MEAN MEN

I wondered what his last name was.

Let's get this out of the way: all good wishes for a speedy recovery to King
Charles III.

Now on to the comedy. If you want to see the way this event is being covered in the UK, at least by people with only the most tenuous connections to serious news, you should go to YouTube and search for something like KING CHARLES AND HARRY. The discussions regarding it will have you wondering what is worse: the King's cancer or his son?

Each interview takes the same route. Following an update regarding Charles' diagnosis -- which is no different from what it was the day before -- comes the panel's speculation on what type of cancer His Royal Highness has. (I refuse to utter the cliche "suffering from" because from what I've seen of him since the diagnosis, he seems to be as chipper as ever.) With nothing more than wild guesses or, if from a doctor, an educated guess, the consensus has landed on bladder cancer -- which one of those doctors says is "good news".

 

Oh sure, that looks like good news.

While I understand where he's coming from -- apparently bladder cancer caught early on is easily treatable -- any diagnosis beginning with "can" and ending with "cer" is bad news. The only good thing about it is when your physician tells you something like, "You've got a 95% survival rate." The best thing you can say if Charles does have bladder cancer is, Let's hope it just started this morning. But I'm not a doctor, so what do I know?

I'll tell you what I know -- what the second topic regarding this event is: the bearded Benedict Arnold known as Harry. Not that I think he should be placed in the Hall of Infamy. I leave that to Tom Bower, whose name is always preceded by "royal biographer".

A quick perusal of his books, however, finds exactly one "royal biography", Rebel Prince, which, ironically, is about Charles, who seems to be about as rebellious as a scoop of vanilla ice cream. By those standards, I should be referred to as "movie historian". Which I am, compared to people with lives, but we'll let that pass. 

This guy must be a riot at parties.

But because of that tome, Bower seems to be the go-to guy for other guys who
are on the same page, including (but probably not limited to) Piers Morgan and Andrew Pierce. The latter's program is produced by the Daily Mail, which is all you need to know. Bower is the perfect guest for this topic because, as my wife noted, he looks like a Wallace and Gromit character come to life. He's what Americans think all Brits look like.

Tom Bower has no trouble at all referring to Harry as "a traitor". That's not a word to be treated lightly -- the last person hung for the crime was the William Joyce, otherwise known as the notorious "Lord Haw-Haw" in 1946. Lucky for Harry, it now carries only a life sentence. Bower would explain that Meghan Markle would love that, since it would free her up to divorce Harry and move on to the next sucker.

"The Reaction" seems to be open-mouth
imbecility.

A couple of other things these chinwags share is the token woman who sincerely hopes that Harry's minutes-long visit to his ailing father would mark the beginning of, as they say, a rapprochement between the two. Once the ladies have had their say, it's the men's turn to display their tough love. 

Make that tough loathing. Bower, Morgan, and Pierce's collective heads positively explode at the mention of the wandering prince's name. And the idea of him returning to Blighty in order to perform his royal duties (giving speeches and shaking hands) -- well, Harry would have to increase his security detail tenfold. 

Your choice of headlines depends on how
deep your dislike is for Harry.

Which leads us to another similarity in these programmes (see how I spelled it the UK way?). As soon as the women give an opinion different from the men's, the hosts will cut them off and, repeating their own negative view, will ask the male guest, "Don't you agree with me?" 

See it enough and becomes not only predictable but quite amusing. In fact, the only thing more predictable is how the men's abhorrence for Megan Markle is on the same plane as that of "mean girls" in high school. (Oh my God, do they love that Harry had to fly commercial and stay in a hotel rather than be put up in one of the countless spare palaces and "cottages" available to the "working" royals.)

Let me reiterate: it's the coverage, not the cancer, I find so entertaining. While democracy often appears to be hanging on a precipice in the U.S., it's kind of a relief to watch what can only be described as a soap opera unfolding on a daily basis. The British press wouldn't have it any other way.

                                                              **********