The Evil Sibyl - Part Three

Because there is no end to the antics of "Meghan and Harry" (I might as well write about it later) I hereby re-post my blog entries about this, well, recent addition to the Royal Family with a few updates added. My point in doing so is that everybody could have known "it".
I don't consider myself smarter than others (in the American sense of the word  - I DO, however, consider myself smarter in the English sense of the word than others*), so how could it happen?
What I did NOT expect, however, was the depth of depravity, shown by the disregard for Just-Call-me-Harry's very old grandparents, specifically during a global pandemic, and for the pandemic itself and the many people who have died from it and the millions who suffer under its conditions.
* [tongue-in-cheek alert for the slow!]
So here it goes:

The Little Mole and the Prince - A Fairy Tale



The above picture is the cover page of a German children's book called
"About the Little Mole Who Wanted to Know Who Crapped on His Head".

Once upon a time there was an only just young-ish woman from a faraway country who stood for everything good and noble and thus won heart and hand of a handsome prince overwhelmed by the goodness of her heart.

Her goodness was so zeitgeisty and her demeanour so impeccable, that it even melted the cold heart of an evil queen

Well, it wasn't quite so.


Behind the scenes, too, our princess-in-waiting made all the wrong moves, causing the tabloid press in Britain to dub her "Princess Pushy", an epithet first applied just as aptly to the (albeit in a different way) equally preposterous Princess Michael of Kent.

Can it get any more embarrassing than this? The poor, poor Prince!
(Btw, I hatch a pet theory which says that the more, well, colourful
the past of a bride is, the more coyly covered up she'll appear at her
wedding. Francesca von Habsburg and Grace Kelly come to mind.)
But back to Pushy Mark II.

The Trump-hater, who likes to think of herself as a "leftist activist", was spitting mad over the prenup her prince, or rather Her Majesty, asked her to sign. Then, there's Pushy's tantrum over the Obamas, demanding Barack and Michelle are on the guest list, and at that point the Queen took control, slapping the little mole hard with a "brutal surprise".

The young-ish bride was allegedly caught screaming at Prince Harry over the prenup, unknown so far within the Royal Family, livid that the Queen would require her to sign it, and the altercation was leaked to the media, something that doesn't sit well with the monarch.

The SUN, this paragon of journalistic ethos, reported, "Harry and fiancée Meghan Markle have told aides they want the former US president and wife Michelle at their big day on May 19. The young Royal couple’s dislike of the new president is well known."

Not really. Prince Harry's like or dislike of President Trump is not known at all. In fact, it's imperative that all members of British royal family never make their own opinions on politics known. It goes back to their official role as figureheads, as goodwill ambassadors, who must stay neutral at any time. (To what extent and how often the new addition to the royal family will publicly embarrass her future in-laws is speculation, but my money is on "cringemaking-" and "frequently". Women like her can't help it.)

However, it's not Harry's, but Little Miss Mole's "dislike" of Trump that is "well known", and if she lives up to her as insulting as apt nickname, we can safely assume that she has given Harry already an earful, peddling every liberal fake news there are about President Trump.

There's every indication that the Queen is not overly fond of the Obamas. Of course, she won't (and can't) speak out publicly, but only recently, Nile Gardiner*, a former aide to Margaret Thatcher and close friend of the Queen, spoke out about why the Obamas will not be invited.

What Mr. Gardiner said is, in a nutshell, that Barack Obama very obviously hated Britain and made no effort to hide it and that the former President used to be disrespectful to the British people and their queen. Remember, Obama sent back the bust of the Queen’s favourite prime minister, Winston Churchill, but that's not all. When Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave President Obama the charming present of a penholder made from wood of the HMS Gannet, he got in return a couple of DVDs, Queen Elizabeth was graced with an iPod with Obama's own speeches, and surely the Queen hasn't forgotten that Obama was fond of complimenting African countries on their independence struggles against England, never mentioning once that it was mainly thanks to the Royal Navy that the slave trade stopped.

But whatever, Princess Pushy can go ahead and scream all she wants about her liberal activism and her love of the Obamas, the Queen isn’t buying it. The Obamas will not be invited, so Gardiner, case closed.

I don't think, by the way, that Michelle O's backrub (one doesn't paw royalty) played a big part for the Queen in the process of her assessment of the Obamas. The old lady is used to badly brought up and rude people and presumably she only smiled forgivingly in retrospect. SHE was WELL brought up, after all.

Interestingly, Backrubgate didn't meet with much disapproval, at least not from the usual suspects, the same usual suspects who, on the other hand, fainted in horror and shock over President Trump's breach of protocol when he kindly and wellmeaningly informed the elderly wife of the young French President that she was "in great shape". Had he denied the Holocaust it wouldn't have been quite so bad.

But I digress.

When it comes to the wedding, the Queen is treading gently. If Pushy presumed she'd be getting hitched at one of the grand places for royal weddings, Westminister Abbey or St. Paul’s Cathedral, she presumed wrong. The Queen gave approval for second rate digs at Windsor Castle, not more.

The old lady also let the princess-to-be know that she'd have to be formally baptised and take religious/moral instruction and receive confirmation before she could marry Harry. That is another "brutal surprise" and doesn't, quite understandably, go well together with Pushy's "liberal activism".

Poor Pushy. A prenup, no Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral, no Obama, and all that degrading religious and moral instruction stuff. Looks to me more like a tragedy than a fairy tale.

I like Harry. The guy is a tough cookie and that always impresses me. Moreover, he comes across as a seriously nice guy, and who can forget the haunting image of the little boy walking behing his mother's coffin. But what amazes me is his choice of armpieces which suffers from a predilection for vulgarity, so far unknown in the family. (If we count Uncle Andrew out, that is.) And although my own "dislike" of his mother is "well known" as well, it is a fact that she never was, in spite of all her other shortcomings, vulgar, even not when her "English Rose" looks had long changed to "as hard as nails".

Harry's one really long relationship was the one with Chelsy Davy (sorry, but the first name IS rather cringeworthy), and although the young woman DID come across as a tiny wee bit, well, common, she's a lawyer now and not some tinpot American actress with a sleazy past and long past her prime. Chelsy didn't feel up to the role. Clever girl!

Harry's other long-ish relationship used to be the one with the lovely, well connected and very upperclassical Cressida Bonas (left at Glastonbury Festival with Harry). This young woman, too, didn't feel up to the role. Girls from such a background usually know, different from Hollywood sluts who think that the Queen wears a tiara in the lavatory, how the royal family functions and what it means to be part of it.

Yes, maybe poor Harry has "finally found his true love", to use one of the insufferably maudlin labels of which the gutter media and the little mole's adoring female fandom are so fond. I'd call it more prosaically, and you may call me bitchy, that he seems to be sadly reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel by now.

A fondness for vulgarity may happen to the best of men and even to a prince. Here we have an officer and gentleman, a soldier who served in Afghanistan and passed the rigorous Apache flying test and who is now jeopardising his own respect and that of his eminent family for a piece of cheap arse. Please explain men to me.

Why did the Queen allow it? Well, we are in the realm of conjecture here. Maybe she remembers her fatal decision to confront her sister with the almost unbearable choice either to remain a member of the royal family or to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend. Maybe she remembers the fatal first marriage the family forced upon the heir to the throne. Townsend was a divorced man, at that time an unthinkable choice for the daughter and sister of the supreme governor of the CoE, whilst Camilla Shand, although from an upperclass background, may have been considered not quite "royal material" back then.

In the meantime, her youngest son and the one of her grandsons who may one day be king, married young women from the middle classes and her eldest son in second marriage his back then not quite eligible early love - all notably successes. That may have been part of the decision as well - one could speculate.

Or did the royal family fear that their name would be mud had they not submitted to the Prince's wishes? After all, the bride-to-be has an (albeit hardly visible) smidgeon of "black" genes and, after all as well, the accusation of "racism" has become, whether justified or not, a razor sharp tool in the hand of the proverbial ape, i.e. the judgemental politically correct public and media.

But maybe she's just too old and tired to stand up against the modern tide of events in a world that has become increasingly dirty and debased.

May God Save The Queen.

First published January 30, 2018.

__________________________________________

* Interestingly, the source has been taken down and Gardiner has heavily backpedalled since then. Why, is open to speculation.

The Evil Sibyl - Part Two

Because there is no end to the antics of "Meghan and Harry" (I might as well write about it later) I hereby re-post my blog entries about this, well, recent addition to the Royal Family with a few updates added. My point in doing so is that everybody could have known "it".
I don't consider myself smarter than others (in the American sense of the word  - I DO, however, consider myself smarter in the English sense of the word than others*), so how could it happen?
What I did NOT expect, however, was the depth of depravity, shown by the disregard for Just-Call-me-Harry's very old grandparents, specifically during a global pandemic, and for the pandemic itself and the many people who have died from it and the millions who suffer under its conditions.
* [tongue-in-cheek alert for the slow!]
So here it goes:

The Duchess of Sussex invited a friend, namely her "makeup artist", to afternoon tea at Kensington Palace wheresoever.

That's he, so you know.

As a close and trusted and therefore per definitionem classy friend, he lost no time informing the world about what goes on behind the walls of Kensington Palace, so we know now, too, what treats had been waiting there for him.

I let William Hanson, here in the Daily Mail, take over. He fights with a foil, I with a sledge hammer.
'However, I am a great believer in the "your house, your rules" school of thought so if HRH The Duchess of Sussex wishes to serve it at her teas then good luck to her.

'I’m sure it was followed up with a delicious granola and hemp vegan scone.'

Fittingly, the chocolates are Fortnum and Mason's £13.95 Sandringham Coffee Truffles, which were served directly from the royal retailer's distinctive blue box.

The crockery was elegantly mismatched, with a brushed blue ceramic tea pot and cup sitting in contrast with the formal scalloped edged silver saucer and side plates.
What was it about?

This:


And because William Hanson is much too polite to utter what he REALLY thinks - no let me rephrase that: because he is a master of voicing his opinion with subtle irony, let me translate:
'Do what you like in your own house, but don't be amazed about the reactions from the polite part of society.

'And I'm sure what followed was bound to be even worse' or rather '...even worse New Age crap'.

It is, and we are not amazed, the bottom of bad manners to serve expensive chocolates (or anything else, really) from the box. What will be next? Tupperware?

To match cheap and ugly ceramic tableware with formal looking pieces [Style Queen's note: I think it's pewter, not silver] is tacky beyond belief.
I may be wrong, after all, I'm no mind reader.

But let's talk about the tables at Kensington Palace as well. Have they switched to raw timber lately? And to fringed floor cloth napkins? This doesn't seem to have taken place at Kensington Palace at all. My money is on Soho House, Markle's favourite bolthole, Soho Farmhouse in the Cotswolds here, to be precise. With their, as The Hollywood Reporter puts it, policy of "studied resistance to ostentation… [and] cultivated status signifiers" (the operative word is "studied") and preference of "moral values over financial success" (that's why the then two year old toddler daughter of actor Jude Law had to be briefly hospitalised in 2002 after having swallowed part of an ecstasy pill she found on the floor of Soho House London) they have set new standards of hypocrisy and faux progressive egalitarianism.

Yep, Soho Farmhouse it was!
The merchandising site "Meghan's Mirror" (no link), which has of course NOTHING to do with Markle, confirms my suspicions.



But whatever, at least some of the reactions from the usual Besotted-with-Meghan-Suspects had been quite favourable in the usual retard-meets-sycophant style.


No it doesn't. It looks disgusting and if I see epithets like "fabulously outrageous" (which translates to "tacky") and "healthy carb", I go sick.


Well, they are from F&M. Can't be too difficult to find them.

Dear sycophants, ANY of the 20-odd Soho Houses wouldn't even let you have a look at their studiedly non-ostentatious fabulously outrageous avocado sandwiches.

And no, this is NOT "down to earth" and "charming" either. Let me tell you why from a general etiquette point of view:
  • A table arrangement like that may be alright in undergraduates' digs. In other circumstances, not just in Kensington Palace, for guests, one brings out one's best china, silver, tablecloth and napkins according to one's means and apropos to the occasion. It is only polite.
  • One serves whatever food there will be in the most appealing and appetising form, not carelessly splashed about. It's, I repeat, only polite. (I wonder whether the Duchess made those sandwiches herself or whether she told the Soho House Kensington Palace staff: "Throw together some avocadoes and whole grain toast. Make it look home-made, healthy, charmingly down to earth and spontaneously combustible... errr... improvised.")
  • Traditional English afternoon tea is one of the most charming (yes, in this case "charming" IS applicable) ways to entertain a guest. So she deprived a visitor from abroad of such a unique treat. Why? BECAUSE IT FITTED HER AGENDA TO COME ACROSS AS "DOWN TO EARTH" AND "CHARMING" TO THE UNDISCERNING MASSES.
  • And no, I don't "know" that, but I bet the last remnants of my Royal Copenhagen and KPM Berlin china, as well as those of my family silver, that it HAD BEEN so.
From a royal etiquette point of view I'd say that one doesn't invite somebody of whom one can't be 100% sure of not spilling the beans. But that was exactly what she intended, wasn't it? (Again, I wager my china.) And to hell with hospitality, etiquette, good manners and the reputation of the eminent family into which she married and of which she has made laughing stock already only too often.

And the Best-Comment-Award goes to:
What sort of guest gets invited into someone’s home, photographs a meal served to them in kind, and as if that wasn’t non-u, goes blabbing about it to the media? Right! The kind who deserved whatever this is. I hope she spat in it too. ??
To be honest, it wouldn't amaze me.

The Evil Sibyl - Part One

Because there is no end to the antics of "Meghan and Harry" (I might as well write about it later) I hereby re-post my blog entries about this, well, recent addition to the Royal Family, some additional information included. My point in doing so is that I am sure that everybody could have known "it".
I don't consider myself smarter than others (in the American sense of the word  - I DO, however, consider myself smarter in the English sense of the word than others*), so how could it happen?
What I did NOT expect, however, was the depth of depravity, shown by the disregard for Just-Call-me-Harry's very old grandparents, specifically during a global pandemic, and for the pandemic itself and the many people who have died from it and the millions who suffer under its conditions.
* [tongue-in-cheek alert for the slow]
So here it goes:

A Cringe-Making Soap Opera Revised


As expected, this royal wedding wasn't like other royal weddings. Royal weddings are never zeitgeisty, never political and they follow since time immemorial a strict protocol.

This one didn't.

Not only did it do away with thousand years of tradition, it pushed a political agenda. It pushed it, for example, through the sermon by a clownesque black Episcopalian pastor swaggering folksily about "social justice" or a Gospel Choir embracing "diversity" to round out the picture of a Black Pride pageant.

Why? Because the bride is "black". As a matter of fact, she isn't any darker than most South Europeans. Her mother isn't all that "black" either. The daughter hasn't got any negroid features, her hair is straight. (Should she have straightened it, it would be a deplorable case of "cultural appropriation", because nappy hair is part of her heritage as any defender of the MoB's dreadlocks will be fond of saying.)

Thus (and not just in this case) the despicable "one drop" rule from the times of slavery comes back with a vengeance IF IT BENEFITS A SELF-IDENTIFIED MEMBER OF THE "MINORITY".

If I were black, I mean REALLY black, I would be disgusted by such a shameless attention-seeking travesty.

So far for politics, but there are other aspects as well.

The times when a bride with a royal background used to be conditio sine qua non are long gone. The groom's great grandmother wasn't royalty, but the daughter of a high-ranking Scottish nobleman. (The royal family probably hoped they might hit the jackpot again with Lady Diana Spencer because she came from a similar background. Well, they didn't.) In the meantime, the Queen's youngest son and the one of her grandsons who may one day be king, married young women from the middle classes, her eldest son in second marriage a lady with an upper class background and it worked all out splendidly. Her second son married a young upper class woman with a past which did, somewhat predictably, NOT work out well. So why bother in this case at all? Everything can happen, can't it?

Why? Because there are limits. The upper middle class Rhys-Joneses and the middle class Middletons were and are perfectly respectable people and Pa Middleton was a picture of dignity when he gave the future queen consort of England away. His good-natured calm and heartwarming pride not just during the wedding ceremony, but throughout the entire engagement, had made him a hero figure to fathers everywhere, and rightfully so...


but... THAT?


One more aspect? Here it goes.

The times when a virgin bride was expected at such events are over as well, last but not least, I suspect, because this particular scheme didn't, again in the case of Lady Diana Spencer, work out as hoped for the royals.

But what SHOULD BE required, so I think, is at the very least a modicum of respectability. This bride has ridden the cock carousel for about 20 years, has jettisoned her first husband with utter ruthlessness, jettisoned the man she was cohabitating with once she'd met Harry, her lauded acting career consisted almost exclusively of a supporting role in a Canadian cable-TV soap opera.



The Daily Mail regales us with this juicy bit of morsel. I spare you the pictures:
This one's a bit dirty, Harry!
... her latest role revelation might make the Royal family cringe, as it's been discovered that she once appeared in a very raunchy scene that saw her character getting caught performing oral sex on a high school hunk on 90210.
This is not, repeat NOT, royal material.

But whatever, let the show begin. The bride first, the others in no particular order.


She wore Givenchy. Many predicted she'd wear something unconventional. Of course she wouldn't. She's a clever girl. A mid-6-figure price-tag was rumoured. For much less than a tenth of that she could have gotten something REALLY nice from one of the upmarket prêt-a-porter lines some of which I've outlined here. But, IF one wears a fitted dress, shouldn't it at least... fit?



While white isn't anymore, and as far as we know never was, a symbol of bridal pureness, the veil undoubtedly still is. How a divorced woman, not to mention her sleazy past, could get away with it, mystifies me. As a Catholic, the "giving away" bit is alien to me. The oh-so-misogynist and reactionary Catholics don't do it To them, man and woman both enter a marriage as equals and out of their free will. (I think, though, it's a nice gesture if father walks his daughter down the aisle - as opposed to "giving her away" - if the bride is very young and marries the first time.) The meaning behind is, that the bride at that point leaves her own and joins the groom's family, a pointless exercise if the bride is middle aged and divorced, and I haven't even started to dwell on this bride's "strong feminist views".



I'm honestly trying not to be unfair, catty or snide here, but I think this middle aged face under veil and tiara looks …incongruous, to put it politely - with or without the cutesy "shy Di" charade.


Not even the Duchess of Windsor in all her shame- and ruthlessness, who was, by the way, 41 and thus only 5 years older than our bride when she married the Duke, went to that length. The dress was powder blue by the way.
Oh yes! And all those moronic equations between the two women get my goat and increasingly so. They were respectively are, both American and both tarts, but that's where it begins and ends. The Duchess of Windsor at least had been no CHEAP tart. She had impeccable taste, knew her etiquette and came from a RESPECTABLE American family.
I'd never thought I'd ever say anything nice about that woman.


Her Majesty the Queen looking dejected in one of those awful neon green outfits she sometimes chooses.
Reportedly, she wears those colours to stand out in a crowd, however, it wouldn't have been necessary here.


The Prince of Wales with the MoB. If I weren't convinced that he is a nice man anyway, I would it now. How he looked after the MoB without the slightest trace of condescension was touching - the essence of good manners.
MoB's dress and matching coat by Oscar de la Renta were very nice and appropriate and she accessorised it stylishly with a diamond nose-stud and dreadlocks. Well, what can one say. The usual argument is that "it's her heritage", which makes it worse.
I may be wrong, and it didn't occur to me when I wrote this the first time, but I think her mother was mainly invited to lend some credibility to the thin "bi-racial" claim. Different from the bride, one couldn't confuse her with a Caucasian, although her skin isn't all that dark and certainly not "black".


The Duchess of Cornwall, classy and elegant as always in a splendid light pink and with her lovely pearls. (There is a reason for mature women to wear necklaces like that, not necessarily pearls, but I won't spill the beans.)
She overdid it a bit with that hat, though.


The Duchess of Cambridge three weeks after the birth of her third child with little Princess Charlotte as one of the flower girls. Classy, picture perfect, yet unassuming as usual. She wore a dress in which she was seen twice before not to "upstage" the bride. THAT is class!

It is on the record that Duchess Catherine cried during the dress fitting for the flower girls, the reasons given for that vary. Some say that it was about tights (Markle wanted bare legs, the Duchess, in line with protocol, didn't. "What Meghan wants, Meghan gets." Guess who won?)
The second, and most unlikely, reason given for the disagreement was skirt length. I doubt that this would have been a reason for crying.
So what could make a seasoned royal known for keeping her composure at all times like the Duchess cry? Here we come to the third, and to me most likely, explanation. According to one source, Markle had voiced her opinion that little Charlotte wasn't "pretty enough" to be a bridesmaid. To me, it is the most credible version. Why?
  • Firstly, I wouldn't put it past her.
  • Secondly, because tights and skirt lengths are no reason for a royal professional to cry, not even within the postnatal period. This one, as any mother of a girl would understand, would be.
  • Thirdly, because it is more than probable that Markle was apprehensive that much-adored darling little Charlotte might take - even if only a tiny fraction - of attention away from her.
The "theory" was met with a lot of dissent, as the little Princess is so "adorable". Indeed she is. With the obvious sprightliness and intelligence in her little face, she is one of the loveliest little girls I've ever seen. However, she isn't (thank God!) "JonBenet-Ramsey-pretty", something Americans seem so to adore.

But whatever, we haven't been there, so let's behind any guesswork and get back to facts.

Markle reportedly said that she wanted "only the best". Well, the unimaginative flower girl dresses looked care- and lovelessly put together without a trace of originality or freshness. The same applies to the, well, footwear.


This is how flower girls ought to look and I took that photo from the royal wedding 2011 just for convenience. There are much, much less "grand" weddings that follow the same line.


The general consensus about "tightgate" was that Markle was right. It WAS a warm day, after all, although I'm sure 20 denier tights would have solved the problem (AND saved the little girls from chafing their feet), but what I found REALLY amazing was the fact that it wasn't obviously too hot to squeeze the page boys into preposterous little copies of the heavy Blues and Royals uniforms the groom and his supporter (that's royal jargon for "best man") were wearing.




But there is another aspect, although it's a matter of taste. As etiquette expert William Hanson puts it: "Trousers are for older boys and men, whereas shorts on young boys is one of those silent class markers that we have in England. Although times are (slowly) changing, a pair of trousers on a young boy is considered quite middle class–quite suburban. And no self-respecting aristo or royal would want to be considered suburban", as I've outlined here.
Honest to God, I always hated the pathetic dinky little suits they put on boys for their First Holy Communion here in Germany, decades before I learned about Markle's existence, specifically as…


… there a infinitely better alternatives available …


… informal …


… or formal.

But then, nobody has ever accused us Germans of having good taste. (The alternative pictures are from Spanish websites, Spain being, I was amazed to learn, the leading force in children's clothing. Notabene that Duchess Katherine dresses her children often in clothes from Spanish designers. They are by the way, quite reasonably priced.)

You may say now that the page boys at Princess Eugenie's wedding wore long trousers as well. They did, but it wasn't QUITE so bad because their outfit was clearly for children, not 1:1 copies of grown-up garb and the same applies to the page boy uniforms at the royal wedding 2011 seen above.


And to come to a close, here we can see how it ought to be, to wit at Pippa Middleton's wedding to James Matthews May 20, 2017. Trust the Middletons to never put a foot wrong and flower girls not to die from heat stroke wearing tights at a May wedding.



Just one more and rather unrelated remark. The Middletons are a remarkable family. Here we have two daughters, close in age, with one married to a future King of England and, to top it, noticeably prettier and more charismatic than her sister. So why is that remarkable? Because given the female nature it is well nigh incredible that no jealous bickering between the sisters is known. And, believe me, should there have been even a tiny whiff of it, the gutter media would have jumped on it like vultures on a carcass.
During the course of my now long life I have never - NEVER - come across a family, where a sister more favourably graced by nature or fate had NOT been the victim of sororal jealousy.

But back to the rest of the wedding guests.


Let's start with - of course - the Middletons, as usual perfectly apropos to the occasion, dignified and unassuming - royal in-law-material as it ought to be in spite of "humble origins".
They did bring up their daughters well.


Sister Pippa with new husband and a VERY nice dress (£495 from The Fold) that echoes the spring feeling.


The Princess Royal with her husband Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence. Nobody would ever accuse her of being well dressed, but...


...it could have been worse, MUCH worse. (Picture from the Royal Wedding 2011).


The Clooneys, in fact in spite of all the media-hype the only REAL Hollywood-A-listers attending.
That woman would look good in a potato sack, but here she got it SO right. That yellow dress by Stella McCartney is perfect in each and every aspect, colour, material, cut, style and she is one of the few women who got the hat size just right.
But George! GEORGE! Did nobody tell you that a gentleman never, NEVER wears matching tie and pocket handkerchief? And wasn't a royal wedding, however tacky, important enough to get morning dress? You look cheap and out of your depth in your ill-fitting lounge suit, not to mention the shoes which look bedraggled and unpolished.
In the meantime I've become a follower of the (so far unproven, but likely) theory that people (and even crowds - there ARE "hire-a-crowd"-organisations) were paid to show appreciation for the new member of the Royal Family. The bride was no Hollywood actress, no previous connection with the Clooneys is known, the Clooneys own a house not very far from this fancy gathering. WHO was paying them (should they have been paid) is open to speculation. But isn't, as her followers are fond of pointing out, the bride very rich in her own right?
Just sayin'.
Since the wedding, the Clooneys have turned out to be dedicated champions for the bride who, that has become clear by now, hadn't been on their radar before. Can somebody spell "social climber"?


This is the Michelin Man in a condom Oprah Winfrey in Stella McCartney. Words fail me at least about that outfit.
Like with the Clooneys, there is no previous relationship with the bride on the records.
However, it seems that she and the groom get on since the wedding like a house on fire, as they are making a documentary series about mental health together.
On her eponymous talk show Winfrey routinely endorsed faux science and fake spiritual hucksters. In 2006, she commended one of the most anti-intellectual products of the decade: a book and video called "The Secret", which promises that anyone can have anything they want as long as they visualize it. It went on to sell 20 million copies internationally.
Logic, reason and empathy don’t guide that woman, money does.
Another step this eminent family takes downward from royal- to celebrity status.
Good luck Your Royal Highness.
Post-factum observation: That the couple invited Hollywood "A-listers" they'd never met before to their wedding lends credibility to the theory, that they'd planned their ill-fated escape to Los Angeles right from the start.


Here we have the lovely Lady Kitty Spencer, cousin to the groom, who came in my book a short second to Amal Clooney dress- and lookwise, in Dolce & Gabbana. I specifically like that the accessories pick up the colour of the flowers.
Maybe Amal comes just a tad more unselfconsciously elegant across than Lady Kitty.
(No idea who the baleful-looking thang with scraggy hair in the obviously home-crocheted horror is. Besides, ankle straps are unspeakably common.)


Lady Jane Fellowes née Spencer, aunt to Lady Kitty and the groom, reading at the service. She wears a Shibumi Nehru Coat in Duck Egg.


Emilie Van Cutsem (first row, second from the right), widow of Hugh van Cutsem, wears a Shibumi Delphine Coat in Flame. The lovely Shibumi pieces are in a three-figure price range.
The van Cutsem family are long-standing friends of the Prince of Wales and his sons. Mrs. van Cutsem's sons William and Nicholas are godfather to Prince George and Prince Louis respectively. The van Cutsems are Catholic.


Earl Spencer, who hasn't aged well something that often happens to serial adulterers, with a VERY self-consciously elegant version of the caped crusader or Cruella De Vil, i.e. the third Countess Spencer in a boringly monochromatic custom Pamella Roland outfit as his armpiece and a daft-looking matching tie.


Sir John Major, who HAS aged well, with his wife Dame Norma.
Sir John, whose father was a Music Hall tight-rope walker, was the only politician invited, because he was appointed special guardian of Prince William and Harry after their mother's death.
The couple couldn't have turned out better. Another prime example of how "little people" (which used to be the epithet for them when John Major came into office) can sometimes outshine their "betters".


I don't know who that is, but I sometimes feel a burqa isn't ALL bad. Keep her away from the buffet or she might spontaneously combust!


Serena Williams and husband.
And no, dear co-commentator, her "fitted Versace dress with the gathered detail at the waist", did NOT give her an "hourglass shape". It highlighted her enormous mammilae and natibus, which made me ask myself how she lugs them across Wimbledon court. As a tennis expert put it: "Things I'd rather do than watch Serena Williams play: A. Drink Bleach B. Take a bullet C. Lose all of my limbs."


The stylish and beautiful Cressida Bonas (29), former girlfriend of the groom, wore a fully bespoke cotton dress made by hand in the EPONINE Atelier in South Kensington.
SHOULD her intention have been, which I can't believe as she is in a totally different league, to upstage the bride, she did it successfully and in the most classy and reserved way and that's why she gets a second picture.


The Beckhams. Victoria wears her usual pout and one of her own creations. I like the latter. It's modern yet chic and classy. She got a lot of flak because of both, the pout and the dress, although some other women wore dark blue as well. I've got a lot of time for that woman because she comes across as competent as businesswoman as well as as wife and mother, AND because she isn't the kissy-huggy-type who craves for approval. AND because she has been married to the same man for donkey's years now, whilst living in the scumbag world of  "celebrities".


But, dear David, you committed the mortal sin to wear your pocket handkerchief in a straight line on top. That's a BIG no no, even though Prince Philip wears it that way! Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.


This is some polo player whose name I didn't catch. He is wearing half a pint of salad oil in his coiffure and an ill-fitting double breasted (DOUBLE BREASTED! YUCK!) lounge suit. Maybe he couldn't find a buyer for that pony so he couldn't afford morning dress. His tie is tied crookedly and he's committing the same mortal sin as David Beckham with his pocket handkerchief. His armpiece either wears a nightdress or the bedroom curtains.


I had to look up who that is. It's a disc jockey called Idris Elba who didn't seem to have funds for morning dress either. Maybe he needed a new turntable. However, different from the case above, his entire lounge suit outfit is impeccable and his partner's Gucci accoutrement, accessories included, very nice, albeit a bit "wintry" for a spring wedding.


Somebody from Suits (I guess). Unconventional and striking. Nice smile, lovely dress in very becoming colours, well cut and with just the right skirt length. Third place after Amal Clooney and Kitty Spencer as far as I'm concerned.


Again no idea who that is, so I guess they're from the Suits cast as well. His vague approximation of morning dress is almost - on second thoughts, no, REALLY - endearing, and she must be admired for finding a way to show her tits whilst wearing a high-necked dress. The bordeaux cloth, cleverly partnered with black accessories, is jolly and exudes spring vibes.


I went deliberately for a photo IN church, so that nobody could say: "But surely she covered herself up during the service." Words fail me. (I looked it up, that's an English television personality whose name I refuse to remember and that happens when royalty mix with scum celebrities.)


After that, even Sarah, Duchess of York comes across as personable and dignified in a navy suit dress with pink piping by Emma Louise Design, a Windsor based designer, which would be very nice if worn by somebody else, no matter who, even the stable cat.


Well, what can one say? Maybe they wished to have at least SOME old queen crying at the wedding.


Here we have Tom Inskip, Prince Harry's  former trusted and ultra-loyal "wingman" since their time at Eton together with his wife The Honourable Lara Hughes-Young. What a lovely redhead! However, her dress, whilst perfectly correct in general, is boring, even drab and not what one would expect at a royal wedding. It is reported that "Skippy" has been frozen out by Harry at Markle's request and the couple wasn't invited to the evening "do" at Frogmore House. However, the two got their own back. Whilst most people would bend over backwards to have a prince as godfather for their child, Harry wasn't asked when their son was born in May 2020. Hat off to the Inskips!


The much overlooked Countess of Wessex, absolutely perfect in every respect in her satin weave skirt with embroidered grey top by Suzannah with a matching Jane Taylor hat. It was a bit difficult to find a picture. I guess because she isn't within the "glamorous" league anymore and not vulgar.

Zara, Mrs. Michael Tindall, the Queen's pretty granddaughter, with her rugger star husband Mike a couple of days before the birth of her second child.


Nobody would her, like her mother, accuse of being particularly well dressed, however, her hilariously funny account of the wedding in the Daily Star beats that of all other attendees hands down. To summarise, Zara Tindall didn't enjoy the wedding, because she was uncomfortable, and she was, she said, particularly unimpressed with the Episcopalian bishop, even admitted she couldn’t wait for the sermon to end. "I think my face was probably caught at the point when I thought: 'Right, he's going to finish now', and then he went off on another little story, and it was like, 'Really'?" Explaining how the seats weren't very wide, the heavily expecting mother added: "My bum sort of slid over either side and Lena [the baby] kicked the hell out of me for an hour. It just wasn't comfy at all and it probably showed on my face."


Zara is, like her mother used to be 40 years ago, one of the best three-day-event-riders of her generation. She runs a professional eventing stable and is, again like her mother, a thoroughly tough cookie.

And here she is, the mother, on the Queen's Goodwill, at Badminton Horse Trials 1973. 


At her own wedding, Zara wore an indeed lovely off-the-peg ivory silk dress designed by Stewart Parvin.


No, dear glossy magazine gutter scum, this is NOT Sofia Wellesley, the grand-daughter of the 8th Duke of Wellington, with some singer as her armpiece, this is James Blunt, an officer, gentleman and close friend of the groom who happens to be a singer now with his armpiece and wife Sofia Wellesley.
Her Red Valentino dress isn't exactly butt ugly, but with its textured macramé-embroidery it looks like something to survive a harsh winter in and wow - DO I hate the coy Peter-Pan collar. Some idiot fashion commentator (a tautology if I've ever seen one) said: "This look is very sophisticated... she gets it just right for a spring wedding." Yep! For a spring wedding in Siberia.


Above the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York with their father The Duke of York. Eugenie in a bespoke Jackie-Kennedy-esque dress by Gainsbourg and pillbox hat to match, her sister went in the opposite direction with a bespoke turquoise Roksanda Viola dress with billowing transparent sleeves and a hundredweight of little beads.


Nobody will ever accuse them of being well dressed either, although it could have been much, much, worse if you look at the above picture from the royal wedding 2011.
Point made and that's it. Targeting those girls would be shooting sitting ducks. I'll save my snide remarks for the Hollywood exhibits.

So some more fashion commentator idiocy?

When Meghan's friends arrived there was a definite sense that here were some ladies who meant business.
[You bet your arse they did.]

With their bold tailoring and confident struts there was an unmistakeable non-Britishness going on.
[I guess one can put it like that. Good that somebody noticed.]

"I loved all the American glamour-zons [Gosh, how embarrassingly punny!], who showed up. They were just so much better groomed than everyone else."
[Words fail me.]

Bollywood star Priyanka Chopra wore a pale lavender Vivienne Westwood skirt and blazer and Suits star Abigail Spencer [left, NO relation] stood out in her forties-inspired polka dot tea dress.
[The one on the right looks like another Michelin Man in a condom with an overflowing icecream cone on top, the one on the left looks at least not vulgar, just ridiculous. (Notice the ankle straps, the very epitome of vulgarity.)]

"Abigail Spencer looked just divine in her Alessandra Rich dress... Polka dots never go out of style, and she just nailed the look."
[Yep! As the divine Schoolmarm Goddess of Frumpyness.]


Predictably, the media gushed about all this but virtually nobody seemed to notice that particularly the royal family, maybe with the exception of the Duchess of Cornwall, markedly dressed down. The men, apart from the Duke of Cambridge as best man and the groom, didn't wear uniform, the Prince of Wales' morning dress was of the variant where all parts (coat, waistcoat and trousers) are of the same colour and material, which is considered less formal.
Her Majesty wore nothing she wouldn't have worn at any less formal event, the Duchess of Cambridge wore a thrice-recycled outfit.

Another marked difference at this wedding had been … THAT:


Neither red nor blue for this bride. I hadn't noticed it. Cordial thanks go to the Banana Baroness blogger!

Apart from members of the Spencer family and Sofia Wellesley, I haven't spotted any entries from Burke's Peerage or Debrett's, but maybe that is because the glossy magazine gutter press was too busy covering the antics of the Hollywood dregs to notice some boring, fuddyduddy old gentlepeople.

To stress my point, here is a video of the wedding of the Duke of York to Sarah Ferguson at Westminster Abbey [sic!] in London 1986. As fourth in line at that time there wasn't a higher probability of Prince Andrew inheriting the throne than in the case of Prince Harry, who is sixth. However, the difference in the staging of the two weddings is stunning. Just a few glimpses at this almost three hour video ought to be enough.



As an aside, I was amazed how likeable and genuine the young Sarah Ferguson comes across in an interview early in the video. But that's an upper class young lady for you, who hasn't attended "acting school", whatever hash she may have made later of her marriage.
The other marked difference, and this must be obvious to everybody with functioning eyesight, was, that for Sarah it was all about her man.

This part of the guest list from Wikipedia is interesting as well. Granted, Prince Andrew is the son of the Monarch, Prince Harry the grandson, the difference is still stunning.


But back to our latest wedding, glossy magazine gutter press and showbizz dregs.
There was much brouhaha about all the Hollywood A-listers attending. I'm not "into" this sort of entertainment anymore, so I may be wrong, but apart from George Clooney I didn't spot any A-listers and I'm not into "celebrities" generally, but according to many comments in the social media, it seems that there is no credible previous connection between the bride and Oprah Winfrey either. I am wondering now, how many of those superfluisms (I made that word up not to decline to vulgarities) had been paid to attend.

There are, as far as I can make out, two British "leading etiquette experts" of ubiquitous media presence. None of them seems to find, apart from little details like, for example, "Meghan's" style to wave at the public (it has got room for improvement) anything objectionable about the latest addition to the royal family. One even had the nerve to gush over her "adorable giggle" (yes, that of a woman fast approaching 40) and that, of all things, just after he had appreciatively mentioned in the previous sentence that she went to, yes, "acting school". Maybe they couldn't, in their professional capacity, dare to be more censorious, but somebody please explain men to me.

Why all this could take place at all I have discussed here already.

Now, after the fact, I'm additionally asking myself why it could happen in the way it did. Did the royal family fear that their name would be mud had they not submitted to every whim and fancy of the bride-to-be? After all, the accusation of "racism" has become, whether justified or not, a razor sharp tool in the hand of the proverbial ape, i.e. the judgemental politically correct public and media.

When all is said and done, it seems that the more traditionally minded part of the public does NOT seem to be so enamoured with all this (at the peril of being accused of racism). I wonder whether the Royal Family have chosen their side wisely.

Is this really all that important? Let the gutter media lie about how wonderful the wedding had been, how heart warming and "inclusive" the service, what mega-important people had been there, how glamorously even the most vulgar obese old trout had been turned out. Why not, after all?

Well, I'm afraid all this is part of a larger picture. Looking at it with dispassionate eyes, it seems to be of rather secondary importance whom and under what circumstances the nth in line to the British throne marries. But as a spectacle like this finds huge public attention worldwide and because people are dumb, gullible and in search for a vicarious life, it IS interesting how such an event is handled by an increasingly manipulative, politically correct and "progressive" media that sees itself (maybe not even always consciously - here we have the dreaded "zeitgeist" again) more and more on the social-justice-warrior-side and not on the side of someone whose job it is - to report.

This gushing approval of everything that goes against tradition, established, proven and tested values, dignity, common decency and good taste, THAT is the frightening bit.