data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a28f/1a28fa06eb94dd80ccd54bbcc7843998416edc4c" alt=""
Every Internet-based form of news media has the wedding covered, so I won't bother linking to anything, but I'll make just a few observations. As always, there was a lot of pomp & circumstance, but the Brits have been doing it for so long, and always do it so well, it's simply magical simply to watch. But let's face it, it's all about the fashion. First, her wedding dress was stunning, elegant, and timeless. Like everyone else, I immediately thought of Grace Kelly, and I loved the retro-yet-modern 1950s look the dress had. I had a suspicion there would be a connection to the house of Alexander McQueen (the Met’s exhibition on him opens next week), but I didn’t know it would be designed by Sarah Burton. Second, William looked brilliant in red, and Harry…yum! Why are men always stuck wearing dour tuxedos at weddings? Uniforms aside, a little bit of color can only enhance the look, respecting, of course, that the bride still must outshine. (My friends RL+DG were a model to emulate!) William & Kate’s two kisses on the balcony and the drive-off in the Aston Martin were smart moves on their part. They managed to pull of tradition with modern flair, showing how they are the new monarchy for the 21st century. Third, loved the Queen looking all sassy in that sunshine yellow frock and hat...85 years old too! (Her 60-year Jubilee is coming up in 2012.) Finally, the hats...insane! The Duchess of York (Fergie) mayn't have been invited to the wedding, but her daughters are learning from her about standing out in a crowd. Princess Beatrice's hat looked like a combination of a Rococo wall ornament and a Christmas-giftbox-ribbon. The hats were adventurously fabulous. American women, take note!
With the swelling of the crowds in the London streets and the estimated 2 billion people who watched the wedding worldwide, hopefully the naysayers about the monarchy realize that despite everything there is a tradition of over 1000 years that has been the backbone of the British people and made them who they are today. For sure, the monarchy has to evolve to meet the more Republican (and even Socialist) demands of the people, but nothing happens overnight. The truth is, we need people like the Queen. Part of the mystique that surrounds our world leaders is the assumed glarmorous, magical world in which they live. People want to know that the Queen and the Royals are just like them, but at the same time they also need for them to be distant, removed, even above them in some way, so that they become a model to which one can aspire. An important part of that aspiration is the glam and the pomp & circumstance. People need a little tradition, and some historically-derived bling, in order to help guide them to a higher model of excellence. This doesn't mean the Queen is a god; it means she represents the best of the nation, and the world. Besides, think of the alternative: do the Brits really want their only visual representation of leadership to be David Cameron and his wife? Trust me, Americans know: we had 8 years of George & Laura Bush, and it wasn't pretty.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/72deb/72deb07fed457d63800099fb2dd17bdcf9ee29e4" alt=""
3 comments:
I really don't think "we" or Britain need the royalty. For a humorous take: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-28-2011/royal-wedding-excitement-in-london
I like Jon Stewart, but I didn't find this funny. I DO agree that the media ridiculously went overboard with this, to the exclusion of other news. Hundreds of Americans were killed by tornados in the South, but we got no reports about that until Saturday morning. I also DO recognize that the expense for the wedding was astronomical, especially during a period when the British nation is in a dire financial crisis on many fronts, and I find it distasteful that the British taxpayer has to spend any money toward the wedding. But I still stand by my belief that people need to look up to other people so they have something to aspire to. We all may want to live in a "democratic" society, but there will always be capitalism, there will always be greed, and there will always be people wealthier and with more power. What makes me sick is that most Westerners now will look up to sports figures, the Kardashian sisters, Donald Trump, the Real Housewives of Pick-A-City, and other nonsensical wealthy people who have done nothing even remotely significant and instead insult people's intelligence with their own existence. We can accept that ridiculous nonsense? But we can't accept a family with a 1000-year legacy and history that has impacted the entire world? The Royals DO need to evolve. My point is that I am hopeful that with this new generation that evolution will happen.
We like to have inspiring figures, I just don't think the royals are those people. What is there to aspire to when you look at the royals? It is a hereditary monarchy. Now, Queen Noor of Jordan is someone to look up to...she actually does some considerable good in the world. The British royals are an anachronism and they certainly help sell tabloids, but that's hardly a great inspirational purpose.
Post a Comment