No different than TomKat
Gag me: Prince William & Kate's royal wedding is already the most overblown,inane story ever
It was above-the-fold information on almost every major news site this week. It had people in a nervous tizzy across the globe. There were two names — and two names only — on everyone's lips.
But I'm actually not talking about North Korea single-handedly engaging South Korea in deadly rocket fire. I'm talking about Kate Middleton and Prince William setting their wedding date (Apr. 29, 2011, if you didn't know or care).
And to be frank (although not bishop-Pete-Broadbent-frank, that's for sure), I don't see why it should matter to me.
Now just hold your xenophobia accusations right there. I love the world. I love the people in this world. I was an international relations major, for criminy sake. My dream job is to be a United Nations Goodwill Ambassador (well, if it, um, was a job). I have nothing against people who aren't Americans.
If you're wondering why I'm already on the defensive, it's because I know you care. Deeply. Thousands of you care. No, scratch that. Millions of you care. You would've thought Elvis had been discovered alive, floating on inner tube in the Indian Ocean, a howler monkey on one arm and a Malayan pit viper on the other, what with the circus of coverage the setting of a mere date received.
And that's nice and all, I suppose. I simply don't know why it warrants such hoopla.
"But it's a royal wedding!" you exclaim, your urgent desire for me to understand the significance of that statement painfully evident by your added emphasis.
Fine. Tell me if I've got this straight.
"It's a royal wedding!" means the pair has gobs of money, the lineage has continued as a result of arranged marriages and lying back and thinking of England, there'll be a lavish ceremony that could've fed and schooled all children under 18 in Zimbabwe (including the unborn ones), and both bride and groom are largely inconsequential to the meat-and-potatoes functioning of this world.
Right?
I'm pretty sure we just described Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise, but go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't shake your head in disbelief at my lack of comprehension. Explain it to me. What's the difference? 'Cause I'm not seeing it. And if we can agree that TomKat is, indeed, pointless upon pointlessness, then distinguish the prince and princess-to-be. I'm asking nicely.
You want to be spiteful, don't you? Sure, go ahead, throw it in my face — "This is coming from the girl who was wetting her knickers over chic geek Chelsea Clinton's nuptials."
I deserve that. And I probably owe it to you to admit that I invested in Depends and Kleenex that week in preparation. I'm not ashamed.
But did the world care? Did Chelsea's wedding dominate reputable news sources of international reach? Did her wedding trump the possible prologue to World War III?
It couldn't. It wouldn't. It didn't.
But Apr. 29, 2011 does. Already.
And I don't get it.