Tuesday, May 22, 2018

ROYAL WEDDING BELLS




They're so much in love!!!

I swear to gawd, if I hear one more of you say that - I'm going to find out where you live, go to your house, and personally puke on your Harry and Meghan t shirt.

I've been around long enough to know that the term "true love" is a sham - and most often a saccharine synonym for lust, financial security, or desperation. 

The wedding of the century?
That has about as much meaning as "the trial of the century". There's a new one every week. Almost.

Jon, we thought you were a staunch sentimentalist. Where's your sense of romanticism?

On a back shelf - behind my sense of raw reality.

Okay, I'll admit it. I got up at 5:00 a.m.
last Saturday to watch the Royal wedding on YouTube live stream. It was a lovely charade...and the camera angles were superb.....but...

I was mostly waiting for the part where the preacher says "If anybody knows why this marriage shouldn't take place, speak now or forever hold your peace."

The possibilities were absolutely endless, but nobody had the guts to speak.

Let's face the brutal facts: 
Meghan's eyes weren't sparkling with true love. They were glowing with the animalistic ambition of Evita and Leona Helmsley. And the supreme satisfaction of winning the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes.


I was never a fan of Prince Harry - and I don't think he's quite as devastatingly handsome as rumor hazzit. But if the guy asked me to marry him.....(hahahaha).....
you damn well better believe I'd be wearing a white gown, holding a bouquet of begonias, and waiting at the church door before the words cooled from his lips.

Speaking of wedding gowns - did you get a load of the tacky gear Megan was wearing? It looked like she was wrapped in the sails of the Flying Dutchman. The train on that thing was longer than Bishop Michael Curry's sermon.
Her ass was in Windsor, but the tail of the train was in London.

 

And what was the purpose of wearing virginal white?? That woman hasn't been a virgin since Harry was in diapers.
Sorry - I couldn't resist.

The only person I know with a more sordid Hollywood history than Meghan is me (who else?).


But, Jon, you have to admit it - isn't Meghan ravishingly beautiful?

Hey, Kemosahbee, if I had extensive plastic surgery, I'd be beautiful, too.

Meghan - before and after surgery
(no, I'm not kidding)

There were an enormous amount of camera closeups at the wedding and the blushing bride's cosmetic "work" was obvious. 
The only thing under cover were the tit implants....but you can check them out in her numerous nude photos.
She'll have to replace the tits when she hits 50 - - which isn't too far away.


 So, Jon - was there anything about the wedding that you liked? 

Yea. I really liked it when Bishop Michael Curry FINALLY ended his fifteen minute theatrical, rambling, and intensely embarrassing speech about love. It took the term "cringe-worthy" to new levels.






Nice try, Mikey - but in my humble and biased opinion, a British royal wedding isn't the place to quote Martin Luther King....or infiltrate quips about slavery, hunger, and fire (yes, FIRE!!!).

Kate and Camilla were only two of many who were exchanging astonished glances and smirks.



 All in all it was a lovely wedding - - if you survived all those excruciatingly endless musical interludes (hey, I'm a musician and I love music, but there are limits...).

And I kept wondering - after that agonizingly long ceremony- if anyone in the audience desperately had to pee.


Note: I wrote this very quickly and didn't see the typos until now. I THINK they are all corrected.

31 comments:

  1. Delightful wedding critique, Jon. I didn't watch it because somebody told and spoiled the ending. Besides, I'm still in a lot of pain --doing ok. I hope the groom has found a stabilizer and the bride has found a place in the heart of a nation. My eldest sister has followed and corresponded with the royal family since the 1940's but I won't phone for her opinion until my pain meds kick in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you would have enjoyed the wedding in the company of pain meds. I have a feeling Harry will need them during the eventual divorce (I'm always leery of happy endings).

      I admittedly like the Royal family - but every time they marry a commoner the royal blood is diluted. That irks me.

      Take care and get well ASAP.

      Delete
  2. Because I'm NO FAN of the new Duchess, your observations are hilarious. Standing O, m'friend! I think Catherine/Kate totally eclipses her.

    'Just my guess, but it appears the Brits have largely forgiven Charles, who will be king someday. (Like I should care, right?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am adamantly against royals marrying commoners. Mrs. Simpson was bad enough - but I think Meghan is a complete disaster. I like Kate because at least she has (some) dignity and natural beauty.

      The day Camilla ever becomes Queen you'd better wear earplugs - because you'll hear me screaming.....

      Delete
  3. Guess what Jon?



    They are SO in love!!!!!!! Sorry I couldn't resist!!!! I watch for the hats. And I don't know you know but Diana's train was ever longer...I believe at 22 or 25 feet??!? It was a nice wedding, I don't know it was the best wedding I ever saw though. The most priceless face during the long sermon was Zara Phillips, Princess Anne's daughter. I roared. And damn it, you know Her Majesty, waiting for that thing to end either cut the cheese several times, or was about to bust!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I loved Princess Diana, but I always disliked her wedding dress. If my memory serves me, it looked old and wrinkled - as if it had to be ironed. But, then, what the heck do I know? I didn't know the train was longer than Meghan's.

      I did like all the hats at the wedding. And Zara Phillips reaction was indeed priceless.

      Delete
  4. I'm detecting underneath all this that you loved every minute of that wedding :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I laughed out loud when I read your comment. I did enjoy the wedding - even if I'm reluctant to admit it.

      Delete
  5. Informative post! I've been abstaining from news, as you know. But must comment on photos of "Meghan - before and after surgery". She IS a beautiful woman, but the teen-"Before" pic. captivates me with its honest joy of being young and bright. I have seen that look in youngsters before and always felt uplifted by it. I expect great things of her because the energy in those eyes is undiminished by adulthood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being an average-looking (or below average) teenager, Geo. But I think there's something irritatingly wrong in praising someone for being physically beautiful, when their "beauty" was obtained artificially, via a plastic surgeon.

      The "before" and "after" photos of Meghan aren't an insult. They're merely a reality check.

      Delete
  6. Nice to read your version since I haven't had time to watch much of it. I've never been in to big weddings. Always thought all that money could be better spent but to each his own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never liked big weddings, either. It's definitely a waste of money. My parents eloped, and they had the right idea.

      Delete
  7. I too stayed up to watch the wedding. i loved looking at the outfits the women wore, including the hats. conversational for sure. mrs. beckham looked like she was attending a funeral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really enjoyed looking at the outfits and the hats, too. And I felt sorry for the people who had to sit behind women who wore extra large hats! The whole "event" was entertaining.

      Delete
  8. You're rather hard on Megan and the american bishop. Harry, that's something else. He's not a private citizen like you and me. He's a symbol, symbol of british royalty. The brits probably expected him to marry an english girl. Well, he didn't.

    Anyway,when the time comes for The Queen to go, I believe the Brits will abolish monarchy. It's such a costly stupidity, and the members of the royal family look plain people, physically and intelectually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Bishop Curry incorporated humor and life into the ceremony. I think what bothered me most about him is that his over-the-top style seemed inappropriate for a royal wedding.
      I do hope that Meghan will be the right choice for Harry. I just have a feeling that he made a rash decision and will possibly regret it later.

      I suppose what irks me the most is when royals marry commoners. It dilutes their royal heritage. I agree with you that the Brits will probably eventually abolish the monarchy.

      Delete
  9. Hi Jon. Said I wouldn’t but watched every second of the wedding. He seems enthralled with her; I hope it lasts. Changing the subject totally, I see this coming Monday is a holiday in the USA so if you are planning a supply run and also need the bank, particularly if it is to pay for said supplies and gas money home,don’t expect them to be open Monday. Just concerned for your blood pressure! MaggieB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maggie -I'm so stressed out most of the time that I'm sure I have high blood pressure when I'm sleeping.

      Incredibly - for the first time ever - I have enough supplies to get through the long holiday weekend! It's supposed to rain and be miserable all weekend, so I'll stay safely indoors.....watching the weeds grow and thinking about royal weddings...(*smile*).

      Delete
  10. I didn't watch--wouldn't have if it had been on in prime time hours, but I do wish them well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always interested in "live" events and I watch a lot of them on YouTube. Today I was watching live eruption coverage of the volcano in Hawaii. Glad I don't live there.

      Delete
  11. I did not watch the wedding but have read quite a few articles about it. The wedding gown's train had some significance in that it was embroidered with the 53 Commonwealth flowers. I also read that the long train was a tribute to Diana.
    Question - Why are Kate and Meghan referred to by their maiden names and not their titles? (most of the time)
    Also, where in the heck did Harry get that red hair? Apparently there were rumors about a certain red-headed stableboy and Di back in the day. Harry certainly does not resemble Charles as much as William does...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate the info about the wedding gown train. I knew absolutely nothing about it (but I still don't like it...).

      I have no idea why maiden names are still used. I'm annoyed every time I hear someone say that Meghan is now a princess. From what I understand, she's the Duchess of Sussex.

      I've heard numerous rumors that Harry isn't Prince Charle's child - and it very well could be true. As you said - he doesn't look like Charles at all.

      Delete
    2. I did more snooping around and discovered Princess Diana's brother and sister both have red hair. Supposedly hers was auburn.
      I also read quite a bit about King Edward and Wallis Simpson. Apparently they were quite peeved that she wasn't allowed to be referred to as Her Royal Highness. I think Meghan can be called that, but you're right, she's not a princess.
      The Royal family's official stance is that Diana didn't meet James Hewitt until Harry was two years old. Being a cynic, I'd like to see DNA results...

      Delete
  12. You're right - all the information that I found indicates that Diana didn't meet James Hewitt until AFTER Harry was born - BUT - there are many photographs that compare James and Harry, and they look alarmingly similar. Is it just coincidence? Who knows...??

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another fabulous post. Wallis- Simpson was an extraordinary lady.With rain and winter approaching here,time to order some books, apparently Shanghai squeeze was involved.Take care and enjoy summer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks, Hope. The weather has (finally) turned warm here but it's supposed to rain for the next few days. Take care...and keep warm!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jon, on your next post there's a weird flag saying an internal kadoozie is inhibiting comments, so I'll post it here:Don't you dare delete it, Jon. I'm getting those whazzits too and don't understand any of them. Ergo, I am cybernetically ignorant, and what's worse, miserably alone in my ignorance. Our whole civilization depends on all of us being together, unified in our ignorance. The debates, diatribes and incoherencies of human interaction is what holds us together. Don't pull the rug from under that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo - unfortunately I did delete it (before I saw this comment) but I'll mention it again if I get another mysterious kadoozie.

      Lately, Google keeps asking me to confirm my existence (with phone numbers, etc.) before I can access my own blog. It's happened three times in the past week.

      Have we been invaded by Martians???

      Delete
  16. In spite of all your bellyaching, methinks you enjoyed watching it. Me? Didn't watch a bit of it. I don't have a "problem" with royalty, but I'm not smitten with them, either. More of a detached, "Oh, that's nice" kinda attitude.

    But I DO believe in true love. It's a helluva lot of work, but it's real, and it's worth the effort. I wish you could find it for yourself, cowboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always had a keen interest in the royals (some woman recently chastised me on YouTube for calling them "royals" - - what the hell am I supposed to call them??)
      Actually my biggest beef is that they seem to be constantly marrying commoners nowadays. It dilutes the royal blood.

      Psst - just between you and me, I do believe in true love - but it's kinda rare.

      Delete

I love comments. Go ahead and leave one - I won't bite. But make sure you have a rabies shot just in case.