Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 2:04 PM ET, 11/16/2010

Prince William-Kate Middleton engagement, the Palins, and American royalty

By Alexandra Petri

Sure, I'm happy about the Royal Engagement. Congrats, Kate! You look radiant in that sensible jacket!

princewillwed.jpg

I'm overjoyed for you, Britain -- really, I am. It's like when you hear that your overachieving friend's lawyer-doctor-Supreme-Court-justice son has gotten engaged to eight Vanderbilts simultaneously. "That's nice," you mutter, gritting your teeth. "I'm sure he and his sister wives will be very happy together." You try to bear up. You console yourself with thoughts of your friend's large teeth and poor taste in systems of government. You go bemoan this to your husband, who ignores you because he is watching a marathon of My Big Redneck Wedding on CMT and doesn't want to miss the tractor-pull.

I'm not jealous, Britain! Really, I'm not. Sure, you have your beautiful weddings, rife with pomp and circumstance, with trains miles long. So what? We have long trains, too. Did you see "Unstoppable"? That was a great movie, made in America with American actors such as Chris Pine and Denzel Washington.

I never once entertained the thought that perhaps Prince William might hop across the pond and decide to embrace some nice American values. And it certainly would have gone nothing like this if I had: I'm walking across the street past his motorcade when his teeth start spontaneously falling out, something that I hear frequently happens to Brits. I rush to his assistance and offer to share my dental insurance with him. This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship that gradually blossoms into romance as we share our mutual love of crumpets, unnecessarily large hats, the letter "u," and food that looks and tastes terrible. That wasn't a dream that I shared with dozens, perhaps thousands of my contemporaries. Nope! Dreams are for people who enjoyed "Inception."

William's being taken doesn't bother me at all, because now the only eligible prince is the one who dressed up as a Nazi one time. Who minds it when people dress up as Nazis? Certainly not everyone! That's why we made certain to elect Rich Iott.

I'm not jealous of all the ensuing excitement and the fact that the British Monarchy already has 250,000 Facebook fans, with is only 1,000 times the number of Facebook fans I have, even though I have never, to the best of my knowledge, beheaded anyone or colonized anything, unlike the BM. I voted! Did the British Monarchy? I'm not jealous of the Royals themselves, human symbols, bearers of the light, or at least of numerous and complicated hats.

And I'm certainly not jealous of Kate Middleton, whom I know primarily as a person who wears good-looking, well-tailored coats, although she has been spotted in a bikini from time to time. This will be hilarious in thirty or sixty years when she is Queen.

Don't mind me! I'm fine. I will console myself with memories of the pomp and circumstance that abounded at Chelsea's wedding, and all the dignitaries and grandeur and the procession from St. Paul's Cathedral -- oh, was that Diana's wedding? I couldn't tell. They were practically identical, anyway, except ours ended more happily.

I'm sorry, that was uncalled-for. But you have to understand. I'm happy for you. I don't need an aristocracy. I'm an American! We're defined by the fact that we aggressively do not need or want an aristocracy. We don't even like people to act like an aristocracy. The Kennedys tried to do that, and look what happened to them.

Sure, we have our titles. But we even vote for prom queen. We don't do it the British way, where you wait many, many years for the previous prom queen to die.

But Lady Gaga? If we ever heard that was a hereditary title, I bet we'd turn on her too. We don't mind people marrying up or suddenly becoming queens, something we're accustomed to after playing lots of chess. But an aristocracy? Please.

We believe in what someone once cynically described as the right of every man to be the equal of his betters. We don't like being told that people have ascended to heights we cannot reach. This explains the strange democratic form of celebrity culture has taken hold among us, fueled by the firm belief that celebrities are in no way superior to us, although they may be more entertaining. Snooki, anyone?

The Brits have their tea parties. We have ours. They produce Masterpiece Theater adaptations of Jane Austen classics. We produce Ice Road Truckers. William and Kate? Try Jon and Kate Plus Eight! Watch weddings? That's why we have Hitched or Ditched!

But this plays out interestingly in our ceremonial and political lives. There's a line in the movie Maurice (and possibly the book as well, but I couldn't dredge it up) where one character tells another, "You are confusing what is important with what is impressive."

In Britain, the distinction is epitomized by the Royals. They are Impressive in the most resounding sense of the word. But important? Hardly. One can gush about them all one likes, but it has about the same impact on Actual Life and Policy as rooting for Michael Phelps in the Olympics.

Here in the States, the two are seldom so clearly delineated. We care about a lot of things that aren't important -- Bristol Palin is on Dancing with the Stars! -- but we allow ourselves to believe, for a moment or two, that they are. "This vote is a referendum!" we mutter. Perhaps we should try a royal experiment of our own. Sure, America will never have anything that approaches a true aristocracy. It would be anathema. H. L. Mencken wrote that an aristocracy's

first and most salient character is its interior security, and the chief visible evidence of that security is the freedom that goes with it -- not only freedom in act, the divine right of the aristocrat to do what he jolly well pleases, so long as he does not violate the primary guarantees and obligations of his class, but also and more importantly freedom in thought, the liberty to try and err, the right to be his own man. It is the instinct of a true aristocracy, not to punish eccentricity by expulsion, but to throw a mantle of protection about it -- to safeguard it from the suspicions and resentments of the lower orders."

Can you imagine a thing like that? Americans prefer to punish eccentricity by giving it its own reality TV show.

Which brings me to my candidate for America's royal family. The Palins.

Hear me out. I watched the premiere of Sarah Palin's Alaska. On it, the Palins were impressive in the way we Americans have decided we want to find things impressive: entertaining, and like us, but more so. They're headed by a Queen, something we find reassuring. Victoria? Elizabeth? Elizabeth? Only the best of memories. (Never mind Mary Queen of Scots.)

What about the pomp? Well, who needs it! We don't want to watch people yachting and eating kale. We prefer snowmobiles and PB&J. We're aggressively anti-elitist. If anyone insists that he or she might be our superior, we hope that person turns out to be a great lake. But Palin would never do that. Like Christine O'Donnell, she makes a point of being You, with a capital Y. That's what the people want.

So, mazel tov, Will and Kate! We wish you the best.

Maybe we can arrange Bristol and Levi's Royal Shotgun Wedding! I'd watch that.

By Alexandra Petri  | November 16, 2010; 2:04 PM ET
Categories:  Petri, Reality? Television, Worst Things Ever  | Tags:  America, Sarah Palin, royalty  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Long and Winding Road to Beatles catalogue on iTunes
Next: Mulligans: McCain and Snooki, Obama and Sitting Bull

Comments

For similar sentiments when William's father got engaged, look up the old Christine Lavin tune "Prince Charles":

Charles!
Prince Charles
Do you have a last name?
I was gonna ask you that on our first date
Forget it! Things have changed...

Posted by: betsy9 | November 16, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Betsy,

It's obvious that Prince Charles has a last name: Charles!

During his "dalliance" with Camilla, the Queen briefly changed it to "The Charles formerly known as Prince".

But since this recording of his conversation with Camilla became public, he has been known as "The Prince of Tampax".
===
Charles: What about me? The trouble is I need you several times a week.
Camilla: Mmmm, so do I. I need you all the week. All the time.
Charles: Oh. God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be much easier!
Camilla: (laughing) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?
(Both laugh)
Camilla: Oh, You're going to come back as a pair of knickers.
Charles: Or, God forbid a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)
Camilla: You are a complete idiot (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.
Charles: My luck to be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on forever swirling round on the top, never going down.
Camilla: (Laughing) Oh, Darling!
Charles: Until the next one comes through.
Camilla: Oh, perhaps you could come back as a box.
Charles: What sort of box?
Camilla: A box of Tampax, so you could just keep going.

http://everything2.com/title/Prince+Charles+and+Camilla+Parker+Bowles+say+goodnight

Posted by: divtune | November 16, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Princess Petri’s Pea

I thought you were done talking about that irritating Sarah “pea” Palin. She let you move onto the Royal Unicorn Ranch in Fantasyland, didn’t she? So that WAS your unmarked van in the background on the new “All Palin, All The Time” reality show.

And ya’ betcha’ ya’ want Sarah Palin to be elected Queen in 2012! Ya’ could cover the biggest Redneck Wedding ever, and ya’d have guaranteed ComPost employment for 4 more years, or maybe 2 if she gets an offer for a better show.

But don’t ever forget that King John “Arthur” Kennedy of Camelot was our first royalty, until his loyal squire, Bobby “Lancelot” ran off with the King’s dame, Marilyn “Guinevere” Monroe. Then Lee “Mordred” Oswald of Hades destroyed everything.

Sorry Pea-tri(sick(sic)), but today we already have an American King, or at least several thousand people dressed like him in Las Vegas alone. When the King’s daughter, Prince Priscilla wed “The Gloved One”, they later purchased an heir to the throne named… (drum roll)… Prince Michael Jackson II of Neverland.

The King and the king are dead. Long live King Michael Jackson II. (And we still might have a nice, big, Royal Redneck Wedding someday.)

Posted by: divtune | November 16, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

That Americans have long aspired to be the most ignorant, ill-bred, crude and violent people on the globe is nothing new. That Americans find this to be the means to earn a living is all the more hideous.

Posted by: streetnoise | November 17, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Your comment: "The Kennedys tried to do that, and look what happened to them." was in very poor taste.

Posted by: rjdemmel | November 17, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin's super dysfunctional family vs. Queen Elizabeth's ultra-dysfunctional family? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Really, hmmmmmmmmm.

Talk about juxtaposing trashtalking super ignorance (The Palins) with opportunistic freeloading (The Tudors). Two nasty women (Sarah and Queen Elizabeth) have neutered two unfortunate men (Todd Palin and Prince Charles) & reduced them to SACRED WAITERS.

Todd Palin is a sacred waiter:
He is waiting for a devine intervention that will transport his ignorant half-Gov wife into the U.S. White House.

Prince Charles is a waiter:
He only job -for the past two decades- is waiting for a his mother to die.

Posted by: Whispers | November 17, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

The Palins' are American royalty? You are overpaid.

Posted by: jckdoors | November 17, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd skip the wedding but I'd watch the divorce proceedings.

The instant I heard Tom Delay would be on this 'Dancing with the Stars' I thought - I see, this show is a distraction, while the kids are over in Afghanistan getting their heads blown off, why ? We have time for Dancing with the Stars.

The show HAS to be created with political motivations. Image control.

I'm highly suspicious of the show - WHY it's presented as IF it really improves anyone's life.

Not sure what network it's on, but sounds like something Fox would create.

The Stepford Wives crew on Fox n Friends - when I could afford cable TV - were always obsessing about DwTS.. hmmm DWTS - first word that comes to mind is dimwits. But I'm learning I don't have to negative sell something - it's better to constructively point out the show is nothing more than a distraction - or counter balance to the other 'Terror' programming on.

If anything ? Putting out Dancing with the Stars where Tom Delay gets to improve his image or Palin's daughter helps pave the way for the Palin's to even be included in the same sentence as 'The Stars' that dance on that show ? Creates a bipolar scenario for Fox News - for they go from the lofty DWTS to Fear Terror forever.

That's a WIDE MARGIN To span.

I somehow don't think Dancing With the Stars would go over too well during World War II.

And last I checked, WW II we didn't even have an alleged attack on the mainland.

Bizarre the survivors of building 7 are asking for a formal investigation into how their loved ones died - more bizarre NYC denies every attempt to investigate.

I think people would much rather understand just what the HELL is going instead of this meaningless distraction.

Looking for Natalie Holloway was Fox's GUARANTEED trap to keep you from focusing on Bushes Tax Cuts, er, sorry, wrong Bush project, I meant Bushes Iraq War (funny no one ever calls it Bushes Iraq War, only Bushes Tax Cuts).

The entire network Fox News is a distraction / 24/7 political ad base.

I'm surprised the FTC can't nail them for not putting up front "Paid TV Advertisement" before their so called News programs.

If I wrote this article, I would have pointed out there is a STRANGE plethora of Survival themed shows... How to survive when you have nothing left.

I'd be curious as to why people are interested in that theme of programming.

I KNOW why- people are close to HAVING nothing left and are actually tapping it for information.

I like the trajectory of this article though. It lacks momentum. Palin's moment in time is nearly up and I think we should spend more time examining her fraud. Such as this anti-elitism for those people who worked HARD and studied HARD at highly respected academic institutions... She presses on about elitists. I was thinking recently- just wait a second, she DEMANDS a PRIVATE corporate jet for her $100,000 PER speech UP FRONT speeches where ALL questions have to be previewed BY her, and black SUV's. Elitists ?

Posted by: HRPuffinstuff | November 17, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

So's

I betzd I can write something better than this.

Posted by: HRPuffinstuff | November 17, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Alexandra,
I am petri-fied to learn that you have 250 Facebook friends. That's 249 too many for a whiny louzy writer like you.

Congrats!

Posted by: Silly_Willy_Bulldog | November 17, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if the "Royals" can see New York from their front porch?

Posted by: catfish22181 | November 17, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

ComPost is such an appropriate name for this series.

Posted by: diehardlib | November 17, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"Your comment: "The Kennedys tried to do that, and look what happened to them." was in very poor taste."

Yes, very poor taste indeed.

Posted by: mobrien83 | November 17, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

A little fantasy is a lovely break. Too bad you guys can enjoy a bit of it. The Royal Wedding of Price Charles and Diane was a huge economic and psychological boost for England. It didn't last and most fairy tales are not really happy ever after. I recall Nancy Reagan went and enjoyed that one to the hilt. When the first lady goes to represent us this time no doubt the right wing will forget how rapt they were then.

Posted by: withersb | November 17, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I get it now. This is what passes for funny and clever at the Post. With the obligatory professional journalist shots at the Palin family. Well done. Another Pulitzer Prize is in the mail.

Posted by: Major94 | November 17, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Bristol Palin remaining on a stupid entertainment show like DWTS is less a farce than Tina Fey getting the Mark Twain Prize. Talk about political votes! Mark Twain would make mincemeat out of the talent-less Fey.

Posted by: WashingtonDame | November 17, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

This article plus some cow manure and we'd have some real compost.

At least it's plain where the name comes from.

Posted by: Benson | November 17, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Petri,

"The Kennedys tried to do that, and look what happened to them. "

I bet my next paycheck that you sat there for 15 minutes considering deleting that sentence.

Hilarious - but everyone in the office just heard me say "Oh my God" to my computer screen (unless they think I'm enjoying my lunch a little more than usual today).

Posted by: appaino | November 17, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

This article seems to be nothing but stream of mental nonsense. I am sure it was written by an incoherent and loquacious reporter, who had either too much coffee this morning, or is in desperate need her meds.

Posted by: fridaolay | November 17, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

America IS dunning down....you are kidding with the comparison????

You just can;t fix CRAZY !!!!!!!!

Posted by: lindarc | November 17, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Teenage Mother vs Respectful young man is the example of Americans values. Bristol the teenage Mom that America hails as the role model for young woman, Willow using curse words showing she was taught well and Sarah the Governor who quit, can't read and is using people for money. Yes we have our American Palin. The Royals might have their odd way but Wills brings respect. Notice Kate isn't having a baby to get married. She was given a ring not the surprise announcement of baby/Daddy. Children represent how they were raised by their parents and both Bristol and Wills are example of how they were raised. Mainly Moms play a major role so this tells us about Diana and Sarah. It was clear from the start Bristol couldn't dance but with politics involved we see Bristol winning and still can't dance as other who are great are voted off. The show is doing a disservice to the viewers and other dancers.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | November 17, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Well done, Princess Petri of Cornbollix!

I see you've inspired the Dame and Duke of Puffinstuff to whip out their stiff uppers and wag their silly willies at you. Very poor taste indeed, what what!

And Duke Puffinstuff, old chap -- well said! Perhaps another contingent of the Queen's Royal Bullsharpshooters might tip the scales in Afghanistan. The American colonists who forget their history of the British in Afghanistan are doomed to repeat it, hear hear?

Posted by: divtune | November 17, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Ms.NOTHING writing about royal NOTHINGS. As i "babbling".

Posted by: craigslsst | November 17, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it folks, we are all jealous of the Palins. Just like we are jealous of the genuine royalties from Britland. That's why we left there. Now, can we send $arah back to the Brits. At least they will appreciate her royal hindne$$.

Posted by: bigedpape | November 17, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

There is no accounting for poor taste!

Posted by: peachpeel1 | November 17, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

That was about as unfunny an article (meant to be funny) as I have ever read. Your humor comes from the same bitter/tired place that Tina Fey's and the horrible Saturday Night Live slithered up from.

Posted by: j751 | November 17, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

How about Palin and Newt Gingrich together on the Republic Party ticket. They could run on "traditional family values." Eeeeeeeeehawwwwww!


Posted by: mongolovesheriff | November 17, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

And you get paid for writing this whiny crap? The Palins are yesterday's news but people such as yourself insist on jamming those yahoos down our throats. Good luck to the prince and his chosen. No matter what, England has a long history and tradition. No need to mock it because we separated from the Empire centuries ago. Many of the other Euro countries have had or continue to have monarchies. It's part of the history of civilization. Obviously you have no regard for history. Let me guess.... you're a Gen X or Y'er?

Dope.

Posted by: mooncusser | November 17, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Comparing Soap Opera Sarah and her trailer trash family to the class of British royalty is just plain gross.

Posted by: areyousaying | November 17, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Writing crap like this, how do you expect to ever be taken seriously. Has your mommy not given you enough love today, pyle? Washington Post writers in general are a disgrace to the profession.

Posted by: 1bmffwb | November 17, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

yes yes petri, you are a terrible person. I am offended by this and in fact by all of your other articles, which I choose to accept at face value and consider personal attacks on me and my way of life. I am specifically put off by your agenda against gay squirrels, tainted celery, Christine O'Donnell, and the Kennedy family.

Also, cheers to whomever thought up the brilliant "Compost" metaphor! It works perfectly... see, what we have here is an amalgamation of apparent waste materials (e.g. sara palin, the tea party, many of the earlier comments, etc.), and when you mix all this waste together, add some sh*t (in this case, of the traditional "bullsh*t," or "just sh*tting around" varieties), and put it out in the sun for a bit, it will eventually turn into a valuable organic material that encourages (social and political) growth.

Posted by: plsdonotfeedtherhino | November 17, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Dear Divtune: Charles and Camilla gossip is soooo yesterday. Who cares anymore (except you)?

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | November 17, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The WP's ombudsman needs to step in. The daily craze with Palin is absurd and sad. It is completely beneath a once great paper. The WP is not supposed to be the Huffington Post or Daily Kos. But, that is what you are becoming.

Posted by: sagedutch | November 17, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Seriously,

Alexandra Petri is my favorite humor columnist, EVER! Why? Because she makes me think.

I’m old enough to remember crying along with Walter Cronkite when President Kennedy died. But I never understood why Art Buchwald was popular. I got the occasional chuckle from Erma Bombeck. Dave Barry could make me laugh every week, but not out loud. I sometimes laughed so hard reading Tony Kornheiser that people asked if I was going to be OK. But Petri is 10 steps above all of them!

It may be difficult, especially for us older people, to understand what makes Petri so special. Perhaps this story will help.

Last weekend I drove some friends to a lake. It started raining. I had to back up towards the lake in very poor visibility. It reminded me that some pretty, blonde newswoman had died when she backed her car into a lake in the rain.

My oldest friend remembered the name, “Jessica Savage.” Then my younger friends whipped out their smart phones. But before they could enter the entire name, the latest version of Google suggested, “Jessica Savitch death.” Now we all know the whole sad story, including things that were never reported at the time.

It’s truly mind boggling to imagine what this new era of instant knowledge, and instant communication means for the future. But I’m betting that the first one to explain it to us will be Alexandra Petri.

Ms. Petri’s style is “stream of consciousness” satire… kind of like John Stewart on crystal meth. She shows us a window into her brilliant mind which brings out our “inner voyeur”, if we let it. Sure, she is silly and childish – but aren’t we all silly and childish inside?

But, like John Stewart, there is a message underneath her silly satire. Digging out that message is what makes her so fascinating to me. The process sometimes even stimulates me to think up new ideas of my own.

In this column, for example, Petri makes fun of British royalty by comparing it to American “royalty.” But this made me think, “What is the purpose of British royalty?”

We humans have a genetic tendency to idolize our leaders, and follow them to the death. But this can give our “Dear Leader” so much power that he turns into “Mein Fuhrer”.

When British monarchs had absolute power, history shows that they often behaved like “Fuhrers”. Maybe Britain allows her subjects to idolize a powerless Queen so they won’t need to idolize a powerful “Furher”?

Here in the American colonies, our hatred for British kings required us to develop a new way to prevent our leaders from turning into fuhrers. It’s called “The First Amendment”. If people start to “fuhrerize” President Obama, we can count on Fox News to come to the rescue. And that foxy Alexandra Petri would probably label him our, “Deer Leader.”

Posted by: divtune | November 17, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

That Americans have long aspired to be the most ignorant, ill-bred, crude and violent people on the globe is nothing new. That Americans find this to be the means to earn a living is all the more hideous.

Posted by: streetnoise | November 17, 2010 9:39 AM |

Great post, right on the nose!

Posted by: mtravali | November 17, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

lddoyle2002 wrote:
Dear Divtune: Charles and Camilla gossip is soooo yesterday. Who cares anymore (except you)?
Posted by: lddoyle2002 | November 17, 2010 2:02
====
ld,

Thank you SO much for your comment calling me an idiot, and reminding me that British queens and princes are "So Today".

The "you're an idiot" comment score so far is:

divtune: 1
Petri: 186,282
===
Dear plsdonotfeedtherhino | November 17, 2010 1:59 PM,

Incredible comment! Let me be the first to call you an idiot. And so is Petri.

divtune: 1
plsdonotfeedtherhin: 1
Petri: 186,283

Posted by: divtune | November 17, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Fun article! I think we already have our own version of royalty and they are on the cover of People magazine. Michael Jackson, as an example, was the equivalent of a crazy Duke of York. The Palins are certainly royalty in their own way - they have authority over many supporters based on apparent support. Its hard to say what level compared to British royalty, but would probably end up the Earl of Anchorage.

Posted by: ricois | November 17, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe we can arrange Bristol and Levi's Royal Shotgun Wedding! I'd watch that."

~~~~You would? I do not watch "Dancing With The Stars" this season when I saw that Palin was on it! I sure wouldn't watch her shotgun wedding or any other wedding, I just laugh at the stupidity and lack of class in that family.

I did admire Chelsea Clinton since she has always behaved like a lady, got her education, respected and loved both of her parents, got a job, and is now happily married. SHE NEVER sought publicity...... unlike the Palins.

I hope no one EVER tries to compare the Palins to the British royal family. The Palins are still the Wasilla Hillbillies, ableit WEALTHY Wasilla Hillbillies. Sometimes money can make a person more respectable, but not in the case of the Palins.

Posted by: cashmere1 | November 17, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

There is so much derp in these comments. From the people expressing shock and appall over joking about the Kennedy family (gasp! suck it up, old people), to the people taking the article seriously, to the people writing one-sentence replies indicating that they don't appreciate Petri's sense of humor, Weingarten's quote holds true. This really is a side-dish of maggots.

j751: Tired bitterness has long been a fine source for comedic material. Refer to A Modest Proposal, The Great Dictator, and other works.

Silly_Willy_Bulldog: I hope you got something out of that post, because I feel dumber for having read it. Friend me!

divtune: You are the wind beneath my wings.

1bmffwb: Talk more about the profession of journalism, modern standards, and the Post's journalists, because it's completely germane to the content of this column.

Posted by: purpledrank | November 17, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Tina Fey looks NOTHING like Sarah Palin, who is gorgeous on the outside and beautiful on the inside. Fey is a crabby, homely communist inside and out, a thin
version of Janet Napolitano.

Let all the ignorant liberal welfare hillbillies spit out as many vulgarities as they like. A patriotic, honest, hard-working, freedom-loving American like Palin who believes in this great country will always triumph over the smelly, marxist robots of the Left who follow
frauds like Obama and Pelosi.

Posted by: kypriotis | November 17, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Having a head of state and a head of government has it's advantages. Consider how divided our nation is. Having a leader who is head of state and head of government provides no figure for which the nation may be united. There was a time when there was respect for the office of President, but with the vitriolic rage of both extremes of the political spectrum that common respect is long dead.

And let's not forget the image of te Royal Family sharing the terror of the Blitz.

Long live her Majesty Queen Elizibeth

Posted by: tnsailorguy | November 17, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse


Of all the childish crap and photo contests the Post now calls
"Newspaper" material,

this is among the dumbest. No junior high editor would lt it through.

Not the worst, though, the long line of Je wish columnists screaming daily for bombing Iran is the worst. Where is Kristol, incidentally?

Posted by: whistling | November 17, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse


kypriotis says

Tina Fey is a COMMUNIST, and that Palin is "beautiful inside and out".

Anbody SEEN PALIN UP CLOSE lately? (No, there are no even medium shots now) She looks like an old hag. Her TP ole boys will
faint when someone finally gets a real close up photo.
She looks like a hag. Needs a face lift, badly.

Posted by: whistling | November 17, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The "royal" Painsin of Wasilla continue to receive unmerited WaPo attention. FYI, I didn't read this trite nonsense.

Posted by: whocares666 | November 17, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

another wapo hack commenting on who cares BS.

Posted by: pofinpa | November 17, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

This writer has clearly been told by her editors to make her weekly columns "funny" - the comedy for me is how completely Ms. Petri misses every time. Was this supposed to make us laugh?

Stick to something else. If I wanted to read failed, desperate yet politicized attempts at humor I'd watch FOX & FRIENDS.

Posted by: drnosewater | November 17, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

The Prince serves with the RAF as an EMO search and rescue chopper pilot, his brother Henry served on the front lines with the British infantry in Afganistan, his uncle flew a chopper aboard with the Royal Navy during the Falkands War, his grandfather served with the Royal Navy in WW2 and right up until Elizabeth was crowned and his grandmother the Queen was a teenage motor mechanic/driver, also in WW2. Only the direct heir to the Throne is not knowingly put harms way hence Charles was the only Royal of recent years not to serve full time. These Royals got class, for the Queen is head of the British Commonwealth that has 2 billion people, Queen of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. None of whom are about to put up with glitz over function and understand how hard the royals do work, US sneers aside. Many happy nations do believe that democracy wears a crown, just look at the top rankings for health, standard of living, education, law and order etc.and you'll note it is populated with Constitutional Monarchies within a Parliamentary Democracy.

Posted by: sjag1 | November 17, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I think it's funny when Americans take offense to other Americans joking the British Monarchy. Lighten up people. If you think it's such a great idea to pay taxes to a pompous bunch of worthless, anachronistic royalty, feel free to move across the big pond.

And yes, the Princess Diana crack made me laugh.

Posted by: tristesse27 | November 17, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Petri, girlll, you were just down right funny with a little bit of sarcasm to add.

I like you, girlll, you are my kind of girl.

I haven't laughed so hard, since Bush got those shoes thrown at him.

Thanks for the good laugh and keep up the good work.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | November 17, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I just LOVE B. Palin's new abstinence commercial. The Situation asks her, "Come on B. Palin. Are you serious? Like you're not gonna hook up with before you get married? For real?" B. Palin. "Fer real." T. Sit "Fer real fer real?" B. Palin "Fer real fer real fer real."

Wow, the writing. But I hate to break it to both of them because B. Palin has apparently forgotten...SHE'S ALREADY HOOKED UP BEFORE SHE GOT MARRIED FER REALS FER REALS FER REALS, YO.

Posted by: arancia12 | November 17, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

kypriotis ~ you've seen Sarah Palin's insides?????? Ewwwwwwwwwwww. Does Taaaaad know?

Posted by: arancia12 | November 17, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

I just LOVE B. Palin's new abstinence commercial. The Situation asks her, "Come on B. Palin. Are you serious? Like you're not gonna hook up with before you get married? For real?" B. Palin. "Fer real." T. Sit "Fer real fer real?" B. Palin "Fer real fer real fer real."

Wow, the writing. But I hate to break it to both of them because B. Palin has apparently forgotten...SHE'S ALREADY HOOKED UP BEFORE SHE GOT MARRIED FER REALS FER REALS FER REALS, YO.

Posted by: arancia12
~~~~~

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Posted by: lcarter0311 | November 17, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

This auricle must be a joke or satire???????
(Palin sdatire means: the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. ......

Posted by: lindarc | November 17, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I wish I could find a paper that had some news and analysis in it.

Since that seems unlikely, and since this trend towards the facebook-ization of news seems unlikely to stop until it no longer matters, can I simply say that:

I wish you'd invite Dan Froomkin back.

In hindsight, the editors have to recognize that a column entitled "White House Watch" has significant value, even with a Democrat in the White House.

Since I'm feeling wistful, I'd also like to mention that I miss when stories were built on facts that supported actual analysis instead of presenting facts then "balancing" them with opinion-based, Tea Party rhetoric.

This just sucks.

Posted by: KobayashiMaru | November 17, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

All things British or European must be repudiated. The USA won its independence and to return to glamorizing politicians is not what America is all about. They work for us and we don't work for them. In Britian, the people work for the royal family. Building this type of government is a reversal of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights stand for and each time the liberal press flaunts all over royality or draws compariosns between our politicians and english politicians, we as Americans should respond with a vigor of opposition.

On announcement of the marriage of royality in england is enough and to go any further is treason of the American soul.

I am sure Palin doen't think of her self as anything close to royality and to paint her in such a way is only another attempt by the liberal media to tarnish her in the public eye. Perhaps liberals believe conservatives think of their leaders in such a way, because we all know they do, i.e. JFK and Obama. However, the it seems the author wants to communicate to a liberal reader through liberal means that only a liberal can understand.

Gingrich/Palin in 2012

Posted by: Chris561_561 | November 17, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

All things British or European must be repudiated. The USA won its independence and to return to glamorizing politicians is not what America is all about. They work for us and we don't work for them. In Britian, the people work for the royal family. Building this type of government is a reversal of what the Constitution and Bill of Rights stand for and each time the liberal press flaunts all over royality or draws compariosns between our politicians and english politicians, we as Americans should respond with a vigor of opposition.

On announcement of the marriage of royality in england is enough and to go any further is treason of the American soul.

I am sure Palin doen't think of her self as anything close to royality and to paint her in such a way is only another attempt by the liberal media to tarnish her in the public eye. Perhaps liberals believe conservatives think of their leaders in such a way, because we all know they do, i.e. JFK and Obama. However, the it seems the author wants to communicate to a liberal reader through liberal means that only a liberal can understand.

Gingrich/Palin in 2012

Posted by: Chris561_561 | November 17, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yeah!
Sarah Bulshitt is the Qeen of Trash, and don't we know it.

Posted by: analyst72 | November 18, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Whispers, the British Royal Family haven't been Tudors for over 400yrs. The Current Royal Family are the House of Windsor.

On a side note, royals (British and European) generate a lot of income for their nation in tourism. We ought to be jealous of Britain getting a popular royal wedding, jubilee celebration of QEII, and the Olympics all in two years. With the real 11% cut to gov't spending across the UK the UK look more stable than we do.

Posted by: cory3 | November 18, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company