Diana, saying of the media coverage of their wedding, "I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and I hope to avoid this one too."

The bishop, an anti-monarchist, cited a history of "more broken marriages and philanderers among these [royals] than not. They cost us an arm and a leg. ... Talent isn't passed on through people's bloodstock. The hereditary principle is corrupt and sexist."
I don't go ga-ga over royal weddings, and I'll probably miss this one -- I didn't get an invitation and I'll probably be washing my beard that day. (I don't have much hair left...) But I do have to take issue with his statement that "talent isn't passed on through people's bloodstock." There's lots of evidence to refute that didactic statement of the counter-intuitive. Intelligence (or the lack thereof) can be passed from parent to offspring in precisely the same manner as hemophilia, buck teeth, or red hair. We breed little white mousies all the time for this trait or that, to include the ability to think their way to the most direct route to the cheese.

To whit: Note that the prospective groom resembles his late mother in the face, while his brother got her hair and her complexion. Neither, thankfully, has their father's ears, and hopefully neither has his brain power.

Way back when, Henry VIII was begotten by Henry VII, who was no dummy, and Henry VIII begat the first Elizabeth who eclipsed the pair of them, both for intellect and for ruthlessness. When she pegged out she left the throne to James VI of Scotland, who as James I of England introduced the gene for dumbassery into the line. He got that from his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots. God knows where she got it, but it probably wasn't from Robert the Bruce.

James had a liking for funny hats and practical jokes and a firm belief in the divine right of kings. His son, Charles I had the same belief and as a result got his head chopped off and gave Oliver Cromwell his place in history. Charles II was the original "Good Times Charlie," fathering a dozen illegitimate children, most of whom got government jobs. James II was a divine right disaster.

While there have been kings and queens since then who've been well loved, like Queen Victoria and George V, none have been towering intellects.

Princess Di was a breath of fresh air for the royal family simply because her antecedents weren't picked from the stud book. Miss Middleton takes that a step further: her Mom was a stewardess and her Dad a flight dispatcher. They run a successful mail order company, implying they've got some business sense to them, which the royals demonstrably don't.

My guess is that given a few generations of out-breeding the British royals might become something more than a relic of days gone by. Whether they recapture the glory days of William I is another story. But a few throwbacks to the Plantagenets would probably scare the knickers off the current crop of Brits anyway.
Posted by:Fred

#9  Cal Thomas is a former protege of Jerry Falwell, who decided to become a conservative writer.
Posted by: badanov   2011-04-29 23:51  

#8  I don't know who this Thomas person is, but sounds like a blowhard wimp.

People getting married is neat stuff, especially for the right reasons, this just happens to be high publicity. Wife says last sentence is stupid, and I agree it has the key words of slanderers.

Nature vs. Nurture, I am straight down the middle; that is both are determinates. Too simply put, it is a D&D roll. Once a person comes out of the womb, they begin to be a product of environment - parents (who raises them). Example, no matter how hard I worked out I hit a peak, I am only so tall, my eyesight is so much, adrenaline at a point, so on. Now, how I use that becomes my decisions based upon my upbringing - am I a tunnel rat or am I a soccer player, do I stand up to a bully or do I shudder, do I fight or flight, how do I handle something new whether good or bad. These decisions create personality, or soul.

IMHO, and wife's, William is his own man and has chosen his life. Chuckie is only a peripheral, Charon if you will, and as someone who has gone out and did the deed, his decisions are his own and there he goes.

And piss on anyone who decounces any wedding based on social agendas, sad so called expert observer of life.

I piss on royalty, which is what Mr. Thomas procailms himself as, as my better. I have seen no such prejudices from Mr. or Mrs. William "the commoner" person. Whether they call themselve Kennedy, or Sebilius, or Baldwin, or whatever.

And no, I do not believe in the ruler for life; other very brave people fought against for my privilage of holding an opinion and said spirit still exists.

Simply, congratulations.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2011-04-29 23:44  

#7  Cal Thomas? I thought he was dead.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-04-29 23:22  

#6  That little thing on the girlfriend's head is called a fascinator, JosephM. About as many women at the church today chose to wear one of those as wore proper hats. The new princess has been photographed in such things on other occasions.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-04-29 21:55  

#5  Many Royal + Media Pundits believe the two daughters of Prince Andrew + ex-wife Fergie deliber wore OUTLANDISH, LADY GAGA-ESQUE HATS to the event, as exemplified by them sitting just behind Queen Liz + Prince Phil, to disply their angst at mom Fergie not being invited.

IMO a worse snub was PRINCE HARRY'S REPOR ON-OFF GIRLFRIEND CHELSY "I'M NOT GOING TO BE QUEEN IFF I MARRY PRINCE HARRY OR NOR, HENCE I DON'T CARE" DAVIS [spelling?] APPEARING TO BE THE ONLY FEMALE INVITEE/GUEST THAT SHOWED UP NOT WEARING ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT = BIG ON HER HEAD, save for a regular hair band. Prolly explains why the Medias focused more on Harry + other Royals, Ladies, e.g. POSH SPICE = VICTORIA BECKHAM, after Chelsy's arrival than later.

"I'M NOT-ANNA-LONGINOVA" POSH BECKHAM BLEW CHELSY AWAY, AS PER FASHION + PROTOCOL.

The wedding was smaller in scale than Charle's + Diana's back in 1981, but still very elegant + well-done.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-04-29 20:48  

#4  It's a cynical, negative, pessimistic world. Life beats us all up, some more than others, and I don't see how it helps to tune out what little good there is, or openly hope for its demise.

The Bishop of London's address was very uplifting. William's sober salutes were those of a real military man, not just a ceremonial one. It took place in Westminster Abbey, 1000 years old, times throughout which England had some self-respect. A country that once knew better, has now allowed itself to be overrun by Mohammedans, and submits to Continental rule. The celebration today underscored how backwards, Orwellian, and evil it all is. A healthy dose of perspective never hurts.
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-04-29 13:26  

#3  Nicely put, Random. Why can't people just enjoy something for once?
Posted by: newc   2011-04-29 12:46  

#2  A shame not to watch such a joyous, refreshing, much-needed change from the doldrums. Not only were the pomp and circumstance equal, but you can see the friendship and chemistry between William and Catherine, which was absent between Charles and Diana. They'll make it.

Not to mention how enjoyable it was to watch some beturbanned sheik at the service, and wonder how intensely uncomfortable he was with all the peaceful Christ stuff. Admittedly, it was infuriating to realize that about once a minute, I found myself wondering if you'd be able to hear the "allahu akbar" before one of his coreligionists blew himself to smithereens.

I hope this day reminds Britons what they're really all about, how much more they're capable of, and inspires them to reassert their identity.
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-04-29 09:20  

#1  Not much interest in the affair, except the picture I caught at Fox website of the young men in uniform on the way to the proceedings. At least someone still has that sense of noblesse oblige and has earned their spurs carrying themselves well without apology for doing so.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-04-29 08:49  

00:00