William Gets a Graham Gooch 25


Amid all the pointless media tat about the wedding, those who wish to know can find who is supplying everything, from crush barriers to place cards. But the most interesting bit of tittle tattle has been held back. Who has been doing William’s hair weave? He had a perfectly bald spot about four inches across on the crown of his head six months ago, and it has now vanished. Presumably they didn’t want the shine from his pate to compete with the brilliance of Kate’s diamonds in the high shots in the abbey.

All this glamour is of course nonsense – William will be sixty, bald and probably divorced before he becomes King. Or hopefully doesn’t. Sic transit gloria mundi.


25 thoughts on “William Gets a Graham Gooch

  • mary

    LOL.

    This unpleasant ex Screws if the World ex editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hall_(journalist)
    was reviewing the ‘papers’ on BBC this morning. He succeeded in getting a puff in for P William who has apparently said that marriage or no marriage, he wants to do his duty for his country and ‘go into battle in Afghanistan’. If true, how vile an ambition.

  • Dick the Prick

    I’m not sure this is true but have heard that Al Gore blames his bald spot for losing the election and threw a proper strop when camera angles showed it. Hmm..no business like showbusiness.

  • Wikispooks

    Still chuckling away at that Craig.

    Oh the sheer asinine sycophancy of our esteemed MSM eh?. Enough to make any sane person puke. Talking of which, apologies if I first saw this here (quite possible), but here’s where get for wise precautionary product for those inclined to such nausea.

  • Neil Barker

    Craig, you’re becoming a petty gossip and control freak.

    Take advice.

    Or just censor my comment…..

  • Neil Barker

    I have decided to post a message at 4.13 every day.

    At 4.13 today I was doing nothing.

    My wife, much younger than me, was texting someone.

    What does it all mean?

  • Neil Barker

    Who the fuck is William?

    Who the fuck is Graham Gooch?

    What’s this all about, Crag?

  • Neil Barker

    Could this be an Israeli plot? Do William and Graham kill babies ritually?

    Craig, get a life!

    Get a wife!

    Oh, sorry – you got one, sort of.

  • Vronsky

    What happened to the old comment format? I know you have some technical problems right now but will it be back? I liked the thumbs up/down feature, and miss it right now because I’d like Neil Barker to know how much I approve of his contributions above. Has modding stopped?

    William will be king, but probably only of England. Then let’s see how willing they are to support this particular gang of benefit fraudsters when they don’t have the North Sea oil revenues.

    No street parties anywhere in Scotland of course – unless you count this one: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/04/477660.html

  • deep green puddock

    Has anyone else noticed how William has the look of someone who is prematurely aged. It is a little strange-he looks like a very well preserved 60 year old.
    (I don’t make this observation maliciously by the way). In the space of 4 years he has gone from fresh faced young guy to middle age. It is indeed very strange. And his hair has gone a bit Donald Trump to be honest. By the way I think it will be a transplant. Nowadays they pluck hairs, complete with the follicle,from elsewhere, and place them in the afflicted part.
    and his intended has somehow, in parallel, gone from moderately attractive young girl to that weirdly brittle, expensively over-groomed, angular look that somehow morphs into horseyness over the years and is so favoured by the fanciful elite.
    How dispiriting it all is.
    BTW,the stuff being punted to the yanks by the BBC is probably the most cringe inducing shit I have ever seen in my quite long life, and being British among people with an IQ over 70 is fast becoming an embarrassment.

    I am sure there is a thesis in visual rhetoric in the photos of the happy couple over the last few years.

  • A. Prole

    Urban Dictionary definition of “sic transit gloria mundi”.

    A Latin phrase meaning “so passes the glory of the world.” The term is Templar-Masonic in origin, and has multiple occult connotations and uses among authors, poets, secret societies, and other intellectual oddballs.

  • Herbie

    All you miserable buggers need to get a life and stop spoiling what ought to be one of the most glorious days in British history since the beautiful huntress Diana was joined in holy matrimony to our future king.

    May God bless the happy couple.

    Shame on you!

    Especially Neil Barker, who demeans and trivializes the happy day in attempting to squeeze base political capital from this uniquely holy and sacred union.

    Didn’t you know, Mr Barker, that our Royals are above politics? Of course you didn’t! It’s about time you read something of the exquisite nature of our British Constitution, the checks, balances and freedoms therein and how we set an example to the world in our Mother of Parliaments.

    Please don’t drag the Royals into the gutter alongside your cheap self.

  • deep green puddock

    Herbie, have you taken your medication today?

    “huntress Diana”
    she couldn’t stand horses, or hunting or fishing and used to mope at the kitchen table at Balmoral talking to the specially imported social life, Edward, and the servants over a cup of tea desperately trying to eke away the days until she could get back to london. Basically she was a nanny and a party girl.

    The idea that the royal family are above politics is really rather debateable.
    Charles is not a little well-known for his dubious interventions, but this is a superficial view of their influence.
    I think it is more likely that the Royal presence sets a tone for the whole process of governance-a means by which privilege and elitism is (largely covertly) maintained, and a system of unspeakable, entrenched, back scratching and undemocratic financial favour passing is shrouded by phony ‘noblesse’. Their group behaviour long disqualified them from any respect.

  • Pollok

    I detect a jewish plot….. big business is out to get you …. gag/censor all who disagree.

  • Herbie

    Someone calling themselves, Deep Green Puddock (yes, indeed) has asked:

    “Herbie, have you taken your medication today?”

    and immediately loses the argument!

    You don’t question a chap’s sanity just because you’re of a different view. Good Lord, where would our wondrous democratic gift to the world be if we all started doing that.

    Best practice in debate is not even to question a chap’s motives, for goodness sake!

    Just deal with the argument.

    The intellectual standards in this blog have really gone downhill since moving to the new platform.

    Craig, perhaps you could get Tim to organise some online IQ test before poster’s efforts are published. Additionally, posters might scan and upload their degrees for prior perusal.

    Got to keep standards up, Craig. It’s so important.

  • mary

    I thought ‘Herbie’ was being deeply ironic in his first post yesterday! I am with Deep Green Puddock, resident in one of the former British colonies.

    btw sorry if our intellectual standards here do not come up to Herbie’s mark.

  • Vronsky

    “Craig, perhaps you could get Tim to organise some online IQ test before poster’s efforts are published.”

    Be careful what you wish for.

  • deep green puddock

    Actually, Herbie, I thought I did answer your, what seemed to me a hallucinatory condition, calling Diana ‘the huntress’- as if your perception was anywhere near to reality. It wasn’t, and indeed was such a wilful misinterpretation that I made the admittedly trite (but generous) comment that your comment was attributable to a temporary mental health condition rather an insufficiency.

    I spoke from first hand knowledge when I described Diana. She was a scared, simple individual from an inadequate personal background that left her emotionally vulnerable, who had stresses placed upon her by a grossly exploitative entity “the royal family” that places its own values and importance and survival in a position of privilege, far above the well-being of any one individual within it. It is the perfect example of dysfunction in an organisation.

    Why didn’t Charles just marry Camilla right away? What made her unsuitable ‘then’ but acceptable after Diana’s death. The truth is that the reasons are connected with rules and ideas that have been long abandoned as absurd by all but the many privileged beneficiaries and stipendiaries of these ludicrous ideas.

    The same might be said of ‘Fergie’ who at least was a bit more resilient bit deserves a least a little sympathy. Her behaviour was or is no worse than others within that circle but she is shunned and mocked. Such social selectivity is reminiscent of the behaviour of the primary school playground. Is that what you consider is the pinnacle of society in a country such as ours?

    Really, the kind of private squalor that has been revealed about the royal family over decades has long perssauded me that they have no authority, neither moral nor any other kind, as they are just too decayed, and of no value (indeed are negative and contradictory to human progress in this country) and detract from progress even in world terms by their persistence in a country such as Great Britain, which although declining, is still internationally significant.

    They are no longer even appealing or entertaining, as they have descended to the utter vulgarity of ‘prime time’ and ‘Hello’.

    They are now eclipsed in so many ways that they are left only with this dispiriting gilt-edged crap as an example of the “fairy tale” life, in the context of a world filled with mounting distress, and where they are even surpassed by others in their vulgarity, despite their privileges and elitism, in any way you care to mention. They are the very apotheosis of mediocrity, cronyism, nepotism and institutionalized, covert corruption in public life that now besets this country so completely.
    Of course I am not saying it will be easy to get rid of them. I can see all sorts of problems but they are doomed, make no mistake, regardless of how many weddings they can summon up.
    If they had just actually sincerely cared for ‘Huntress Diana” and provided the means to let her flourish as a human being, they might just have survived. But they didn’t.

  • mark_golding

    I’m doing a nice line in Naval bunting and nanny has plenty of waxed paper tablecloths ideal to cover the paste (ing) table. Let me know if anyone is interested. 🙂

  • Herbie

    Thanks for that rather illuminating essay Mr Puddock. No relation to the chap who wrote Earl Spencer’s speech, I presume.

    Anyhoo. I’m sure similar things could have been said about the British/English monarchy at any time since the Civil War and of course such things have been repeatedly said since that time.

    Doesn’t seem to have done them any harm, does it. Why is that? Rationality quite simply isn’t enough.

    What you’d need is a material disinterest and rejection so obvious that even the BBC couldn’t hide it. This wedding presents such an opportunity, but it ain’t gonna happen.

    The royals have simply morphed into contemporary celebrity, and celebs aren’t exactly held to high standards.

  • Frazer

    Im certainly not watching all the shit on TV tomorrow….will be glued to the Discovery channel as usual !!!

Comments are closed.