Oh! I found the "ratbag" video!

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ITV News (@itvnews)

We discussed the Rod Stewart quote based on the text alone, yesterday, here.

"May I say, well done in the Americas. You were superb, absolutely superb. Put that little ratbag in his place."

Said Rod Stewart, quoted in "Rod Stewart hails King Charles for putting ‘ratbag’ Trump ‘in his place’/The singer made the remark during a line-up at a 50th anniversary concert for the King’s Trust at the Royal Albert Hall, London" (London Times).

Did King Charles put Trump in his place? Maybe it's like that "bike rage" incident with Benedict Cumberbatch we were talking about yesterday. Two entirely nonviolent men stopped to exchange a few sharp words. 

The commenters over there at the London Times are going after Rod. Top-rated comment: "Rod Stewart put the King and Queen in a very embarrassing position by making political comments in a receiving line. It just shows he has no class whatsoever and doesn’t have the brains he was born with."

And: "Ah, Rod Stewart who made millions for being a hedonistic rockstar boasted about numerous, groupies, and rampant infidelity calling somebody else a 'ratbag' while shaking hand with the highest example of infidelity. Must have his picture in the dictionary next to hypocrite!"

Is this the first appearance of the word "ratbag" on this blog? No, it came up here, where I quoted the NYT obituary for Barry Humphries ("Dame Edna"). The NYT has printed "ratbag" a few times. In a 1984 piece about travel guidebooks, it has: "[I]n a section on 'picturesque patterns of speech'... the 'Maverick Guide to Australia' tells us that a bicyclist there is called a bikey, that to grizzle means to complain and that a ratbag is an eccentric character."

Well, Trump surely is an eccentric character. He should own it. Kind of cool too — isn't it? — in the American way of thinking — to have Rod Stewart calling you a "ratbag."

ADDED: Let's also consider the notion of putting someone "in their place." It reflects a background belief that people have a social rank or a station in life. For Rod Stewart — who, I hear, started from gasoline alley — to praise the King — a person of the highest rank — for putting someone "in their place" is pretty funny. And, we're told, the King just laughed. And didn't that put Rod in his place?

Take me back, carry me back down the gasoline alley where I started from....

"Great king," says Trump, pointing at Charles. "The greatest king in my book."

After the King and Queen drive off, Trump says, "Great people. We need more people like that in our country. Really great people."

"King Charles tames Maga but Britain’s still in the doghouse."

That's the headline at the London Times. Subheadline: "While the monarch has gone down a storm with President Trump’s VIPs, his US visit seems to have done nothing to help Sir Keir Starmer."

I guess "gone down a storm" is a British expression. I'm going to assume it means something like: was a big sensation. Yeah, that's right. I checked with A.I. The American expression that's equally mystifying to an outsider would be: brought the house down.

Speaking of house...  in the doghouse seems to work in both countries.

Now, let me find the meat of this article:

"On this occasion, I cannot help noticing the readjustments to the East Wing, Mr. President..."

"And I'm sorry to say that we British of course made our own small attempt at real estate redevelopment of the White House in 1814."

It's funny now.

Who will be around in 2213 to joke about the destruction of the World Trade Center?

King Charles arrives at the White House.

I don't know why I find this so charming. I dreamed about King Charles last night. I felt sorry for that poor man somehow.

From Trump's speech: "For nearly two centuries before the revolution, this land was settled and forged by men and women who bore in their souls the blood and noble spirit of the British. Here on a wild and untamed continent, they set loose the ancient English love of liberty and Great Britain’s distinctive sense of glory, destiny, and pride. And that’s what it is: glory, destiny, and pride. The American patriots who pledged their lives to independence in 1776 were the heirs to this majestic inheritance. Their veins ran with Anglo-Saxon courage. Their hearts beat with an English faith in standing firm for what is right, good, and true.

"The rebel commander and pioneering first President George Washington famously vowed never to set foot on British soil."

"And my five-times-great-grandfather King George III, for his part, did not spare his words when he spoke of the revolutionary leaders. Today, however, we celebrate a relationship between our two countries that surely neither Washington nor King George III could possibly have imagined. The ocean may still divide us, but in so many other ways, we are now the closest of kin.... The successes of the British Redcoats and of George Washington's Continental Army today stand shoulder-to-shoulder, brothers and sisters in arms, protecting the freedoms we both cherish...."

Said King Charles, at the extravagant dinner at Windsor Castle.

Gaze upon the ultra-posh scene and marvel. Watch the whole thing, with Trump speaking after Charles:

ADDED: Don't miss the elegant rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner," beginning at 9:00. 

At 13:41, I believe the King is crying. Trump is reading a quote from the King himself, written in 1993, saying that he was "entirely motivated by a desperate desire to put the 'Great' back into Great Britain, in the finest tradition of British sovereigns."

King meets President... and the ladies who carry pocketbooks meet the lady who carries only herself.

The wind kicks up as the King steps forward and all the many ladies' hats threaten to undercut the extreme dignity. The First Lady waits until she's duly shaken hands with the King before she reaches up — at 16:57 — to steady her headgear.

Stick around until 18:35, and you won't be sorry, unless you hate horses, white horses, arrayed in fairy-tale style.

It's the King's very best carriage, lavishly festooned with gold leaf, the very frippery Trump's haters deplore in the Oval Office. Their slogan plays in my head: No Kings!

At 23:13, I get the answer to the question that's been puzzling me: How do they keep the horses from shitting? (They don't.)

I had thought there was no music, that somehow silence was the soundscape for the event, but at 24:07 I see musicians and notice faint music. Perhaps there was music all along and a telephoto lens on the camera is creating the illusion that it is much closer than it seems. The faint music informs us of our great distance from these illustrious characters.

At 25:00, the music is (or seems) louder. It's "The Star-Spangled Banner." A song about fighting the British. 

"Kate Middleton was effortlessly elegant as she attended Trooping the Colour to honour the King on June 14."

Tatler reports.

An interesting contrast to America, with our "No Kings!" rallies and critique of Trump's military parade and offense that it's happening on his birthday.

Wikipedia: "Trooping the Colour is a ceremonial event performed every year on Horse Guards Parade in London, United Kingdom, by regiments of Household Division, to celebrate the official birthday of the British sovereign, though the event is not necessarily held on that day. It is also known as the Sovereign's Birthday Parade. Similar events are held in other countries of the Commonwealth. In the UK, it is, with the State Opening of Parliament, the biggest event of the ceremonial calendar, and watched by millions on TV and on the streets of London."

"Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain said Sunday that he would work with the leaders of Ukraine and France on a cease-fire plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine...."

"Mr. Starmer told the BBC on Sunday that he had spoken to President Trump by phone a day earlier. 'I’m clear in my mind he does want lasting peace, he does want an end to the fighting in Ukraine'.... The prime minister said that he, Mr. Zelensky and President Emmanuel Macron of France had agreed they 'would work on a plan for stopping the fighting and then discuss that plan with the U.S.' Any peace agreement 'is going to need a U.S. backstop,' Mr. Starmer added, saying that British and U.S. teams were discussing the idea.... Since Friday, European leaders have lined up behind Ukraine and lauded its embattled president. Mr. Zelensky is also set to meet King Charles III later on Sunday."

The NYT reports.

What will Zelensky wear for his audience with the King? He's met with the King twice before — February 8, 2023 and July 18, 2024 — and both times he wore those dark green "wartime" clothes and not a suit.  Zelensky has met with other European royalty —Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia (Sweden), King Harald V, Queen Sonja, Crown Prince Haakon, and Crown Princess Mette-Marit (Norway), King Philippe (Belgium) — and each time, he wore the "wartime" outfit that he was called out for wearing in the Oval Office.

Of course, royalty is a game played through outfits. But Trump has his outfits too. Indeed, questioned about his military getup, Zelensky said that after the war, he could wear a "costume," and by "costume," he meant a suit: "I will wear a costume after this war will finish. Maybe something like yours, maybe something better."

But enough about clothing, what do we think about Europe stepping up to make the peace deal? Who will give Trump credit for making that happen and for, more generally, requiring Europe to take charge of the defense of Europe? Whether the Europeans can close a peace deal is another matter, but they concede in advance that any peace agreement "is going to need a U.S. backstop." Could they, instead, just flow endless money into Ukraine? They've counted on our money for so long. 

Let's talk about the unusually red portrait of King Charles and whether his flinch, as he unveiled it, revealed a horror of the thing.

I like this longer clip. I'd seen the short clips on Twitter, which make it seem as though Charles was seeing it for the first time and giving an unfiltered negative reaction. But here, you get to see him interacting with the artist, Jonathan Yeo, and there's discussion of slight differences since the last time Charles saw it. "You fiddled away, didn't you, up here, somewhere," Charles says, wiggling his fingers toward the head area.

"The women have historically served as a combination of brood mares and mannequins. Their job is to stay thin, say little..."

"... look good in clothes, and produce heirs who will stay thin, say little and look good in clothes. (Prince Philip was said to have approved of Diana’s entry into the family because she would 'breed in some height.') When something threatens the reputation of a more senior, male Windsor, the women have another essential role: human shield. Has King Edward VIII abdicated and run off to France to be with Wallis Simpson? Let’s be sure to blame the American divorcée. Has Prince Charles taken a mistress? Blame his mom for not letting her son marry his true love; blame his wife for not keeping him faithful — oh, and call the mistress ugly. Has Prince Harry declined to perform his family duties and decamped for sunny California? Let’s blame his 'narcissistic' wife for ensorcelling him!"

Writes Jennifer Weiner, in "How the Windsor Women Became Human Shields" (NYT).

It had seemed, until recently, that "Catherine might become the rule-proving exception, the single privileged Windsor wife allowed to float above the fray." But then something popped in her abdomen.

The reverent observation of 2 old men shuffling through gravel.

Biden meets with King Charles at Windsor Castle pic.twitter.com/N0CDLtG4B5

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) July 10, 2023

Are you watching the Coronation?

(The tag "Prince Charles" is no expression of hostility to the King, just another manifestation of continuity on this blog.)

A glimpse of the next 2 generations seems exciting:

Special walls are brought out to enclose the King, so the annointing with holy oil is out of view:

In view, various rituals occur, one involving bestowing a jeweled sword on the King and then the King giving it back:

The orb:

(My screenshots.)

"The first in the procession to enter Westminster Abbey will be representatives from the Jewish, Sunni and Shiite Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Bahai and Zoroastrian communities..."

"'During the service, four peers from the House of Lords — a Muslim, Hindu, Jew and Sikh — will hand to Charles objects of the royal regalia. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Hindu, will read from St. Paul’s letter to the Colossians.' At the ceremony’s end, the king will receive a 'spoken greeting in unison' — that is, not a prayer — from religious leaders of other faiths."

I'm reading "Latest coronation ‘update’ shows that the palace still doesn’t get it" (WaPo).

The quote I selected has nothing to do with the not "getting it" referenced in the headline. That has more to do with royalty in general. But I don't see how royalty itself is supposed to manifest that it "gets it." If you were royalty and you saw through to some utter absurdity or inequity, but you intended to keep your position, wouldn't you act exactly as though you didn't see it at all? 

"During the early stages of my father’s Alzheimer’s, when he still had lucid moments, I apologized to him for writing an autobiography many years earlier..."

"... in which I flung open the gates of our troubled family life. He was already talking less at that point, but his eyes told me he understood. I thought of that moment when I read that Prince Harry, in his new memoir, wrote about his father, King Charles, getting between his battling sons and saying, 'Please, boys, don’t make my final years a misery.'... My justification in writing a book I now wish I hadn’t written... was very similar to what I understand to be Harry’s reasoning. I wanted to tell the truth, I wanted to set the record straight. Naïvely, I thought if I put my own feelings and my own truth out there for the world to read, my family might also come to understand me better.... There isn’t just one truth, our truth — the other people who inhabit our story have their truths as well.... Years ago, someone asked me what I would say to my younger self if I could. Without hesitating I answered: 'That’s easy. I’d have said, "Be quiet."'"

Writes President Reagan's daughter Patti Davis, in "Prince Harry and the Value of Silence" (NYT).

"There are many ways for a person to be questionable... and men found every single one this year. There were the men with an unbearable lack of self-awareness, screaming..."

"... 'cancel culture' to an audience of millions. There were the men whose long history of abuse allegations did nothing to dissuade people from coming to their defense or giving them MTV VMA cameos. Did you know Louis C.K. won a Grammy this year?... It was a particularly embarrassing year for men with too much money. Over the summer, Jeff Bezos reportedly wanted to pay to disassemble and reassemble a bridge in the Netherlands so his big stupid boat could pass through.... [F]or reasons unbeknownst to humankind, Musk tweeted a picture of his bedside table.... ... Drake decided his collaborative album with 21 Savage was a good time to claim that Megan Thee Stallion lied about being shot by Tory Lanez....  [There] were the cringey men — men who embodied 'the ick.'... There was the Try Guy cheating scandal that validated our cultural suspicion of Wife Guys.... [There were] Whiny Little Baby-Men. These are the men who had to overcome such adversity as omelets and pens.... [T]here are men who are still making hypermasculinity their whole thing. These range from supplement-scamming Liver Kings to men who proudly embrace the title 'King of Toxic Masculinity.'... Then there are the truly sinister men.... They have either been a guest on Alex Jones’s podcast or are Alex Jones himself..... [There are] Ricky Gervais, Matt Gaetz, Brad Pitt, Tom Brady...."

Writes Mia Mercado in "The Year Men Flopped" (The Cut).

I love the way she got through all that without naming Trump. We really have moved on! And now, 2022 is about to expire, and we can move on from all the scoundrels she did name. Let's move on once again, to the — hopefully — much better masculinity of 2023.

"One iconic moment was predictably included in the Netflix show to underline Diana’s supposed superiority as a parent."

"During a 1991 trip to Canada, Diana raced along the deck of the royal yacht Britannia with arms open wide and scooped up William and Harry with a huge hug in a blaze of camera flashes. She had, in fact, deliberately run ahead of Charles when they approached the ship, leaving him to catch up. He, too, publicly gave his sons hugs and kisses, but only one photograph of his affectionate embrace appeared in the press, while newspapers around the world led with Diana’s radiant display."

 From "Prince Harry’s attacks on King in Netflix series may mean no way back/The criticism of Charles was insidious and he was given no credit for what he did as a father" (London Times). 

Did Prince Charles really breakdance?

If you're watching Season 5 of "The Crown," you may have scoffed in derision when they showed Prince Charles breakdancing, but "This actually happened, and what’s more there’s video to prove it":

"King Charles... is shown lobbying Prime Minister John Major in a bizarre attempt to force his mother’s abdication."

"It also depicts Charles bitterly arguing with Diana as their divorce looms, and romancing Camilla, now Queen Consort, including a dramatisation of the notorious ‘tampongate’ phone call. A production source said that media outrage over inaccuracies – and the lack of sensitivity in airing the series so close to the death of the Queen – is ‘spooking’ the broadcaster..... An entire plotline is, to this end, devoted to suggesting that [Prince Philip] pursued a scandalous extra-marital affair with Penelope Knatchbull, the Countess Mountbatten of Burma... Needless to say, there’s no credible evidence that such an exchange took place, or that Philip was anything other than a devoted husband to Her Majesty. Suggesting otherwise, so soon after both of their deaths, is at best distasteful and at worst downright cruel. Then there are episodes which appear to lend credibility to the barmy conspiracy theory that Princess Diana was murdered.... [Peter Morgan, the show's creator, has said] that Queen Elizabeth II was ‘of limited intelligence'... [and]  the Royal Family ‘survival organisms, like a mutating virus,’ [and] the Queen’s belief in Christianity was ‘deranged’ and the monarchy itself is ‘insane.’"

From "Netflix bosses 'are spooked by backlash over The Crown'/Show's creator Peter Morgan is 'increasingly uncomfortable' as producers are slammed over 'malicious' storylines in new series covering royal family's turbulent 1990s" (Daily Mail).

Judging from that article and the comments over there, I'd say people in Britain are disgusted by the prospect of a new season of "The Crown." Here in America, though, we love it. We understand fictionalization, and too bad if the people depicted are still alive. If they're rich enough, powerful enough, or evil enough, we're fine with using them in whatever interesting stories filmmakers want to spin out. 

We've seen movies about Dick Cheney and Mark Zuckerberg, for example. We watch these things and maybe discuss the truth/fiction ratio on the side if that's also entertaining. And quite aside from the art of film, the news itself is also something with a variable truth/fiction ratio. We've oriented ourselves to that mystery of human communication.

Freedom of speech breathes a murky atmosphere.