What sets a royal expert apart from you, me, and a particularly backward gatepost? The answer lies in the expectation
Today's edition of Know Your Pundits showcases the Mail on Sunday's royal correspondent Katie Nicholl, who was only recently telling the Wall Street Journal that the jockeying amongst Britain's royal experts has got "very bitchy and competitive". She had, she explained, probably put a lot of noses out of joint. "I'm the girl with the book out," she sympathised. "I'm the girl with the big TV deal." The glamma of it! And so to Katie's most recent dispatch, which goes big on the fact that "William's uncle, Charles Spencer ? will have no formal role" in the wedding service ? though he "had been expected to deliver an address". Had been expected by whom, you might wonder? Meth addicts? People without access to media since 1986? No, it would seem this eventuality had been expected by certain "royal experts". So if you seek an answer to that timeworn question ? what sets a royal expert apart from you, me, and a particularly backward gatepost? ? then look no further than that declaration that Charles Spencer "had been expected to deliver an address". It's not so much the amusing belief that Friday's ultra-traditional wedding service allows for "an address" by personages other than the archbishop of Canterbury. Rather, it's the ability of the "royal expert" to imply that at high-level meetings of the wedding planning unit, a significant faction of courtiers were saying "Yes, we MUST give Earl Spencer another run-out ? it really wouldn't be an abbey event without him bringing his special brand of public speaking to it." Of course, it's somewhat disappointing that no royal expert has yet stated that Mohamed Al Fayed "had been expected do a reading", but with any luck that oversight will be remedied in the coming days.
Incidentally, would media organisations please reconsider the seemliness of booking ex-King Constantine of Greece to discourse on the wedding? It is bad enough being subjected to the sterling work of psychologists/astrologers/Australian punsters on the matter, but there is something desperately infra dig about a man who would be king farting out anecdotes about William being "a hell of a nice guy" in return for a spot on breakfast telly. His Ex-jesty is implored to have a word with himself at once.
To those of you who have written asking whether this column was joking when it mentioned that Fearne Cotton would be part of the BBC's TV presenting team on the big day, I am delighted to say it wasn't. Have you not seen the trailers? From the tenor of your emails, I sense that you will be even more thrilled at news that Vernon Kay ? the missing link between the Beeb and the vegetable kingdom ? will be anchoring the coverage of the occasion on Radio 1. This seems profoundly appropriate for our times. You might recall that when the list of Tony Blair's Chequers dinner guests was reluctantly revealed, Vernon's name was there for all to see. Being prime minister is rather like being able to play the fantasy dinner party game for real, so the fact that Tony Blair could have rifled through a near-limitless Rolodex of fascinating public figures, yet plumped for Vernon Kay, speaks volumes about his character (were further volumes in any way required). That Vernon should once again find himself at our nation's high table says more about Where We Are At than any number of dystopian social treatises, and we can only await the Boltonian Zelig's next state appearance with infinite resignation.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/apr/24/lost-in-royal-wedding-showbiz
No comments:
Post a Comment