Kate Middleton has impressed the public on her first foreign tour, but in Monaco Princess Charlene’s ‘fairytale’ marriage has got off to a tricky start
Any hopes that “princess mania” might die down have now been dashed by Kate’s first royal trip to Canada. If anything, England’s new princess looks set to attract ever more attention as the tour moves to California. But this week, as images were beamed back of her every outfit and move, a tale of another princess offered an interesting counterpoint. Pictures of Monaco‘s implausibly named Princess Charlene weeping through her wedding were an unsettling reminder that the reality of marrying into the European monarchy can be rather darker and more coercive.
Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/09/princess-charlene-kate-fairytale-wedding
A royal pundit vacuum in the US means I’m a go-to expert in a country gorging itself on Kate ‘n’ Wills trivia
‘Are y’all ready for the wedding?” Whenever I speak in Philadelphia, where I have been living for the last few months, they ask this same question. Apparently I have a quaint accent. And because of this quaint British accent I am obviously intimate with the royal family and their preparations for the wedding of William and Kate that is obsessing America.
I also happen to have written a book about Princess Diana, and this makes me appealing not only to the general public but the Philly media. No, not appealing; valuable – because there’s a pundit vacuum here. The American media is moving out wholesale, heading for London. CNN is sending at least 125 staffers and NBC more than 500. Top anchors are going from all stations: ABC’s Barbara Walters is already there. Rival companies promote their coverage by the numbers of reporters they will have in situ. Wedding coverage, which started back in January, is reaching fever pitch.
Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/royal-wedding-patriotic-fever-pitch
Charles and Camilla’s wedding is a chance to inflict some real damage
The wedding of Charles and Camilla offers plenty of opportunity for republicans to score some goals. They could deride the useless royal advisers who failed to check the venue’s viability and, more spectacularly, the legality of the marriage itself. They could expose an India rubber constitution that resists change but creates new categories such as “Princess Consort” when the need arises. They could highlight Charles’s hypocrisy, falling back on the human rights legislation that he so often rails against. They could capitalise on the unpopularity of Camilla or dwell on our first family snubbing each other’s nuptials. But republicans have had nothing to say.
Full article: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/19/monarchy.comment