The papers this morning are full of Royal Wedding scandal. We particularly like the strap on the front of the Express - 'Heads must roll as legal mess grows'. The beheading image plunges us back to the glory days of monarchy when incompetent courtiers paid the ultimate price for disrespecting the Majesty. Can we have some 'getting it in the neck' metaphors too, please?
But it's easy for tabloids. When a royal story comes along they can go in with both feet. Really get stuck in. Broadsheets on the other hand have a problem. Do we ignore a palace spat as posh celeb news? (The FT approach.) Or do we eke out the weighty constitutional issues Daily Telegraph-style, to make it clear that we are discussing matters of State and not just engaging in idle gossip? Or do we just report it straight? Because, let's face it, it's fascinating and this stuff is really important to some people.
Indeed, our musings on the subject were prompted by trusted blog ally Victoria, otherwise known as The Power Behind the Throne on the Observer Sports Desk:
"A strange thing happened today," mails Victoria in her capacity as blog commuter chatter correspondent, "Somebody opposite me on the train actually cared about the Royal Wedding fiasco. A lady was explaining to her daughter that the whole fuss had been kicked up by the Royal Family and the newspapers to evoke sympathy for 'her' when everybody knows that 'she' could never take the place of Diana. Train lady also reckoned that the Queen was dead right not to attend the civil ceremony as it shows that she has always hated 'her' and is sticking to her guns."
"I couldn't hear the rest of the conversation," laments Victoria, "Because the guy next to me decided to play the Killers album at full volume."
And so we resolved to raise the Royal Wedding issue at news conference later today. To write, or not to write? Is there much more to be said than was said by Mary Riddell when the story first broke a couple of weeks ago?
