Pomp and circumstance rule!

Today was, of course, Charles and Camilla's big wedding day - one day late, since in this media age even Brit royals have to concede to a papal funeral. But no matter - it seems that the royals have won what has seemed like an internecine battle with Fleet Street. Back on March 20, I asked whether the U.S. media would frame this royal union as a tacky affair, or would they "fall into line with the whole royal pomp and circumstance/Ye Olde Englishe fairytale thing?" Well, from the limited amount of media coverage that I've forced myself to watch, it definitely looks like the latter. Pomp and circumstance seems to have won the day. I also wondered whether the U.S.media would take their cue from the British press. Well they have, in a way - if only to make the reporting of the "rabidly" anti-wedding British press a key part of the Charles and Camilla "story." In fact, the state-side pundits - at least on CNN - seem quite happy slamming the nasty old British tabloids for having dared to tear into this somewhat tacky union that has finally been made legal. It seems that quite a bit of the U.S. media are now becoming more "royally" respectful than their tawdry, muckraking Brit counterparts. Am I surprised at this development? Well, no: It's been a long time coming. I've been thinking for some time that the Royal Family would find a more natural home in the conservative bastion that America has become. Nothing I've seen from the current U.S. coverage is likely to change my mind on this. Britain, like Australia, is simply becoming too disrespectful, too cheeky, to take the royals seriously. The royals would be much happier over here - say, in southern California or Florida - where they could set up shop in a specially constructed Royal Theme Park. The tourists would come, and the British press would stop paying attention - at least until someone "Royal" got their kegs off or their tits out!