Wednesday, February 22, 2006

 

Two Royal Tits*

I am a republican. To me, the royal family are a hideous anachronism. Some time in the past, I believe I felt differently, but I can't for the life of me remember why. Actually, I reckon the only real reasons the House of Windsor still lord it over us are a traditionally British sense of deference, ennui and a throwback-to-our-childhoods enjoyment of words like 'prince' and 'princess.' If you ask people who like the monarchy to name a good reason for them to remain, almost always the answer will be 'lots of money from tourists', as if basing our system of government upon the wants of Japanese camera-clickers is a rational choice.

Anyway, to the point. I see that Prince Charles now 'sees himself as a dissident in a political fight', according to one of his former officials. I think it's time for people to seriously question the role of Charlie in the political debate. It is frankly ridiculous that in this day and age, an unelected man with no knowledge of the ins and outs of the lives of his future subjects can write policy-changing letters to ministers. Lots of people write to ministers, lots of the time, but since we aren't royalty, they never pay any attention. As soon as Cheery Charlie pops his head over the parapet, the government go cowering, cap in hand.

The latest self-defeating scheme he's got himself into is suing the Mail on Sunday for printing extracts of his private diaries. The extracts revealed various Duke-of-Edinburgh-like gaffes, including describing Chinese officials as 'appalling old waxworks.' However, it's worth noting that the Mail on Sunday expressed editorial agreement with the majority of what he said, and it does seem absurd to me for a member of the royal family to sue the most pro-royalist 'paper in the land.

Still, his pomposity fits nicely alongside Sir Ben Kingsley, who has taken it into his head that he should have his knighthood shown for all to see on all the promotional materials for his new film, the dreadfully named 'Lucky Number Slevin' (one of the people on the message board for the film, mslevin1, wrote this about the title - 'My surname is Slevin and even I have to say it's an absolutely ridiculous title for a movie. I mean, just because it's pronounced and sounds like 'seven', it still makes no fuggin sense. Even the gun on the poster is turned to look like a 7. Madness, I tellsya.')

Sir Ben, whose last film 'BloodRayne' was the latest Uwe Boll superflop (no 19 on the bottom 100!), has made this decision despite the fact that it makes him the first actor ever to do so. Roger Moore said:

"It's a load of pretentious bollocks. I don't see the point. Would it really add anything to have one's title included? I think it's the actor people want to see, not the knight."

Much better. My vast stores of goodwill to Kingsley thanks to his gobstopping performance in 'Sexy Beast' are slowly wearing thin. He'd better start making some good decisions sooner or later or I'll fall off the Kingsley wagon once and for all.

*Yes, I am aware that being a Knight Of The Realm doesn't make you royalty - however, just run with it for the pun, will ya?


'Sir' Ben in happier times.

Comments:
With regard to the House of Lords it’s a funny old debate; I mean would you rather have posh old farts or Tony Blair’s cronies in there? To be fair it really doesn’t matter does it, because our vote is worth nothing in the end anyway and the only way people can find true expression is via an internet blog… oh hang on… he he! Seriously though with regard to writing letters to MPs, I can honestly say I have seen my MP in the flesh once, and I had to go to see HER in Westminster for the privilege. I doubt she would even open a letter from me! Prince Charles is an egotistical moron: wasn’t there an incident where he didn’t like proposed plans for modern architecture so he had them panned? Why does he have any influence?

As for suing papers don’t people realise it’s the worst thing they can do? I read in the sun today that (non celeb but imprisoned murderer) Jeremy Bamber made them print an apology because they printed a story saying he had gone mad at Christmas because roast beef wasn’t on the menu! They were actually forced to say that he had “enjoyed the vegetarian option!” I mean that is just ridiculous, how does that have any bearing on anything? Surely these sorts of legal proceedings are a waste of time for everyone? Presumably he felt that it was a slight on his character, but surely overreacting to a news story makes him look dodgier!
 
I expect the muppet will be round with his Kingsley anecdote right about now.
 
There is some great swearing in Sexy Beasy, you Republican cunt!
 
Err ... beast. Fuck.
 
But Charlie has got some things right in the past... 20 odd years ago the press had a field day with him because he was banging on about growing things organically. Absolutely bonkers was probably how the Sun put it. And now...?
 
Now? Absolutely Bonker!
 
Happy - Yes, I remember that, when Charlie had some plans or other scuppered because they lacked the requisite amount of Georgian gables or whatever it is he so likes.

As regards his suing the paper, yes, I'd agree it makes him look worse, but he doesn't seem to realise that at all. The royals have an amazing ability to ignore the fact that we're all laughing at them behind their backs.

Tony - My love for 'Sexy Beast' is whole and uncoditional. As for the swearing, top cunt, I mean notch, sorry.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?