Parody porn - a step too far?

TV and film parodies are one thing but parodying the Royal Family in general, 'William and Kate's wedding' in particular; isn't that a step too far? Judge for yourself at the definitely Not Safe For Work Strictly Anywhere - 'A Royal Romp'. Here's the blurb:

'Movie Duration: 0h:44m

Royally Fucked! Raise your glasses please for this royal occasion where we witness the beautiful union of Willyam and Kate. Catch a glimpse of the passion following the announcement of the royal engagement. See the glorious wedding day with Queenie and Prince Charles. Watch out for Chelsea as she finds more than a cocktail sausage under the table. The country rejoices and to top it off the two bothers play a game of swapsies and enjoy a real royal gangbang! Now this is a monarchy to be proud of!'

The cast? Only two 'actors' get pre-billing: Megan Coxxx and Michelle Moist
We are not amused? Aroused?

Well we have all got embarrassing relatives...

Well we have all got embarrassing relatives...

A week on and still shocking  headware.

Sensible lefty comment of the day 'it doesn’t matter whether everyone has a fair and equal shot at power; it matters that power is not abused. And constitutional monarchy is as good a guarantee of that as we have so far come up with'

For more of Tim Collard's reconciliation of left-wing views and support for the monarchy his Telegraph article is a good read.

'I am happy to live in a country where the highest dignities of the state cannot be acquired by anyone with sharp elbows and/or a lot of money. When people condemn the monarchy in the name of “meritocracy” my blood boils. The rich (who have the real power) don’t get rich on grounds of merit, and is anyone seriously arguing that democratically elected politicians get where they are by being particularly meritorious?

And what’s so marvellous about republics, which all the worst 20th-century tyrannies have been? Even amongst democracies there are two kinds of republics; those with an executive president and those with an honorary one. With the first kind, you get a Head of State who is viscerally hated by at least 49 per cent of the population (as in the USA); with the second, you get a superannuated politician tolerated for his/her harmlessness but commanding little real respect. You can make your own guesses as to who might become President of a British Republic. And shudder.

...

... Prince William, with every imaginable opportunity to turn into a ghastly Hooray and rich aristocratic waster, has got his head down, got some service in, and become the admirable and level-headed man he clearly is. And, mutatis mutandis, the same goes for the new Duchess of Cambridge.

God bless them both, and let us hope that the horrendous pressures of the job don’t drive them apart. Of course I know that the wedding isn’t the really significant occasion. That will be the birth of an heir, whose reign I hope I will never see; but, as an Englishman and a socialist, I will die happy knowing that one is in place.'

The cartwheeling verger

Apparently a happy verger after the Royal Wedding decided that the red carpet down the aisle was too good to leave un-performed upon. Nice idea but rather untidy legs on the finishes.

So why was Tony Blair not invited to the Royal Wedding?

Three interesting possibilities:
1) From this 2007 Mail article :

'For a modern monarch to rebuke a serving Prime Minister is extremely rare.

The Queen has done it only once in her reign - and the object of her disfavour was Tony Blair. The telling-off came in the early days of the Blair premiership.

The occasion was the State Opening of Parliament which followed a few days after the 1997 election.

In a massive challenge to the authority of the British monarchy, Tony and Cherie Blair sought to capture the event for themselves.

They made the unprecedented decision to walk from Downing Street to Parliament while the Queen arrived in her royal coach.

This decision mattered deeply because the drama of the state opening is all about the Queen: her departure by stagecoach from Buckingham Palace, her arrival in Parliament through the Sovereign's Entrance under the Royal Tower, the putting on of the crown and robes of state before the final entrance to the House of Lords' chamber.

...

An air of understated but definite menace at all times lay behind New Labour's dealing with the monarchy.

In 1997 the New Labour manifesto gave an assurance that "we have no plans to replace the monarchy".

This undertaking - as the more intelligent courtiers grasped - would not have been made had an attack on the British monarchy not been on the agenda.

Plans to get rid of the Royal Yacht were at the heart of the election campaign, sending out what pollsters called a "dog whistle" message - not heard by everyone - that the party was opposed to the Royal Family.

In private briefings with allies in the Press, New Labour in government was openly hostile, with senior figures inside Downing Street freely attacking the Royal Family.

In private the Blairs and their official entourage showed a startling lack of respect.

For the first time since the Queen acceded to the throne in 1952, relations between senior members of the Royal Family and the Prime Minister became actively unpleasant.

This reflected a new attitude from the Prime Minister and those around him. His aides were capable of great impatience with royal procedures, often going beyond rudeness.

The worst offenders were Tony Blair's wife, Cherie, and his adviser Alastair Campbell. She would refuse to curtsy when she met the Queen, and was capable of blanking out senior members of the Royal Family when she encountered them.

She made no pretence at all that she enjoyed royal occasions, and often, through physical and other signals, made it clear that she would rather be elsewhere.

This private lack of respect towards the Royal Family came to be reciprocated. Once Cherie Blair told Princess Anne to "call me Cherie". "Mrs Blair will do," replied the Princess Royal.

...

Shortly after he was appointed Foreign Secretary in 2002, Jack Straw gave an interview to the Guardian in which he referred twice to Tony Blair as "head of state".

At one stage the Downing Street website described how the Queen enjoyed audiences with Tony Blair, and not the other way around.

The Treasury moved fast to remove the royal coat of arms from its logo and drop the initials HM from its official title. The change was said to "reflect a modern image under Gordon Brown's stewardship".

During a visit to Kosovo Tony Blair referred to "my" armed forces, oblivious to the important constitutional fact that British troops owe their allegiance to the monarch as head of state.

Meanwhile the Government set out to write the monarchy out of British public life, an audacious task involving the unravelling of 1,000 years of history.

The most important example of this was the very serious attempt by the Labour government to create a new national identity.

This involved disregarding the institutions of the state that had historically been at the heart of Britain, and replacing them by others, such as a new national day.

In a series of public statements Labour ministers argued that Britain should be defined by abstract values such as fairness. They never mentioned the monarchy.

A series of speeches by Gordon Brown about "Britishness" - an ugly and artificial word - systematically excluded the British monarchy, even though the Queen is head of state and the monarchy encapsulated Britain's long history better than any other institution, including Parliament.

...

Attempts to intrude on the territory of the monarch were to become a repeated feature of the Blair period in office.

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales in August 1997 gave a massive opportunity for the Prime Minister.

The words he uttered on the morning after the tragedy, in which he expressed his devastation at the death of Princess Diana, were brilliantly chosen and widely praised for expressing the mood of the nation.

Members of the Royal Family had been trained from birth to suppress their emotions, exercise restraint and show dignity.

The political philosopher David Marquand noted that when Diana died "the royals behaved as they had been taught to do: as symbols of the state, quintessential inhabitants of the public domain, with all its emotional austerity and self-control".

Previous generations of politicians, had shown comparable restraint (and the Tory leader William Hague was criticised for an inadequate expression of grief when he made his statement about the Princess's death).

Tony Blair, in his response, was at his most formidable as a politician. By showing open grief, and by using the phrase "people's princess", he was opening up new ground and massively extending the territory of the Political Class.

Five years later, following the death of the Queen Mother, the Prime Minister sought to intrude once again into the public domain occupied by the British Royal Family.

Within 24 hours of the Queen Mother's death on March 30, 2002, Tony Blair was seeking to enlarge his public role in the funeral.

Downing Street officials persistently rang Lt-General Sir Michael Willcocks, known as "Black Rod", putting pressure on him for the Prime Minister to play a more prominent part than had originally been planned, including the astonishing proposal that Tony Blair should break with precedent and walk from Downing Street to Westminister Hall in order to meet the Queen Mother's coffin. This pressure was rejected.

Sir Michael also faced intimidation in the wake of the funeral. He refused to endorse the false Downing Street claim that Tony Blair had not tried to muscle in.

After he withstood constant pressure, Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell vowed that "we'll get him one day".

The problem for Tony Blair and New Labour is simple to explain. The ten-day remembrance period for the Queen Mother left him without a central role.

At state events such as the Queen Mother's funeral, the Prime Minister of the day ranked lower than politically far less significant figures such as the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons.

This was not, of course, a threat to the Government: the funeral of the Queen Mother had nothing at all to do with politics as it had conventionally been practised.

But it was a challenge specifically to New Labour, because the commemoration period for the Queen Mother claimed back a part of British public life, normally outside politics, that New Labour has asserted as its own.

This meant that the queues for the lying-in-state were almost as disconcerting for New Labour as the grief for Princess Diana had been for the Royal Family five years previously.

The great celebration of the Queen Mother's life was an affront to the Political Class because it was a reminder of the existence of a Britain whose loyalties and allegiances went far deeper than party, but had everything to do with the love of Queen, country, village, school, town and family.

These allegiances were wholly compatible with voting Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory or any number of other political parties.

They are not, however, compatible with totalitarian politics, which lays claim to space that lies well outside party politics as it has always been practised in Britain.

There is little doubt that New Labour in power yearned to make a full-frontal and lethal attack on the British monarchy. There is little doubt that only the sustained popularity of the Queen prevented it from doing so.

Extracted from THE TRIUMPH OF THE POLITICAL CLASS by Peter Oborne'

2. Alex Masterley thinks there might be another explanation:

'Rules for wedding invites, particularly Royal ones

...

Which leads us to the issue of the preferment of Arab dictator princelings to Scottish ex-prime ministers. Now let's face it, if it came down to a personality test, it would probably be a dead heat, but that isn't what counts. Forget protocol (there is none), and consider the feelings of the young couple.

Which would they rather have at their wedding? The one who isn't just going to give them a full dinner service, but also a pair of his and hers matching Lamborghinis and a year's supply of petrol. With some wedding guests, excessive lavishness is de rigueuer.

... but not Phoney Bliar and Prudence McDoom.'

3. Or was it Prince William's decision:

'A prominent historian has claimed that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was not invited to Friday’s royal wedding because Prince William dislikes the politician and not of political things.

“I think the plain truth is that for all sorts of reasons, (Prince) William developed a powerful dislike of Mr Blair,” David Starkey told Sky News during a debate on the monarchy.

“Particularly the way in which he intervened at his mother’s funeral service. These are not political at all, they are personal choices,” he said.'

Whatever the reason I must say that it was pleasant not to have see the unbearably smug Tony Blair and his ever grasping wife, Cherie, sitting in the Quire/Choir. I presume that the Metropolitan Police were also relieved at not having to accommodate his personal protection team as well as not having to keep an eye on Cherie in case she decided to acquire some souvenirs to sell on eBay...

Putting the record straight

A few Google searches show that a blog can help put the record straight:

'cost of royal family'  - fourth place and telling a fairer story than most

'Anjem Choudary' - number 7 about this dreadful man

Congestion Charge problem

I tried to pay the London Congestion Charge for Prince Charles' Aston Martin DB6 Volante but oddly got the above message... Congestion Charge Exempt as it runs on wine or are Royal cars except or just not stored on database?

Ouch tweet of the day

No room at the Inn?

No availability at the Goring Hotel this weekend?!

Three reasons why Gordon Brown has not been invited to the wedding of Prince William and Katherine Middleton

1) He sold half of our gold reserves...

 £10 billion to date

2) He might pick his nose



3) He's an embarrassment, a disgrace and I have not forgotten or forgiven him for what he has done to this country.

Boris Johnson's wedding present to William and Katherine

A tandem?!

A Scots Guard speaks

'Watching a massive Jew gathering at the Tower of London! Have never seen so many rabbis in my life.'

A pal replied: 'Get the rifle out…'

To which he responded: 'Have got one of the Jews in my sights now lmao' ('laugh my arse off'

Classy? Threatening? Anti-Semitic?

Israelly Cool has the full details of this pleasant chap's other misspeaks that have got him taken off duty from the Royal Wedding Parade. I wonder if the 'Jew' comments would have been enough without his anti-Kate Middleton comments? Somehow I doubt it.

To celebrate the upcoming wedding of prince Willian and Catherine Middleton

'I could have married Kate' - a brillinat satirical song by Barbershopera



Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

William and Kate's big day

It looks as though Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding day is going to turn into a bit of a brawl. First I heard that the protesters in Parliament Square will not be evicted in time and so will form an interesting backdrop to the wedding procession, second I hear rumours that UK Uncut and/or their comrades are planning a large protest on the day of the Royal Wedding (April 29) and then finally I read that Islamists are threatening even worse (my emphasis):

'On 29th April 2011, what is probably one of the most anticipated events in recent years will be due to take place at Westminster Abbey; Prince William and Kate Middleton, will soon exchange matrimonial vows, in the presence of a global audience.

Unfortunately, Britain's continued interference in Muslim lands is showing no signs of abating; the plundering of resources, the murdering of innocent (Muslim) men, women and children and the forced indoctrination of the satanic democratic creed have become hallmarks of a brutal regime led by a very brutal dictator.

In the backdrop of all this, we find that one of the biggest advocates of British imperialism, Flight Lieutenant Prince William, wishes to enjoy an extravagant wedding ceremony, ironically at the expense of the tax-payer.

His direct involvement with the murderous British military and eagerness to inherit the reigns of a kingdom built on blood and colonialism clearly demonstrate what type of legacy he wishes to leave.

In light of this, sincere Muslims have decided to organise a forceful demonstration, to once again highlight that as long Britain continues in its quest to occupy Muslim land and wage war against the religion of God (Allah) that we too shall continue in our efforts to undermine their regime and condemn all of their representatives, military or otherwise.

We strongly advise Prince William and his Nazi sympathiser, to withdraw from the crusader British military and give up all affiliation to the tyrannical British Empire.

We promise that should they refuse, then the day which the nation has been dreaming of for so long will become a nightmare and that it will inshaa'allah (God willing) eclipse the protests in Barking, Downing Street and the events of November 11.'

That last sentence sounds like a threat to me so will the British police be asking their American colleagues to ask some questions or maybe arrange the extradition of the owner of that domain: 'Abdullah Muhammad, c/o Dynadot Privacy, PO Box 701, San Mateo, CA 94401, United States'?


All in all it looks as though Prince William and Kate Middleton's big day may be in jeopardy; I wonder if it is too late to change their plans and fly off to Barbados and have their wedding on the beach there?