Admit It: Royalty Is Cool

It’s expensive. It’s frivolous. It changes nothing. So why are many of us fascinated by royalty, especially the British version? And why this particular British monarch?

We’re Americans, you may say, we’ve done just fine without all that. Well, no, we haven’t – done without it, by any stretch. We’re constantly crowning kings and queens, especially in entertainment and sports. The closest we came to it in government, perhaps, involved JFK and Jackie, but somehow, it never quite satisfied.

Sure, we fought for independence from Britain and won it, but our founding fathers started out as British subjects. Much of our legal system follows British traditions. “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” is really just a cover song (“God Save the Queen”).

When I was a little boy, I collected stamps. American stamps were great, but they didn’t do it for me – I specialized in the British Empire, back when there was one. There was nothing quite as impressive in the philatelic world as the stamps from a British colony, always with the king or queen on the side.

British kings and queens have been far from perfect. Some have been scoundrels, even murderers. In more recent times, even as their power has diminished in the U.K., their public personae have taken a distinct turn for the better. For those who don’t read a lot of history, Hollywood has filled in the gaps with offerings such as “The Queen” and “The King’s Speech,” showing us how the monarchy, useless as it may be portrayed much of the time, has been the rock in periods of great stress.

Elizabeth has been no different. As a child during World War II, she took to the radio airwaves to boost the spirits of displaced British children. More recently, she has been able to maintain her dignity while surrounded by, to put it mildly, some wacky family members. And while from the outside, being born into a royal family may symbolize a life of comfort and privilege, royals are basically condemned for life to a long series of duties in what amounts to a gilded prison. Yet, Elizabeth, at 86, spent hours waving to her subjects at her Diamond Jubilee, much of it standing up.

And she seems to be one of the few British women that have a modicum of sensible taste in hats.

My 180 on the Wedding, Almost

I hereby announce that I am no longer a Royal Wedding disser. I was one of the estimated 2 billion who watched it, though Circadian rhythm won out, dictating that I pull the plug around 3:30 a.m. But it was really an impressive event -- nobody does the royal thing better than the Brits. And I'm sure we're all grateful for the distraction it provided from other things going on in the world -- it was a real "mental health day" for the soul.

But tell me it wasn't a chick thing. Did the world wait breathlessly to see what Prince William would be wearing? Heck, it wasn't even a secret, right? For those of you men who watched the wedding, how many of you were actually offended by some of the hats worn by audience members? And did you stay up the extra two hours to watch the royal kiss on the balcony? Total speculation on my part, but I think the answer to the last question, in a majority of cases, is no.

All I know is, the world would be a safer place if someone would find out those responsible for keeping pictures of wedding dresses from being leaked (almost the same level of secrecy for Chelsea Clinton, you'll recall) and put them in charge of the CIA and MI6.

OK, so some of the hats were a little over the top, but those women can save them to wear to the Kentucky Derby, which is coming up soon -- more bang for the buck, or the pound, in this case.

Rule Britannia! Britannia doesn't rule much anymore, but at least it "kicked some" today.

It's a Chick Thing

I just don't care a jot about the Royal Wedding, convinced that it's a chick thing. Just to be sure, I asked Facebook friends about it. Most of those responding, as you might expect, were women -- some of whom said they didn't care about the Royal Wedding either. But for those who do care, there's no holding back. One friend plans to enjoy cupcakes and cucumber sandwiches early Friday morning while watching the coverage. Others are planning parties. Is it Super Bowl revenge? As for my attitude, one woman asked if I were dead inside. I think she was only half joking.

So what is it about this fascination with the British royal family? I suspect it's probably jealousy -- many Americans wish we had one. You can talk about the Kennedys and Camelot all you want, for instance, but it's just not the same thing. Our political system, on average over time, has probably produced better leaders, but none of them was a king. "Hail to the Chief" just doesn't quite cut it.

But back to the question at hand: is my attitude a guy thing, and does this event seem more important to women? Sorry for the generalization, but of course it does. It's simple, really. If the "royal" part doesn't get 'em, the "wedding" part does. Weddings, at least traditionally, are regal events for women. The bride's gown is typically many, many times more expensive than the groom's clothes, and if there's a long train, well someone has to carry that. It may be the only time in life when the commoners among women get to feel like royalty. On their wedding day, as happy as they may be, men just aren't breathing quite the same air.

Anyway, I told my friends they'd have to watch the royal wedding live without me. Those who were worried that I might miss a life-changing event reminded me I could DVR it, but I'm thinking I’ll just settle for the highlight reel.