Stuff Kate Middleton is thrilled about in Canada

By macleans.ca - Monday, July 4, 2011 at 5:54 PM - 4 Comments

Canada may have been “too boring for the Queen” (thank you, Gawker), but Kate Middleton appears exceptionally thrilled to be here. She’s practically euphoric. Click on a thumbnail to see for yourself.

Cocktails with Kate and Will

By Anne Kingston - Monday, July 4, 2011 at 10:50 AM - 1 Comment

The invitation, issued by the press secretary to “TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge,” was impossible to decline: a 7:10 p.m. drinks reception with the royal couple immediately after their arrival in Charlottetown Sunday night. Just 200 or so journalists and provincial organizers for 40 minutes. The setting was shockingly intimate given royal-tour coverage dictates the royals are always at least a three-metre remove from the ink- and digitally-stained wretches. Following the couple around feels like being embedded in a military mission without any proximity: journalists wait hours in a slightly more privileged position than the hoi polloi for a glimpse of the couple, and are forever on the lookout for colourful crumbs to pad out reports.

The soiree had rules. It was to be casual, off-the-record, no cameras—which is like asking hunters who’ve been tracking big, exotic game to come face to face with their quarry stripped of their weapons.

The gathering was held on the second storey deck of a casual restaurant overlooking the harbour. The night was gorgeous. Drinks flowed. Oysters were shucked, lobster rolls served and a fiddle band played. Continue…

Why Harper is never in the Stampede parade

By Mitchel Raphael - Monday, July 4, 2011 at 9:10 AM - 5 Comments

Photographs by Mitchel Raphael

Security, the royals and the parade

The Canadian tour of Prince William and Kate includes a stop at the Calgary Stampede. One MP said local officials hoped the couple would actually be in the Stampede parade, but that doesn’t look like a possibility because the security costs would be too high with so many tall buildings along the route. Ever since Stephen Harper became PM, Conservatives have been hoping to get him into the parade. But, according to the MP, the security costs for that to happen were estimated a few years ago at $300,000. The Windsors would likely cost a lot more. So instead crowds will see the royal couple do the route in reverse (a 20-minute car trip as opposed to the hours-long parade), ending up at Bow Valley College, where they will officially start the parade.

MacKay knows if you have served

At Party Under the Stars, a fundraiser to help purchase electronic and other recreational equipment for troops in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the crowd that whenever anyone sees a member of the Canadian Forces they should go up and thank them. When Capital Diary asked MacKay’s aide if the minister practises what he preaches, the aide confirmed that he did and added that his boss can spot armed forces personnel even when they are out of uniform, by looking for certain bags or signs. One time in Frankfurt’s airport he went up to an out-of-uniform Canadian soldier and thanked him. The shocked soldier asked, “How did you know I was in the military?” MacKay just smiled.

Continue…

This is the week that was

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, July 2, 2011 at 8:47 PM - 0 Comments

Happy Canada Day from Stephen Harper and Prince William.

Charlie Angus won at filibustering. John Baird left his mark in Libya. Industry Canada made cuts. Stephane Dion dissected the Senate Reform Act. Michael Ignatieff reemerged. A filibuster deal was denied. The Samara shortlist was announced. Canada’s 150th birthday was considered. The Conservative party protested (too much?). And the newest Canadians pledged their allegiance to the Queen.

We kept reading the Afghan detainee documents. Kathleen Petty signed off. Matthew P. Harrington argued against Senate reform. Tom Hawthorn eulogized Frank Howard. Brian Topp championed the filibuster. Nick Taylor-Vaisey championed the filibustering House of Commons. Alex Himelfarb considered crime policy. JJ McCullough blamed the founding fathers. Kyle Crawford considered politics and professionalism. And Tabatha Southey questioned Internet surveillance.

‘A day of unity’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, July 1, 2011 at 3:10 PM - 6 Comments

The prepared text of Prince William’s remarks on Parliament Hill.

Bonjour Ottawa! Bonjour Canada! Bonne fete Canada!‪‪ Je suis tellement heureux d’être de retour au Canada – ce pays magnifique – et d’avoir la chance d’apprendre à mieux vous connaître.‪

I’m excited to be able to share this with Catherine because she has told me that she feels exactly the same way. She heard about Canada not from her parents, but from her grandfather, a wonderful man who passed away last year, but who held this country dear to his heart – for he trained in Alberta as a young pilot during the Second World War.‪

To be here on Canada Day – a day of unity, a day of coming together as families, and as a nation – is even more special for us. ‪

Continue…

‘There is something special about our country’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, July 1, 2011 at 3:05 PM - 2 Comments

The prepared text of the Prime Minister’s statement at Canada Day ceremonies on Parliament Hill.

To Your Royal Highnesses, Your Excellencies, distinguished guests and my fellow Canadians here on Parliament Hill, across Canada and around the world, Happy Canada Day everybody. What a great day. What a great crowd. I thought we had a big crowd last year, but I think this is the biggest yet.

Today our Confederation, our country, is 144 years old. But, having just recently travelled all across this great land, I think it is more accurate to say that Canada is 144 years young. Our country is barely scratching the surface of its full potential, be it here at home or on the international scene.

Continue…

What does Prince William have in common with John Galliano?

By macleans.ca - Friday, July 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM - 1 Comment

Some of the personal accoutrements of royal life—consider the jewellery—invoke envious admiration in lesser mortals; others—those hats—tend more to incite sympathy or, to be honest, outright derision. Clearly royalty has more sartorial obligations than privileges. It’s impossible to say what Prince William might choose to don if he had a choice, but his look, it seems, is not without its fans. Consider John Galliano, once PM to two royal houses of haute couture, Givenchy and Christian Dior. Before his recent disgrace—the designer is defending himself against hate-speech charges after alleged drunken anti-Semitic rants—Galliano often wore outfits that could be labeled Xtreme Wales.

The Commons: Pledging allegiance

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, July 1, 2011 at 1:50 PM - 13 Comments

The royal couple, newish icons of the iconic notion of nobility, descended upon the escalator of the grandly named Museum of Civilization. Behind them came the Governor General and his wife and behind them Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. Below sat 25 candidates for citizenship, waiting to partake of the final formality before they can officially take patriotic pride in Ryan Reynolds’ present reign as the Sexiest Man Alive.

The Duke wore navy blue. The Duchess wore white, with red heels and a reasonably elaborate red hat featuring maple leaves. He looked serious and charming and upstanding. She looked the same, but with fabulous hair as well. Continue…

The royal tour in pictures: William and Kate arrive in Ottawa

By macleans.ca - Thursday, June 30, 2011 at 4:42 PM - 1 Comment

How closely will you follow the royal visit by Prince William and Kate Middleton?

By macleans.ca - Thursday, June 30, 2011 at 11:02 AM - 8 Comments

Photo gallery: Obama goes to Europe

By macleans.ca - Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 5:27 PM - 0 Comments

This time they got it right

By Ken MacQueen - Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM - 0 Comments

Dominic Lipinski/Reuters

She wore a tiara borrowed from her new grandmother, and diamond drop earrings, a wedding gift from her beloved parents, and that dress, which so perfectly captured the spirit of the day: a confluence of the modern and the traditional; a sense that the monarchy, the country and the couple were moving forward, with a fond look back. And at the altar of Westminster Abbey her husband-to-be turned, and became what seems like the last person on earth to see his bride in her finery. “You’re beautiful,” he said, as many a nervous groom before him has said. While every aspect of this day—the union of a future king and queen of Britain, Canada and the rest of the realms—would be weighed, debated and analyzed for deeper meaning, there was no arguing that heartfelt statement of fact. And, briefly at that moment, lost in each other’s eyes, this grand spectacle—1,900 guests, and two billion more watching over their shoulders—shrank to a universe of two.

Then, before the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, Catherine Elizabeth Middleton and William Arthur Philip Louis Wales gave each other their “troth” in the archaic language of the Church of England, to love and to comfort and to forsake all others—pledges honoured more in the breach than the observance by generations of Britain’s royals. But maybe this time they’ll get it right. At least that is the hope of Queen and country. With that they became husband and wife, and, at the behest of their granny, Queen Elizabeth II, they were granted the titles duke and duchess of Cambridge and a mouthful of others.

Like any royal event, the wedding had elements of the absurd: headgear, for example, which Britons of a certain class embrace and treat with such seriousness that even fashion disasters are elevated into art forms. And so it was that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice, the daughters of Prince Andrew and the uninvited Sarah Ferguson, entered the abbey looking as if they’d been dressed by a blind quartermaster of the Ministry of Silly Hats. In this they were not alone. When television cameras in the abbey swept the bonneted crowd, it resembled the haphazard cluster of dishes and jury-rigged antennae you’d find on the rooftops of a Third World slum.

Continue…

Standing on ceremony

By Kate Fillion - Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Alastair Grant/AP

Nothing says courage quite like including six young children in your wedding party, unless it’s choosing as wranglers a young man who’s been called the bad boy of the royal family and a young woman who’s been called the most eligible singleton in the kingdom. With so many wild cards, anything could have gone wrong.

But nothing did. Pippa Middleton made sure of that. After helping her sister exit the car at Westminster Abbey and expertly arranging the train of the wedding dress just so on the red carpet, she took charge of the children, smiling calmly throughout. Walking up the aisle hand in hand with the pair of three-year-old bridesmaids, she summoned memories of Diana’s easy, natural way with children. And yet the impression she created was all her own: while her unobtrusive manner indicated a willingness to fade modestly into the background, Pippa’s form-fitting dress, with buttons up the back and a small train of its own, made that quite impossible. Unusually, it was only a shade or two away from Kate’s own gown, and the cut was substantially more revealing. There were whispers, and within minutes, squawks and tweets: had the maid of honour upstaged the bride? Online, detractors emerged, sniffing about the chestnut hue of Pippa’s fake tan. But in the church, she dispatched her duties serenely and with dignity.

Prince Harry, too, stepped up, which is to say that he was subdued and entirely proper throughout the ceremony, after cracking his brother up with a whispered aside as Kate approached the altar holding her father’s hand. There was nothing inappropriate in that, though: the best man’s job description is to lighten the mood. And after the ceremony, heading to the palace in a carriage with the youngest members of the wedding party, he was impeccably avuncular, reassuring the children and putting them at ease.

Continue…

To see and be seen

By Nicholas Köhler and Ken MacQueen - Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 12:00 PM - 0 Comments

Getty Images

As their Bentleys and Rolls-Royces crawled up the stately thoroughfares lined with thousands of spectators, guardsmen armed with fixed bayonets watched over the royal wedding guests. It was that kind of day—one of contradictions, of whimsy and moving spectacle. A guest list that in the last days threatened to cast a pall over the whole affair—snubbed past prime ministers, slighted foreign presidents, all those despots—dissolved on the Westminster Abbey steps into a confection of colour, occasional poor judgment and elegance. And in an England otherwise made austere by hard times, many of the 1,900 invited used fashion to make their statements.

Carole Middleton strode in wearing an ice-blue wool crepe coat dress, the kind of thing Jacqueline Kennedy might have worn had she been a British royal rather than a bona fide fashion plate. The bride’s mother reportedly got her first choice of colour and outfit, followed by the Queen, who opted for a primrose dress complemented by Queen Mary’s True Lover’s Knot brooch—an appropriate touch. Elsewhere, though, there were real missteps. Sarah Ferguson, the duchess of York and ex-wife of Prince Andrew, being herself a prior Windsor slip-up, wasn’t invited, but her two daughters, the princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, in beige and blue respectively, wore garments (particularly those towering, vertiginous hats) that suggested a recent sojourn in the Land of Oz.

Lesser royals arrived in buses like tourists across the tarmac from a charter flight, including Montreal-born Autumn, wife of Peter Phillips, the Queen’s grandson. England rugby captain Mike Tindall, engaged to Peter’s sister Zara, made his debut at an official royal event wearing his incomparably broken nose. And there were others from the farther edges of the royal orbit. Prince Albert of Monaco came with his fiancée, Charlene Wittstock—Europe’s next major royal wedding. Earl Spencer, whose last memorable appearance here came during his sister Diana’s funeral (when he delivered a eulogy stinging to the Windsors), now found himself shunted to the side with his Canadian fiancée, Karen Gordon (her hat: giant, pink, spaceship-like); William found a moment to chat with them briefly.

Continue…

A dress for the ages

By Anne Kingston - Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM - 0 Comments

Tom Pilston/APs

The fact that Kate Middleton’s bridal legacy was assured months before anyone had an inkling of what it was going to be tells you all you need to know about bridal-industry conformity. Before the big day was even over, factories in China were pumping out knock-offs of the dress. Had she arrived in the swan getup Björk wore to the 2001 Oscars, future brides would be shedding feathers as they walked down the aisle.

Yet the path Kate had to navigate was uniquely her own. She had to present as a bride for the ages, which meant pulling off a tricky high-wire balancing act: honour royal tradition while making a personal statement; provide a showy fashion moment yet be sensitive to the dire economic climate; inject new life into a beleaguered royal family; and, most perilously, prevail over the inevitable comparisons that would be made between her and Prince William’s mother, Lady Diana Spencer, on her wedding day 30 years ago.

As the smiling bride alighted from a Rolls-Royce Phantom VI at Westminster Abbey, it appeared all of the boxes had been checked off, and brilliantly. All eyes were on the dress, of course. The restrained V-necked white-and-ivory satin-and-lace gown with a two-metre train won near universal approval for being pitch perfect—classic yet fresh, formal yet fluid. She wore it; it didn’t consume her, unlike the fate of Diana Spencer who was overwhelmed by her billowing organza confection with an unwieldy 7.6-m train.

Continue…

The man in uniform

By Cathy Gulli - Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 12:25 PM - 0 Comments

Chris Jackson/Getty Images

Prince William had his back turned to Catherine Middleton as she walked with her father down the aisle at Westminster Abbey. It was an old-fashioned, austere moment: the demure, veiled bride escorted to her stoic bridegroom, who stared ahead at the altar. To William’s right stood Prince Harry, who also accompanied him from Clarence House to the abbey in a state Bentley, while crowds exclaimed, “We want Wills!” Harry has, in fact, always been at his big brother’s side to provide comic relief and encouragement. Now was no different: Harry broke form by looking over his shoulder and, smiling, advised William, “Right, here she is now.”

Throughout the formal 75-minute service, William remained the picture of regal restraint: he wore the red uniform of the Irish Guards; he was appointed the regiment’s honorary royal colonel by the Queen in February. His blue sash was that of the oldest and highest order of chivalry in Britain. He recited his vows in a quiet voice; he knelt and sang with his head bowed. When William and Kate strode down the aisle, she beamed, chin up, and surveyed the guests; he gave the same shy smiles, slight nods and sideways glances that his late mother Diana was known for.

Also like his mother, William appeared most comfortable during the less formal times. That’s when his charming, even coy, nature revealed itself: he blew kisses to his aunts before the service began. He joked with Kate and her father, “We were supposed to have just a small family affair!” To Kate, he gushed, “You look beautiful.” During the sermon, when the couple was urged to “persevere in prayer,” he initiated a warm exchange of grins between them. Once out of the solemn abbey (where Diana’s funeral was held in 1997) and among the cheering fans, William waved and laughed heartily. By then, he had put on his military cap, which is adorned with the regiment’s motto. Translated from Latin, it reads, “Who shall separate us?”

Continue…

Not so feudal after all

By John Fraser - Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 11:45 AM - 0 Comments

Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

The marriage of Catherine Middleton and Prince William of Wales came off without a hitch as close to two billion people around the world watched the British dust off their ancient institutions—from Westminster Abbey (10th-century origins) to the state landaus and coaches from the last two centuries—and make a hugely successful fuss over their future king and queen, now titled the duke and duchess of Cambridge.

Out of it all, a new sort of monarchy was seen to emerge, one more approachable, more savvy, and much more likely to survive the assaults regularly hurled its way. And that is thanks not just to a with-it and photogenic young couple, but also to the palace’s adroit use of new media.

The couple has not made one mistake, and the only criticism of their pre-wedding behaviour—that they lived together “in sin”—not only redounded to their credit, it turned out the cohabitation had been almost blessed by the archbishop of York, the second-highest-ranked cleric in the realm. As the archbishop’s daughter said, couples “want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow.”

Continue…

Love conquers all

By Leah McLaren - Monday, May 9, 2011 at 5:45 PM - 0 Comments

Gareth Fuller/PA/Keystone Press

One kiss was not enough.

As a sea of well-wishers roared their approval, the newlywed duke and duchess of Cambridge felt the people’s love—and returned it. It was the second kiss that sealed the deal, a marriage the dean of Westminster had just pronounced a “mystical union,” and one that succeeded in uniting not just a young man and his winsome bride but a monarchy with its subjects.

There they stood, awkwardly assembled on the Buckingham Palace balcony—the royal family in all their silly-hatted glory. Echoes of a similar scene 30 years ago hung heavily in the air, until Prince William acted with the kind of open-hearted spontaneity he could only have inherited from that sadly absent guest.

Continue…

Her royal hotness

By Leah McLaren - Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:10 PM - 0 Comments

Toby Melville/Reuters

They don’t call her Perfect Pippa for nothing.

When Kate Middleton arrived at Westminster Abbey on the morning of her wedding, there was a collective gasp around the globe. The bride was radiant, to be sure, but so was the maid of honour, trailing her sister in a slinky frock that slipped and sizzled in contrast to the bride’s demure lace sheath.

In one moment, Philippa Charlotte Middleton stole the show with her now much-replayed bend at the waist to straighten her sister’s nine-foot train. It was an act of sisterly love and bridal attendance to be sure, but one that also inspired a torrent of lust from red-blooded men the world over.

Continue…

The twittering classes

By Stephanie Findlay - Monday, May 9, 2011 at 11:50 AM - 4 Comments

Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images; National News/KEYSTONE PRESS; Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Image

When Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles got married in 2005, Facebook had just extended its membership eligibility to high school students, YouTube was in its nascency, Twitter didn’t exist, and no one really knew how to live-stream video. Fast-forward six years, to a brave new world. Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding set online viewership records, dominated social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and created instant Internet stars.

The big winner? Live-streaming video providers. Livestream, which provided online video for the Associated Press and CBS, said the royal wedding was its most popular stream ever, with 300,000 concurrent viewers. Yahoo also saw big gains: its royal video stream exceeded the record set by Michael Jackson’s funeral by 21 per cent. “Consuming video on the Internet is an increasingly complementary choice to broadcast TV, even when the event is available on TV,” according to Jennifer Donovan, spokesperson for Akamai, another Web streaming service. (The official royal channel provider, YouTube, expected an unprecedented 400 million viewers, though the numbers aren’t yet in.)

Major television networks, too, are finally leveraging social media to their advantage. Indeed, being on every platform—namely Facebook and Twitter—is becoming a necessity: “It’s about providing people with information they want in the format they want it,” says Wendy Rozeluk, a Google representative in Toronto. “One of the advantages is the ongoing commentary that people can make, as well as the participation people can have with an event.”

Continue…

No bangers and mash?

By Jessica Allen - Monday, May 9, 2011 at 11:35 AM - 0 Comments

Nick Ansell/Reuters

Bubble and squeak, smoked-haddock fish cakes, roast beef and Yorkshire pudding sounds more like dinner with Jaime Oliver than with the newly minted duke and duchess of Cambridge. But in keeping with the overarching narrative of this royal wedding, where everything from Kate’s dress to the ceremony has been steeped in tradition, British patriotism reigned supreme at the afternoon reception that immediately followed the newlyweds’ two pecks. At the reception, hosted by the Queen, at least 10,000 canapés in 24 varieties—prepared for the 650 guests by 21 chefs led by royal chef Mark Flanagan—were topped with ingredients showcasing the bounty of Britain’s produce. That’s 16 canapés per guest, for those keeping score.

The bubble and squeak (a hash made from leftovers of a roast-beef dinner) was topped with confit of lamb shoulder, the lamb raised at the Queen’s own Windsor estate; the goat cheese stuffed into the roulades was sourced from Britain-based cheesemonger Paxton and Whitfield; and the smoked haddock for the fish cakes, crowned with pea guacamole, arrived from the east coast of Scotland. Even the organic celery salt dusting the quail eggs was made in Wales. In fact, nearly all the canapés’ ingredients were sourced from the royal realm, including English asparagus, rhubarb and crayfish, duck from Gressingham, langoustines from the northwest coast of Scotland and pork from the Cotswolds.

To wash it down, only French bubbly, of course, would do, specifically Pol Roger reserve. For those who didn’t fancy champagne—including both Prince Charles and his father Philip—a selection of other soft and alcoholic drinks were available. The guests sashayed through 19 state rooms echoing with music by Claire Jones, the official harpist, and nibbled on the canapés buffet-style. After all, even the Queen doesn’t own a table fit for 650.

Continue…

A Q&A with the photographer who captured William and Kate’s big kiss

By Claire Ward - Saturday, April 30, 2011 at 4:33 PM - 3 Comments

(George Pimentel for Maclean's magazine)

Q: How would you describe this assignment?
A: It was the highlight of my life. Definitely the best thing I’ve ever photographed. There was so much pressure to get this shot.

Q: How did you wind up in front of Buckingham Palace?
A: At the time I applied, there were ten positions to choose from. You couldn’t be everywhere. You had to pick one spot. You could be at Buckingham Palace, the church, the Mall—all these designated areas. My first choice was obviously…well for me, it was always about the kiss.

CLICK HERE TO SEE HIS PHOTOS

Q: So where did they put you?
A: Where we were standing, the balcony was about 400 feet away. Which is quite far. Even with the longest lens, they’re still going to be small in the frame. It was very difficult on a technical note…. When I first got to the riser, they had my position marked. All I had was a card with a number on it. I didn’t know where I’d be standing. It was a crapshoot. If you were on the left side, you wouldn’t get a clear shot. The gate would be in your way. So they had a lottery process. And I got lucky! I got, well Maclean’s magazine got, the best position. They put me dab in the middle. I wasn’t even a yard over. I had a huge advantage over everyone.

Q: Why was the kiss an important moment for you?
A: I just think it sums it up. When you look back at Diana and Charles—I studied all those photos—it’s just so iconic. There were a million people below me screaming ‘Kiss, kiss, kiss’. That photo—it’s about history. It’s a photo I’ll be able to pass down to my grandchildren. After they kissed, there was this moment when all the photographers shook hands. We all looked at each other and we knew we got it.

Q: Why did they kiss for a second time?
A: I don’t think the fans were satisfied with the kiss. It was very staged. I could see in my lens when I was shooting, I think I saw his lips say “Are you ready?”. So they knew they were going to do it. It was romantic and graceful. But it happened way too early. It’s like they got it out of the way. Then the fans waited a couple of minutes and started chanting again. There was definitely more feeling on the second kiss.

Q: Did the little girl [Grace Van Cutsem] covering her ears ruin your perfect shot?
A: Not at all, she added to it. There’s always something funny in these moments. It made it a quirky shot. It was just so cute. When the kiss happened, the crowd roared and she put her hands over her ears like she was startled.

Q: What was your most memorable moment from the whole assignment?
A: That would be the first time I saw Kate Middleton, which was the night before. I got word that she was going to the Goring Hotel to check in, which is literally a minute away from my hotel. So my wife and I went for a walk and we saw all the photographers in front of the hotel, and we decided to stay. When Kate got out of the car, she was just stunning. I’m so used to celebrities and their big entourages, their attitudes—the Lady Gagas and the Angelinas. But she got out of the car with just her mom and sister. She smiled, she waved—she embraced her fans and embraced the media. I thought that was so classy. It was just such a nice, simple and pleasant moment. She looked like she was really enjoying this. The most famous woman of that week just acted like a real person. I realized that this was the last time she’d be photographed like this, on her own and single. Maybe this time next year you won’t be able to get anywhere near her. So that was a highlight.

[transcript has been edited for length]

New photos from the royal wedding

By macleans.ca - Saturday, April 30, 2011 at 1:57 PM - 0 Comments

Click on a thumbnail to enter gallery

How many people watched the royal wedding?

By Jaime Weinman - Friday, April 29, 2011 at 9:42 AM - 36 Comments

I for one will be interested to find out how many people around the world watched the wedding on the television box, and how many more streamed it over the internet tubes. A lot, obviously; that we know. It also seems to be a foregone conclusion that it will be more, probably a lot more, than the approximately 750 million viewers who watched the Charles/Diana nuptials. Some sources are predicting 3 billion viewers, and since my mind is not made to process numbers larger than the viewership of American Idol, I can barely fathom such a number, let alone whether it’s plausible. But this is a major television event, even if not a great deal happened.

We think of television as being more fragmented today than it was when Charles and Di got married, but to some extent that’s only true of scripted programming, where we can all choose the shows we want on the channels we want. Where a show offers something unique that cannot be duplicated – there’s only one Super Bowl, only (for now!) one English monarchy – combined with something a lot of people want to see, the numbers can be bigger than ever.

Update: Early reports suggest that the multi-billion viewer estimates were not plausible. It’s still big – thanks to the presence of more different channels all carrying the same event, the U.S. viewership surpassed the number for Charles and Diana. But it looks for the moment like the the 2-3 billion estimates from “British officials” may have been either wishful thinking or just a way of getting extra publicity in advance. It worked, too.

One thing that has changed a bit since the days of Chuck n’ Di: the coverage is much less frenzied. Really. I know that sounds strange. But the coverage of Charles and Di was the culmination of a long tradition of obsessive coverage of royal marriages, one that went back far enough that Cole Porter wrote a whole song in a 1932 Broadway musical making fun of it: “What will become of our England,” an English butler laments, “when the Prince of Wales finds a wife?” (The idea being that the Prince’s search for love – and every woman’s dream of marrying a prince – is the only thing the media cares about when it comes to England, and when he’s married off, the whole country is doomed.) The collapse of Charles and Diana’s marriage, and the backlash against the tabloids that followed Diana’s death, has caused the media on both sides of the ocean to be a little more circumspect: there’s still lots of talk about fairy-tale romance, but it’s tempered by a fear of going too far and hyping the marriage too much. This article in the Los Angeles Times explains it in a little more detail:

For the most part, the news media have been much more respectful of William, 28, and his privacy, striking agreements with the palace on photo ops and the extent of their encroachment on his life as a teenager, a university student and now a young man in military service.

“They’re very conscious of the fact that this boy is the son of Diana, and they don’t want to be unnecessarily offensive,” Greenslade said.

At the same time, the palace has learned how to run a tighter PR operation. The prelude to Friday’s wedding has been a master class in providing a slow drip-feed of information to the media (Today the identity of the cake maker! Tomorrow a look at the royal carriage!) while preventing major leaks. Only the royal household, the Middletons and their confidants know, for example, the true cost of the wedding or who designed the bride’s dress, which has become the object of almost fetishistic speculation.

Finally, I would be remiss in not pointing out that the saddest corporation during any royal wedding is the company that theoretically owns the movie Royal Wedding. It would be so incredibly exploitable, except that the film is one of the ones that fell into the public domain, meaning that anyone can show it on TV, release it on cheap DVDs or post it on the Internet. It’s not a particularly good musical anyway except for the famous dancing on the ceiling sequence (casting Winston Churchill’s daughter was a bad choice), but still, it is the ultimate royal marriage tie-in movie.