The Royal Wedding Theory


All London is en fete – bunting hangs from every pub. And the comics’ comic Stewart Lee has a theory about Wills and Kate.

He says:
‘Jessie L Weston’s 1920 study of Holy Grail mythology, From Ritual to Romance, pictures Britain as a wasteland, an image appropriated by TS Eliot to describe the aftermath of the first world war. The Fisher King must search the devastated terrain for the Holy Grail, and drink from it to heal the land. Broken Britain is that wasted land. William is that Fisher King. Kate Middleton is that lovely grail, full not of the blood of the crucified Christ, but of the blood of the Middletons, who run a children’s partyware business in Berkshire. And Kate’s wedding to wise William is a ritual that may help to fix what David Cameron’s vision of the Big Society so far has not. For in choosing Kate, a simple girl from a school near Swindon, as his bride, William is in fact taking each and every British subject – man, woman, old, young, black, white, Christian and Muslim – into his royal bed, and binding us all to each other in the white heat of his princely passion.’

Read his full theory here.

7 comments on “The Royal Wedding Theory”

  1. Cid says:

    “golden shower of dignitaries”

  2. Mike Carrington says:

    The white heat of his princely passion…..? I feel sullied. I think I need an adult….

  3. FabienneT says:

    Sorry, can’t find anything better to say about this.
    Media blackout is in place in my house… See you on the other side.

  4. Helen Martin says:

    Remember the Hitchhiker’s Guide and its description of Earth – ‘mostly harmless’?

  5. karin says:

    ooh, I think you have turned me on.

  6. Gretta says:

    That read like a pointy-head trying to write Mills+Boon. o.0

  7. I.A.M. says:

    So… is Stewart Lee suggesting that William is, like his forbears before, screwing us all in one massive go, thereby attempting to distract us from the matters at hand with the bread and circuses of the event?

    Or have I, once again, got the whole thing wrong so I can make a massively complicated point about something about which I have little if no understanding?

Comments are closed.