Another Royal Pain

Wedding guest lists can cause controversy in the best of families, but leave it to the bungling Windsor clan to create a right royal screw-up over theirs.  As belt-tightening Britons prepare to endure the tasteless display of wealth, privilege and social-climbing also know as the Royal Wedding, release of the guest list caused many of them to wonder about the kind of people the groom’s family apparently counts among its friends.  

Invited - King Mswati III

Amidst the usual clutter of B List celebrities, sports figures, and "socialites" (whatever they may be) is an assortment of autocratic despots such as the Crown Prince of Bahrain (who sent his regrets) and the King of Swaziland (presumably with all of his 13 wives).  Zimbabwe’s ambassador to the UK, who represents a regime currently subject to EU sanctions, will also be in attendance.  Meanwhile, President Barack Obama was overlooked – so much for the “special relationship”.  Former Tory Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major made the cut, but their Labour counterparts Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did not.

Snubbed - Pres. Obama

In the face of the predictable public outcry over the welcome being extended to unsavory foreign rulers and the omission of the likes of Obama and Blair, the Palace’s spin doctors stressed that the wedding is a private rather than state function and that the guest list had been largely drawn up by the couple themselves.  Hence the exclusion of Obama.  Really?  That almost makes matters worse.  If the guest list was indeed a function of personal choice rather than diplomatic protocol, inclusion of leaders from places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Swaziland is a damning indictment of the Mountbatten-Windsors' choice in friends.  But as usual the maladroit monarchy can’t get its story straight even on this issue.  For example, the inclusion of Thatcher and Major, and the exclusion of Blair and Brown, was officially attributed to the technicality that the former two hold the anachronistic title of "Knight of the Garter", whereas the latter two do not.  But neither do the likes of Elton John, David Beckam, or the assorted former girlfriends and wealthy foreign “businessmen” that comprise Charles’ personal invitees.  But above all, if this is indeed a “private” function, why is the hard-pressed British taxpayer yet again being stuck with the tab – estimated to reach $45 million – to provide policing and security for the personal guests of one of the richest families in England?

Dotty - Father of the Groom

The standard line among supporters of the monarchy is that these royal events are worth every penny because they add a little color and excitement to the otherwise drab and dreary existences of the hoi poloi who actually end up paying for them.  Such condescension adds insult to injury, especially during a period in which unemployment remains high and public services are being slashed.  David Cameron has sweetened the pot this time around by proclaiming a national public holiday in honour of the nuptials, but according to the latest polls the majority of Britons won’t be spending it watching the overblown event on television.  The government recently announced plans to review the archaic rules regarding the law of royal succession, which date back to 1701. That review long overdue, but why not go a step further and announce a referendum on whether the British people want ANY form of royal succession?