Cry 'God for Harry, England and St. George!

"The Royal family has a real knack for learning from past mistakes, doesn't it?"

Ummm, no actually. They don't. Unless you mean to describe only very recent history. War of the Roses, France, Scotland, the Magna Carta's in, no wait it's out, hold on a tick it's back in. Lancaster rocks, no the Yorks rule, Lancaster, York, York, Lancaster, and lets not even get started with Ireland. These people's learning curb is measured in centuries ... and by the way, I love it all. I'm just saying, perhaps this monarchy isn't the best standard for "learning from past mistakes", that's all.

Tell ya' the truth, I'm a little disappointed. I thought I'd be more interested in this historical event (and by definition that's what it is) for having been viewing that Monarch series on Netflix at least semi nightly for some time (from Egbert to Henry VIII thus far). And I think I know why I'm not that interested. I like my Royal events a little more messy. I know for a fact that this wedding will not result in any beheadings. It wont casue any standards to be unfurled on the field of battle. No struggle for ascension. No great houses wiping each other out. No condemnation to the Tower. Just Shepard Smith noting there was "no tongue" in the royal kiss... Doesn't quite measure, up does it?

In flipping through the channels this morning msnbc had a scroll at the bottom which noted that 2 billion people watched the wedding today. Really? That's a full one-third of planet earth. That seems a bit over estimated if you ask me. Are people in Sierra Lione really looking down their morning to-do list going: "Ok, avoid rape gangs, check. Try not to have limbs amputated by machete, check. See how long the trail is on Kate Middleton's dress, check. Don't get infected by AIDS on the way to the well, check." Seriously, 2 billion? That's more than the Superbowl and World Cup, combined. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

I will say this though, 3 things actually. 1) I am a HUGE fan of the history of the English throne. It's perhaps 0.0001% of the US population that can explain the difference between England, Britain, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom (and I can), so don't think this is Anglo-Norman bashing, because it's not. 2) Prince William does give off an air of confidence (allow me a slight aside here). He has a presence, as Titus noted, that is the film negative of his father. And the English tend to have a history replete with that - the son being the negative of his father, for good or bad. In such instances that the father was weak, diddling, or obsessed with minutia, the son is typically a big picture leader; a war king; and physically impressive. And that's what William is. Think about that for a second. Even during the Middle Ages (just to pick a period), before photographs, television, or any other widely disseminated image, the level of support and respect the English King received from his subjetcs tended to be in direct correlation to his physical attributes. An athlete, a good hunter, a warrior. These were the expected characteristics of an ideal English King. They ruled through force of personality. And although that's true for many a monarch and emperor throughout history, I think it's a particular characteristic of the people whom would dare enforce limits on their monarchs (i.e. the Magna Carta). Even if the Crown was your birthright, their respect wasn't. You had to earn that on your own. And William is all of those things. He has that Edward III or Henry V feel to him. I have no doubt were it centuries prior he would be on horseback at Harfleur ... and that Charles would not.

I almost forgot, #3! And this is most important, above all it's why this wedding is getting world wide wall to wall coverage, and is perhaps the thing that is nearest and dearest to my heart: Kate Middleton is SMOKIN' HOT! Period. And I mean she could be in the next Transformers movie type of hot. Well done William ... it is good to be the King.