petermorwood: (Default)
[personal profile] petermorwood
I’ve been feeling pretty down, for two very good reasons, so today’s foofaraw left me colder than usual and I didn't watch it. Stuff to research, then stuff to write, and a quick Spellcheck correction to make sure there's always an umlaut in Obersturmbannführer and the other cumbersome SS ranks. I have my reasons... ;->

Diane recorded some of the material so I could examine Ruritanian ceremonial, uniforms and so on, though strictly ""Ruritanian" should read "Upper Saxon with a bit of Austro-Hungarian Bohemian", as pointed out by [ profile] silverwhistle, one of the most intelligent and articulate analysts of the region's dodgy politics and dubious PR. All very nice, twinkly and shiny, but if TV commentators are going to use obscure terms, then they need to know that calling an "epaulette" a "shoulder-board" is forgiveable, but that an "aiguilette" is not just a different and more fancy word for the same thing.

In all the processional stuff, there were two images that made me smile: a close-up of The Littlest Bridesmaid, bored out of her tiny skull and not afraid to show it, and a shot of the groom going "phew" in a way I identified with, having done it myself in similar circumstances a bit longer ago than yesterday. (I'll try to screen-cap these and post them later.)

However, when I was in our local pub with Diane, cradling blisters from digging in ground that was a quarter rocks and glumly drinking to the memory of a fine cat, a very fine cat indeed, we heard someone make the waspish comment that England should send some of the Royal Wedding costs his way, because "I now pronounce you man and wife" would start the countdown to the next Royal divorce and a book should be opened forthwith.

We didn't think much of it at the time; west Co. Wicklow isn't a hotbed of Royalist sentiment at the best of times, but a look at Google suggests he's not the only one. Indeed, given the recent Royal record on Royal marriages that last (not many, and none of the high-profile ones at all) five quid each way would probably be a safe investment.

Mesdames et messieurs, faites vos jeux...

Date: 2011-04-30 08:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I think they have a chance if he can keep his Grandparents from meddling about with them. They've been together several years and broken up and got back together a couple of times so they've probably worked out a lot of the wrinkles already plus she's not some doe eyed teenager who's main aim seems to have been to snare a royal. As long as she remembers that at this stage of the job her place is irreprochable brood mare untill she's produced at least one son, preferably two, and that they refer to themselves as 'The Firm' for a reason then I think they have a chance.

Date: 2011-04-30 04:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
One would like to think that the GPs have already taken on board the consequences of previous meddling.

It's also to William's advantage that brother Harry strikes me as what TV Tropes call a "boisterous bruiser" - the sort of lad to tell Grandpa Phil where to get off in terms more direct than diplomatic that the old sod might understand better than a hint (unless wrapped around a hammer.)

Date: 2011-04-30 08:33 am (UTC)
wolfette: me with camera (sakura)
From: [personal profile] wolfette
the grandparents have been married a good long time.

Date: 2011-04-30 05:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I did specify the recent record of Royal marriages.

The GPs are from another era, where (right or wrong) that sort of thing just "wasn't done."

Date: 2011-04-30 09:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I don't have statistics. Are British royal marriages any more likely to break up than those of, say, pop or film stars (to take other groups subject to intense media scrutiny)? My suspicion is that they are roughly the same for anyone in that sort of limelight.

It looks to me that they have started well, a lot of the days was things they had planned not the family doing it for them. I wish them well, just as I would any couple.

Date: 2011-04-30 05:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Personal view would be "less likely", on the grounds of fewer (pubic-scalp-hunting) temptations flinging themselves about in Royal surroundings than the pop, movie or sports equivalent.

However... Though without solid figures it's indeed difficult to make an informed judgement, the proportion is poor. Margaret, Anne, Charles and Andrew all divorced, though Edward, after pre-marriage speculation about alternate interests, probably does an Avis and tries harder.

Someone with more interest in statistics than me could probably work out how a similar proportion of high-media-profile marriages ended up over a similar period of time.

Date: 2011-04-30 11:56 am (UTC)
occams_pyramid: (Default)
From: [personal profile] occams_pyramid
I haven't heard yet when Murdoch has planned for the divorce to happen. Or even how long he'll wait after the wedding before switching to scare stories of them having marriage difficulties.

Date: 2011-04-30 04:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Re. Murdoch, and given the loopy conspiracy theories put about by Fayed (to assuage his own guilt at employing a drunk chauffeur) I do wonder if "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest media baron?" was ever heard over the Royal toast and marmalade.

Accidents happen. One happened to Maxwell...

Date: 2011-04-30 04:45 pm (UTC)
occams_pyramid: (Default)
From: [personal profile] occams_pyramid
And the cabinet papers around the time Stephen Ward committed a very convenient suicide are still locked up.

Date: 2011-04-30 05:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]

99% of professionally (I mean really professionally) organised XPDs won't be solved before the end credits, never mind by amateur websites or dodgy businessmen on a guilt trip.

The discovery of what really happened to Georgi Markov was a fluke combination of the victim being alive enough to suspect he had been poisoned, which prompted an unusually thorough autopsy. I wonder if that would have happened without Markov's own input, because I doubt many MEs go looking for a near-microscopic pellet containing ricin poison, air-injected from a fake umbrella!

One wonders how many targets before him were certificated as "natural causes." And how many after, come to that.

Date: 2011-05-01 02:35 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Had to look up "XPD". The context suggested the obvious definition, but it was good to have the Len Deighton reference at hand via Wikipedia.

Date: 2011-05-01 03:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Oops, sorry about that.

XPD (the title of a Len Deighton novel) is an acronym meaning "Expedient Demise" - the death of an inconvenient person who conveniently expires at what is coincidentally just the right time for them to do it.

Not assassination. Oh dear me no, (cough cough) nothing so crude.

But almost certainly similar to "Converted to His Majesty's permanent custody," from which one can draw one's own conclusions...

Date: 2011-04-30 12:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I'm sure the likes of Murdoch and Peladeau(over at Quebecor/Sun Media) and such are already trying to negotiate the cause and timing of any future royal divorce, but we may yet hope for the scuppering of same.

Not a Monarchist myself, but simply someone who hopes all the would-be meddlers of whatever stripe will leave well enough alone...

Date: 2011-04-30 11:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Leaving alone...unfortunately not while there's the claim of "public interest" and money to be made from meddling.

It won't happen (and would be deeply scary if it could!) but to see one, just one, press jackal chucked in the Tower for the duration of Her Majesty's pleasure* would be a real treat, and perhaps even a message to the others if they were bright enough to get it.

*and she's not pleased at the moment, not pleased at all.
(deleted comment)

Date: 2011-04-30 07:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
The Charles-Camilla business is a tangle of missed opportunities worthy of a Catherine Cookson book. If he had been able to marry her first, I think it would have stuck the way it looks to be sticking now.

As it is, he cheated on Diana with the woman he'd always wanted, while she cheated on him with what sometimes looks like half the Army List. But who gets to be the injured innocent? The pretty one, as always.

I like TV Tropes for its entertainment value, but the observations frequently have an unsuspected edge...

Date: 2011-04-30 09:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
My Brother -in- Law got married to the girl he was living with for 6 years. Two years and two kids later they are divorced...
So yeah, I'd like to bet that it may not last.

Date: 2011-04-30 11:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Or maybe it will.

I met Diane at Albacon (Glasgow) in Spring 1985; again at Dragoncon (London) in Winter 1985; again at UFPCon (Birmingham)in Spring 1986; again when she visited N.I. in mid-Summer 1986; got engaged at WorldCon (Atlanta) in late Summer 1986; got married at Boskone (Boston) in Spring 1987.

Not that many meetings, not that much living with, but so far, 24 years and counting... :-D

Date: 2011-05-01 01:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Well you wouldn't have thought that, having lived with each other for 6 years that they were likely to want to divorce.

However getting married evidently put some sort of pressure on that simply living with each other didn't.

Not that I'm saying it would in Kate and Will's case :¬D

April 2017


Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 06:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios