 |
The happy couple as seen on TV |
It is quite interesting to listen to the coverage of the marriage royale on French TV and radio. It isn’t so much “coverage”, as more “amused comment”. Unfortunately my French is not yet able to pick up all the nuances, but it appears they are somewhat bemused by the way the whole of the Royaume-Uni has become so focussed and besotted with the happy couple and their forthcoming event.
Over here, there is still quite a bit on the news about the crise (financial crisis), immigration, healthcare, tsunamis and tornados, impending nuclear disasters, atrocities in Libya, as well as revolutions all over the Middle East. For some reason, (possibly connected to the battle of Crecy, the Hundred Years War, or General de Gaulle and his anti British rhetoric) they don’t seem to understand how the British could regard a Royal Wedding as much more important an event than any of these.
 |
No more royal weddings in La France (no more Royals) They, of course, dispensed with their monarchy over two hundred years ago. Instead they have the very laudable sentiment of Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité. Of course, the trouble is Egalité does not allow for things such as a Royal Wedding. Instead they have to make do with the romantic goings on of their Presidents. Sarkozy is not as colourful as Berlusconi in this regard, but at least his wife is not only very attractive (like Kate), but she also has lots of interesting "history" (unlike Kate). |
 |
The happy couple |
Kate, in contrast to Carla, has had to do very little to get noticed, all she has had to do is stand (looking charming and demure) next to the future king of England. William, of course, has not had to do anything in particular because he, unlike Nicolas Sarkozy, does not have to wheel and deal (or even get any votes) to become Head of State. He can also be fairly relaxed about things because, unlike Sarkozy, he won’t be voted out next year, all he has to do is simply stay alive.
 |
Harry and William in morning coats |
 |
Cameron lounging about in a lounge suit |
The French are, of course, totally baffled by the controversy over whether Cameron, Clegg and the rest of the Government will be wearing lounge suits or morning coats. A few enterprising media men have looked these up in the dictionary, but this has only caused even more confusion. They cannot see why anyone would attempt wearing a sofa and two chairs, or why you would go to a royal wedding in a light weight dressing gown and slippers. Dress sense is not a great concern beyond the fashion houses of Paris, so this particular story has made little headway.
My mother (who is going to a Royal Wedding party at one of her friends) told me it is expected that two billion people will be watching the wedding on television. Personally, I have never met either Kate or William. I am sure they are charming, but Georgi and I don’t normally go to the weddings of people we don’t know, let alone watch them on television. I fear, therefore, there may only be 999,999,998 viewers on Friday.
 |
A baby, (possible future Head of State?) |
What does concern me though, is all the discussion there has been about the future rules of succession if Kate and William have a baby girl before having a boy. Having married one, I am all in favour of girls. I also have two daughters who are girls, and quite the match for any boys, in terms of bossing people about in order to be the (pretend) Head of the country. I therefore see no reason why a girl should not make just as good a Head of State, or why boy children should take precedence. What I do object to, though, is why the eldest should take precedence in the first place. Why should age have anything to do with it any more than gender?
As a second born, I feel it is very unfair that favours of any kind should be granted to the first born, whether they be a boy or a girl. Why has no-one brought up this anomaly? Surely the person who should succeed should be the most suited. In the case of a potential monarch, they should probably be rather good looking, keep their opinions to themselves, do lots of charitable good works, and have the common touch of being prepared to hug little children in African villages, whilst being equally at home stoned out of their minds in Annabel’s. There is no reason why the first born, boy or girl should necessarily display these qualities any better than numbers two three or more.
 |
The Pope (slightly singed round the eyes) |
Come to think of it, there is actually no reason why any of the monarch’s children in particular should be any better suited to the role than a lot of other people. The Pope is a kind of Head of State, and certainly much more influential than the British monarch, but the Vatican doesn’t select as his successor the eldest child, or indeed any of his children. Rather cleverly, they have decreed that all Catholic priests should be celibate, on the basis that one of them one day will become Pope. No children, no arguments over which one should succeed.
Instead they have devised a rather intriguing ceremony of setting fire to the potential candidates in secret. Eventually they find one who is so holy, he burns with white smoke, and he becomes Pope. Most of the other candidates die soon afterwards, thus avoiding any unpleasant in-fighting or rivalry from disappointed would-be-Popes.
 |
Michelle Hussein has all the right qualities to make a really good monarch |
I am not sure how worthy the current monarch’s children have proved themselves to be for the top (pretend) job. And I’m sure if you set fire to them, none would burn with white smoke. The ideal candidate, I feel, would be someone such as a news reader. Known by everyone, slightly aloof but still able to give the impression they are talking directly to you, attractive but also authoritative, totally re-assuring however grave the crisis, and yet willing to make a fool of themselves for the sake of Comic Relief. My vote would go to Michelle Hussein.
