Wedding of The Century: Kate and William: First Public Kiss and ALL about The Royal Wedding
Royal Wedding causes CNN Piers Morgan to feel “emotional” and Anderson Cooper had a nervous breakdown, sources said. Our sources reveal that Cooper had to be “controlled” after he started to move his left leg furiously while he screamed “I can’t take it anymore!!” at the time when Piers Morgan felt so emotional he had to be forcefully held back from jumping in the wedding arena, this information comes from insiders. Two billion people couldn’t see this behind the camera action but they assured us that it happened.
LONDON NYT — In the end, Friday’s wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton may not have ushered in a new dawn for the frayed royal family or brought a renewed era of optimism to a country beset by financial woes, as some predicted in the overheated countdown to the big day. But it proved that the British still know how to combine pageantry, solemnity and romance (and wild hats) better than anyone else in the world.
It was an impeccably choreographed occasion of high pomp and heartfelt emotion, of ancient customs tweaked by modern developments (Elton John brought his husband).
Viewing estimates for the ceremony, at 11 a.m. British time on the dot, hovered in the three billion range, give or take 500 million. Australians held bouquet-throwing competitions; people in Hong Kong wore Kate and William masks; New Yorkers rose by dawn to watch the entrance of guests like Victoria Beckham, teetering pregnantly in sky-high Christian Louboutin heels, Guy Ritchie, the former Mr. Madonna, and assorted monarchs from European countries that are no longer monarchies, like Bulgaria.
In London, the Metropolitan Police said, a million people lined the route of the royal procession, and half a million gathered in front of Buckingham Palace to watch the bride and groom, now known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, kiss (twice) on the palace balcony.
People paid attention almost despite themselves.
“I never really think too seriously about them,” said Kathy Gunn, 54, speaking of the royal family. Yet she had somehow been inexorably sucked into the spirit of the occasion, watching it unfold with a crowd on a huge screen at a cafe in central London. “It gives you a great sense of community and spirit,” she said. “I am a royalist for the day.”
In a world of scattered attention, the occasion had the effect of providing a single international conversation about a subject with universal appeal. It was like a party scene in “Dallas,” only with Prince Philip instead of J. R. Ewing.
Grizzled political correspondents, hauled in to television studios to serve as wedding anchors, found themselves talking in all seriousness about the passementerie of the mother of the bride’s dress and the provenance of Miss Middleton’s tiara. (She borrowed it from Queen Elizabeth, in case you were wondering. It is made of a great many diamonds.)
There was a feast of interesting particulars. First, Kate’s dress. Though The Daily Mail successfully predicted the name of the designer — Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen — it was still an official secret, so much so that Ms. Burton tried to sneak into Kate’s hotel on Thursday night with her face mostly obscured by a huge yeti-like fur hat.
St. James’s Palace released the details of the dress just as Miss Middleton stepped out of a royal Rolls-Royce with her father, Michael, to walk down the aisle at Westminster Abbey.
Her “something old” was the design of the dress, using traditional craftsmanship. “Something new” was represented by her earrings, a gift from her parents. The tiara was borrowed, and she had a blue ribbon sewn into her dress for her blue item.
Prince William wore the bright scarlet coat of an Irish Guards mounted officer, the uniform of his senior honorary army appointment. He was wearing “gold sword slings,” St. James’s Palace said, but no sword.
The outfits of the guests were generally tasteful and royal-friendly. A few things stuck out. The exotic costumes of foreign dignitaries, seeming throwbacks to imperial times. The hats worn by the ladies, which resembled, variously, overturned buckets, flowerpots, lampshades, fezzes, salad plates, tea cozies, flying saucers, abstract artworks or, in one case, a pile of feathers. There were also a number of fascinators, decorative shapes with flowers or feathers, that are stuck in one’s hair but are not hats.
Read more at NYT.