Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Lets get this over with...

Royal baby...

The thought produces in me the deepest ennui, the wall to wall coverage - vapid commentary dressed up as learned opinion. If I was to express my feelings pictorially, it would be thus:


Probably get sued for using this image.
If I was to use words, they'd be; who gives a fuck? I know I'm being a hypocrite, however ill-tempered I'm being, I'm still adding to the royal baby zeitgeist - if its any consolation -  I shall be harming myself enthusiastically later for doing so.

If one paper could be said to be the most royaphile (a new term I'm coining) its got to be the Daily Express. It was already pretty worked up in the run up, today's headline probably felt like the newspaper (or rag) equivalent of an orgasm. Apparently the world is rejoicing now where it was waiting with baited breath before - eh - no it wasn't. Much in the way Great Britain likes to claim athletes as their own when they're winning, it now wants to claim international adulation for its latest subject, ignoring entirely the notion that the vast majority either don't give a shit or actively disagree with the idea of monarchy.

Its quite ironic that the Queen is seen as the epitome of discretion, indeed the royal reserve is probably world famous, yet, the cloying over-reaction to the royal birth (one of thousands born that day) is the very fuel that keeps the royals where they are. I think that is hypocritical and of a factor way higher and lot more fucking lucrative than my own.

So for the next couple of weeks we'll get more silliness dressed up as news, OK will go to war with Hello for the publication rights, Franklin Mint shares with go through the roof and mad grasping journalists will claim to be allowing the new royal family some private space to recuperate while secretly sharpening their telephoto lenses.

I feel a bit sorry for the kid, right now it has no idea what's in store for it. It could be whisked away and raised normally and be none the wiser. Instead, it'll be indoctrinated in to the royal way of life. Mum & Dad will make all the right noises, they'll say it'll be a down-to-earth upbringing with none of the arcane nonsense associated with the past. Their existence is so far from the norm though - to the great unwashed - it'll still be a blessed/bizarre existence.

I don't really mind the royal family, I can't quite bring myself to deploy too much ire for them - they are a product of their environment. Sure, there are aspects I think suck balls big time (Crown Estates, Civil list remuneration* which allows total non-entities an income at our expense to name but two.) For the most part, as I've said before - at best its a theme park or tourist attraction, at worst - a wank-bank of salacious gossip & news for the orgiastic gutter press.

I bet Facebook friends of Wills & Kate are dreading the onslaught of baby pictures, they truly have no escape. I've also read there are some people who genuinely thought the baby would be a lizard.

Of course this is a nonsense, although I'm waiting for the Daily Express super pull-out (unique access) royal supplement to be sure.

Mind you, would the Express tell me the truth? I don't think they would...

I'll wait for Hello or OK instead, this is so exciting...

Oh no, what's happened to me...






* Reading further, the civil list has changed slightly. The Queen now reimburses the 'parliamentary annuity' paid to her by the exchequer which funds sundry royals. That she does so out of the Sovereign Support Grant  (£7.9m) paid to her from Crown Estate income rather negates the benevolence of it - she's essentially reimbursing us with what is/or should be our own money.

4 comments:

  1. Hmmmm...

    Newspaper equivalent of an orgasm... I wonder what that's like.

    I've always thought that in the late 20th and 21s centuries it's pretty unsustainable to keep royals the way Brits keep them.

    But the press, and sufficient numbers of the non-thinking public seem to like the moronic, drunken, pampered, lazy, ugly, expensive princesses and the Harry the stripper, who informs us he's off again to Afghanistan to be a hero.

    I'm just not even vaguely british in my outlook about anything, so I find the treatment of royals ... both by the establishment, aristocracy, etc (deep deference) and of the press (loving affection of Jordan/Peter Andre mindless shit) as quite weird.

    I wouldn't mind a royal family like Norway has. That would be better than President Salmond or President Lord McConnell or President Tankerness... jeeez or at UK level President Toenail Money Grubbing Bastard.

    Is there anyone, you must be asking, that I don't dislike?

    I ask myself that too. Don't know, comes back the reply.

    Enjoy the self harming :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed.

    Something a bit more subdued would be best. If they're able to cycle around town and not be mobbed, bothered or blown up - that's the kind of monarchy I'd like, not to mention country.

    I'm off to lock myself in the wardrobe with a rolled up daily express.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Get rid of all of them now, now I say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Quite.

    Happy for them to exist, just don't want to pay for the fuckers.

    ;-)

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for comment as always and I apologise if you have to jump through any hoops to do so. Its just that, I'm still being spammed by organisations who are certain I can't get it up or when it is up its not big enough or that I don't have anyone to get it up for.

Who knew blogging could be so bad for ones self-confidence?