A note to those of my readers...

...and I know who you are, who think that I am too much preoccupied with beauty and that I'm judging people based on their looks.

This is, what a genius said:

"People say sometimes that Beauty is superficial. That may be so. But at least it is not so superficial as Thought is. To me, Beauty is the wonder of wonders. It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."
(Oscar Wilde)

Dogs of War

"Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war".
(Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1.)

 We owe them much!

Chris Collingwood, "Trench Pals".

































A Cringe-Making Soap Opera

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 Episcoplian 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 "black" either. I'd say she is a quarter black which would make the bride what was once called an "Octoroon". She 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 is 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 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?

Why? Because there are limits. The middle class Rhys-Joneses and the 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...


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 20 years, has jettisoned her first husband with utter ruthlessness, her lauded acting career consisted mainly of a cheap, albeit popular, American 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 6-figure price-tag was rumored. For a tenth of that she could have gotten something REALLY nice (and probably better fitting) at one of the upmarket prêt-a-porter lines some of which I've outlined here.
White isn't anymore, and probably never was, a symbol of bridal pureness, but the veil undoubtedly still is. How a divorced woman, not to mention her sleazy past, could get away with it, mystifies me.

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.

Her Majesty the Queen looking dejected in one of those awful bright green outfits she sometimes chooses.

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.
MoB's outfit is quite nice and appropriate, but dreadlocks and nose-stud... well, what can one say. The usual argument is that "it's her heritage", which makes it worse.


The Duchess of Cornwall, classy as always. She overdid it a bit with the hat, though.

The Duchess of Cambridge three weeks after the birth of her third child with little Princess Charlotte. Classy, picture perfect, yet unassuming as usual.

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


The Middletons, as usual picture perfect, dignified and unassuming - royal in-law-material as it ought to be in spite of "humble origins".

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, see picture below from the royal wedding 2011.
Point made!

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.

This is the Michelin Man in a condom Oprah Winfrey in Stella McCartney. Words fail me.

Here we have the lovely Lady Kitty Spencer, cousin to the groom, who came in my book a very short second to Amal Clooney dress- and lookwise.
(No idea who the baleful-looking thang with scraggy hair in the obviously home-crocheted horror is.)

Lady Jane Fellowes née Spencer, aunt to Lady Kitty and the groom, reading at the service.

Earl Spencer, who hasn't aged well, with a daft-looking version of the caped crusader.

Sir John Major, who HAS aged well, with his wife Norma.
Sir John, whose father was a 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.

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 the tennis court.

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 doubt, 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 generally competent AND because she isn't the kissy-huggy-type who craves for approval.
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!

This is some polo player whose name I didn't catch. He is wearing half a pint of salad oil in his hair and an ill-fitting double breasted (DOUBLE BREASTED!) lounge suit because nobody bought that pony so he couldn't afford morning dress. His tie isn't tied properly  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.

"Can somebody show me the way to the buffet? It's urgent!"
Sarah, Duchess of York in a suit which would be quite 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.


The much overlooked Countess of Wessex, absolutely perfect in every respect. 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 granddaughter, with her rugger star husband a few days before the birth of her second child.
Nobody would her, like her mother, accuse of being particularly well dressed, and she 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.
Point made!

This one gatecrashed the wedding inadvertently on her way to the beach. I couldn't find out her name, because she wasn't on the list of invitees. She couldn't have been, I'm sure, because those were given instructions how to dress appropriately. There CAN'T BE any other explanation.

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 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." Yes. For a spring wedding in Siberia.

The Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York with their father The Duke of York.
Nobody will ever accuse them of being well dressed either, although it could have been much, much, worse if you look at the below 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.

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.]
"Abigail Spencer looked just divine in her Alessandra Rich dress... Polka dots never go out of style, and she just nailed the look."
[She did indeed - should you have a Mary Poppins re-enactment in mind.]
Predictably, the media gushed about all this but virtually nobody seemd 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.
The Queen wore nothing she wouldn't have worn at any less formal event, the Duchess of Cambridge had probably recycled again one of her outfits.

Apart from members of the Spencer family, 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.
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 Hollywood dregs.
There was much brouhaha about all the Hollywood A-list 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-lister.

There are, as far as I can make out, two (self-proclaimed) 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". 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 shit 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.

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 has chosen her side wisely.

Is this really all that important? Let them lie about how wonderful the wedding had been, how heartwarming and "inclusive" the service, what mega-important people had been there, how glamorous even the most vulgar obese cow 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, poltically 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.