Finally, isn’t it odd that the royals can still dictate to the media the conditions under which they can be covered? And equally astonishing that the media would agree to those conditions? If the effect of their rule change is minimal, why not make the case that there is minimal need to change the rules?

On the plus side, the incident has given us this wonderfully overblown lede from The Sydney Morning Herald’s Michael Idato.

Britain’s legislative might, wielded since Australia’s foundation as a colony in the late 18th century, was finally dissolved by an act of our Parliament in 1986.

Yesterday, the cobweb-draped hand of the motherland reached out of the constitutional shadows and took the unprecedented step of threatening to deny the national broadcaster access to the royal wedding.

Well bloody said.

So while this might not be the most egregious slice of semi-censorship taking place in the world today, I still ask readers to join me in protest. Let’s boycott any and all Royal Wedding coverage. Don’t read the dreadful magazine specials headed our way. Ignore the soft-focus TV hours full of British talking heads speechifying all plummy-mouthed on Kate and Will and Di and Charles and Betty.

And, please, most of all, do try your hardest to stay in bed beyond 6 a.m. this Friday (or 3 a.m. on the West Coast). It will be tough, but sleep through it. No doubt the pomp and circumstance of a distant monarchy that has little bearing on your life will be urging you to wakefulness like the nearby smell of brewing coffee. But remember: not everyone will have the same freedom with that video feed as you do. Not even five of the Queen’s own subjects an ocean away.

TAGS: , , , , ,

Joel Meares is a former CJR assistant editor.