Descending To The Common

As Longtime Readers know well, I am somewhat old-fashioned when it comes to pretty much everything matters of clothing and grooming, and I see with alarm that sartorial standards are falling — or being encouraged to fall — among people who should never let them do so.

I speak here of the British Royal Family — of which institution I have been a longtime fan — and of whom I, and everyone, should expect some kind of respect for good grooming.

However, it appears that of late, the younger members of said family have been dressing down to that horrible “smart casual” look.  Actually, there’s nothing “smart” about it;  a suit just looks sloppy without a tie, but apparently this makes princes George and William seem more “approachable” to the crowd (Latin: vulgus, from where we get the word “vulgar”).  So people can now relate better to these scions of a family once known as the Royal Family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and more recently as the Windsors.


So here’s how Prince William, heir to the throne, should  be dressing for his daytime engagements, compared with how “Wills” now dresses:


As for his brother, Prince Harry… well, he’s not exactly heir to the throne anymore, and he married some Hollywood harridan;  but even so:


And for both of them, I should point out that there’s a special part of Hell designated for people who wear suede shoes in the city (as opposed to out in the country, where they are perfectly acceptable).  And as a cautionary note to Harry:  blue suede shoes should remain an Elvis song and not a dress choice.

My point, in all this, is that if you’re going to have a Royal Family — i.e. one that is special and not part of the common herd, then one should strive to keep them above  said plebeians and not part of them.  And dress is as much a part of that distinction as anything.  Here’s their dad, who has always understood the thing:


…and I should point out that the second pic was taken after Prince Charles had just played a polo match, i.e. he was dressed for the occasion.

Now I must caution everyone not to go off on some anti-royal diatribe in Comments, because that isn’t the point of this post.  This is.

If you are special (in the eyes of society), you should always look special.  Here in Murka, no less a person than President Ronald Reagan (PBUH) understood this better than anyone.  He always dressed presidentially, except when working on his ranch:


The standard:  dress well at all times, except when you shouldn’t (e.g. when doing manual labor or playing a sport).  That goes for everyone, but most especially for people in high social standing.  Like the Royals.


Saw this pic at Timewaster‘s place the other day:

Clear out a couple dead trees to accommodate a little .22 range, add a clay thrower to the end of the pier, and Kim’s a happy bunny gunny.

Oh, I forgot:  also, a Ma Deuce to keep gummint agents ummm large predators errrr pirates  at bay.  That’s what I meant… pirates.

Absentee Parents

Many years ago, my boss came into my office and said:

“Ever hear of a band called Whitesnake?”
“Sure;  plays hard rock, the lead singer is ex-Deep Purple’s David Coverdale, and so on.  Why?”
“My daughter won two tickets to a Whitesnake concert in some competition, but I can’t face going with her because it’ll be too loud.  Would you mind taking her?”
“Nope.  Gimme the tickets.”

So I took his 14-year-old daughter to the concert, which was okay as concerts go, and then discovered that — surprise, surprise! — the tickets included backstage passes and a chance to meet the band.  (I guess she’d forgotten to tell her dad about that little bonus.)

Anyway, all went well:  Coverdale and I chatted awhile about Deep Purple and such, she got all the autographs, and that was that.

I was reminded of that occasion when I was reading a series of articles about how David Bowie is supposed to have bonked a couple of underage groupies (among many others) back in his early years, and more recently too.


…and in similar vein, how Led Zeppelin did same with some “baby groupies”, also back in the 1970s.


No shit.

Listen to me tell it:  I played in a (vastly-less successful) rock band back in the 1970s, and even though we were never groupie-bait to the extent that the big guys were, there were plenty of opportunities to get up to (or more correctly, into ) mischief.

Which leads to my my main question:


How could they be so ignorant as to think that unaccompanied young girls were not going to get into trouble in the heady, loud and licentious atmosphere that was a rock concert?  How could they allow their adolescent daughters to go by themselves or (worse still) only accompanied by their giggly friends?  (For those still unclear on this aspect of parenting, let me explain:  without the presence of parents, one kid can get up to mischief;  two kids can get up to mischief-squared;  and multiple kids will — not can —  get into Hiroshima-scale trouble.)  As Jimmy Page memorably said: “Everyone knows what they come for.”   Groupies gonna groupie, as the modern idiom goes.

I’m not excusing the musicians for doing this stuff, but remember, most of these bands were (and still are) themselves only a few years older than the baby-groupies.  Asking young musicians to behave with decorum in such circumstances is an exercise doomed to failure — as is expecting young girls to behave with restraint when coming face-to-face with their sweaty heroes in the excitement after the concert.

Let me get even more explicit.  When a fresh-faced young girl presents herself to a whacked-out musician, don’t expect him to ask her for ID before he fucks her.  And he is going to fuck her.

It’s just stupid for people to clutch their pearls and accuse these now-septuagenarians of statutory rape committed half a century ago.  Leave them alone.

Young people are going to fuck up.  What’s needed is responsible adult supervision — just as I provided to my boss’s daughter on that occasion.  So if any of you are faced with a similar situation, either with yer kids or yer grandkids, act accordingly.  Somebody has to be the grownup, and it might as well be you.


Over at the PJ site, Chris Queen  has a list of his 10 most overrated bands/musicians.

My take on his selections:

10. Imagine Dragons — never heard of them, nor a single one of their songs.
9. Nirvana — I liked Smells Like Teen Bullshit Spirit, but the rest was lame.  As was most Seattle grunge.
8. Maroon 5 — never heard of them, nor a single one of their songs.
7. Michael Jackson — agree.  Great performer, but most of his music was awful airweight pop. Compare MJ to a genuine musician of the time like Stevie Wonder…
6. Rolling Stones — world’s most successful garage band.  Jagger’s pouting and preening was gay back in the 1960s, and it’s just embarrassing now.
5. The Doors — I don’t think they’re overrated.  Jim Morrison, despite having a great voice, was just terrible:  immature, unreliable, self-centered.  But Densmore, Krieger and Manzarek were among the best musicians of the time, and for a three-piece band? Brilliant sound.
4. Bruce Springsteen — most overrated musician on the list.  Like The Doors, the other musicians (his E Street Band) are brilliant, however.
3. Florida Georgia Line — never heard of them, nor a single one of their songs.
2. Green Day — posturing punks. Never understood the appeal.  Ditto bands like R.E.M.
1. Creedence Clearwater Revival — I didn’t mind CCR, and I don’t think they’re overrated — certainly, they shouldn’t be at #1 on his Overrated Hate Parade.  Not when there are bands around like U2 and soloists like Frank Sinatra.