Who really cares about Chas and Camilla?
GOOD journalism - in fact, any good writing - can be as notable for what it doesn't say as for what it does. One of the best pieces of reporting I can remember was the next day's article in the Morning Star covering the wedding of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer in 1981.
GOOD journalism - in fact, any good writing - can be as notable for what it doesn't say as for what it does.
One of the best pieces of reporting I can remember was the next day's article in the Morning Star covering the wedding of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer in 1981. It appeared at the foot of a column on the front page.
“Traffic in London was severely disrupted for several hours yesterday owing to a royal wedding.”
That's all. That was the whole of the paper's coverage, putting the great overblown, outdated, preposterous event in its proper perspective.
A perspective, it has to be said, not shared by the rest of the media.
Tomorrow Charles gets married again (unless there have been more unscheduled hitches between my time of writing and the Evening Star going to press).
- 1 Person dies in Ipswich house fire
- 2 Karaoke noise complaints prompts fear Grade II pub could close
- 3 Family's gratitude after Christmas samaritan's £50 act of kindness
- 4 First case of Omicron confirmed in Suffolk with 16 more suspected
- 5 Police 'concerned' for missing 15-year-old who was last seen a week ago
- 6 Speed limit on Orwell Bridge reduced as Storm Barra hits region
- 7 Matchday Recap: McGreal's Town beaten at The Valley
- 8 Beautiful new bottomless brunches launch at Ipswich bar
- 9 When will my bins be collected this Christmas?
- 10 Former camera shop Jessops cited for three flats in Ipswich
So where are all the acres of newsprint celebrating the occasion, the wall-to-wall TV coverage, the sycophantic burbling of broadcasters?
Just how far has the heir to the throne fallen in public affection?
His second marriage seems to come lower in the attention ratings than second marriages of run-of-the-mill characters on Corrie or EastEnders.
Let's face it, Cheerless Charles is no longer even a match for Dirty Den or smutty Mike Baldwin.
Could you imagine his first wedding being put back 24 hours at four days' notice, even for a pope's funeral? It's unthinkable.
Yet at breakfast time on Monday, radio news was reporting that his wedding to Camilla would take place today even if it clashed with the papal farewell. By tea time that had subtly changed to a report that C and C would marry on Saturday “out of respect” for the pope.
I vowed to myself after the first announcement of the impending marriage that I wouldn't waste my precious column inches mentioning it.
Since then, public apathy has seemed so overwhelming that it's worthy of note in itself.
Of course, Charlie boy won't care what I have to say about his nuptials. After all, I'm just one of “those bloody people”.
The question is, though, Charles, just where would you be without the bloody people?
Shun the media - and through it the rest of the population - and we could sharp start wondering why we have a royal family at all in the 21 st century.
Why you and all your appalling tribe should be allowed the privileges and cash you unthinkingly soak up.
People who care about such things say you have agonised for years about Camilla - about whether “the people” would accept her as your wife.
Now the awful truth has emerged. We don't give a monkey's either way.