Showing posts with label Kate Middleton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kate Middleton. Show all posts

Thursday, 29 November 2012

Kate Middleton is PREGNANT!!

It's official. The wife of the third in line to the throne is expecting a baby. We are to have a new member of the Royal Family. Break out the bunting!

How do I know this? My source is the morning drive time show on Heart radio. According to the presenter this morning, her dog predicted a royal baby by the end of the year. This was confirmed by a member of the public who said Prince William smiled when presented with a babygro by a member of the public emblazoned with the slogan, "Daddy's copilot".

Who needs clearblue or any other pregnancy test with this cast-iron evidence.

People of Britain take this as a call to arms (well knitting needles). Start knitting bootees and baby jumpers now.

JR

ps, for legal reasons I should probably put that I am being ironic. As far as I'm aware the Duchess of Cambridge is not pregnant. This is purely a comment on the idle speculation which I found so amusing on my way into work. If, however, she is pregnant; may I be the first to offer my congratulations to the couple and wish them a healthy, happy baby.

Monday, 5 November 2012

Who Should be the next Bond Girl?

In typical impatient fashion; now that I've seen the new Bond film, my thoughts have immediately turned to the next one. I am hoping against hope that the new cast members in some of the more fixed roles (e.g. Q) will remain in the series for many years to come. I thought their performances were excellent and, although different from the original actors to play the roles, were as good. Daniel Craig has already signed up to do at least two more films and I feel confident that the role of Bond is safe with him.

With that in mind, my thoughts have turned to who should play the next Bond girl. I'm sure I should say 'Bond Woman' these days but sod it, political correctness can wait for another wee while.

The title of Bond girl is one that is remarkably fluid so let's start by examining what it takes to be one. The first thing to note is that being bedded by Bond does not make a character a Bond girl (it helps but it's not conclusive). An example of this would be Sylvia Trench (Dr. No and From Russia With Love). Although she is seen with Bond in several intimate poses she doesn't really add anything to the plot and therefore doesn't really qualify. There are others like her who succumb to Bond's charms but don't qualify for full Bond girl status. I would try and codify a term but I may sound even more mysoginistic than I already do.

Next up is the fact that they don't necessarily have to be allies (although it helps). Some Bond girls have been on one side all the way through, others have switched at some point in the film. That said, the vast majority will - while not always wholeheartedly supporting Bond - do something to help him achieve his mission.

So I've covered some things that Bond girls are most certainly not. Now let's look at what they are. They have to be sexy: there's no two ways about it. Obviously this is a fairly subjective measure (Bond doesn't really have a 'type' hence a vast number of actresses have played Bond girls) but the truly great ones are not just bimbos that fall on their backs with their legs splayed at a moment's notice (well not just that). They have to be 'sassy' as well; there needs to be if not banter between Bond and the Bond girl, at least some verbal jousting and repartee. As I have said, they need to feature heavily enough to forward the plot but not so much that they get in the way. Ideally they should have some specialist skill or knowledge that can be used by Bond to complete the mission.

In my opinion, one of the best Bond girls of the whole series was Eva Green in Casino Royale. She smouldered like a fine cigar while verbally jousting with Bond and creating an almost unbearable sexual tension between them. Not only this but she was a pivotal point in the whole story. Other excellent examples are Barbara Bach in The Spy Who Loved Me and Ursula Andress in Dr. No - the first and one of the best.

So now we turn to the point of the post; identifying actors who would be good for the next Bond girl whoever she may be.

Although not an actor (despite being frequently seen on television), my first vote would go to Kate Middleton a.k.a. The Duchess of Cambridge. Since the Olympic opening ceremony, there is now precedent for females in the Royal Family to appear alongside Bond and I think this should be exploited to it's fullest extent. The Duchess radiates the natural poise and beauty that all the great Bond girls have (although many have been models and beauty queens, the role calls for them to be more girl next door than catwalk queen). Her hair, voice, poise and track record for looking stunning in evening wear all count in her favor for the role. Somehow, sadly, I doubt this casting decision will go beyond this blog so let's looks elsewhere.

Another obvious choice would be the Duches' younger sister Pippa although in my opinion she would be better placed as the femme fetale rather than Bond girl.

One actress that I think would have been perfect for the position in the early nineties while the franchise was sadly in the doldrums was Kate Winslett. She again has a natural beauty and confidence on screen that would nicely compliment the films. In the same category is the equally stunning Mrs Craig or Rachel Weiss as she is otherwise known. Part of me would like to see her cast now just so we could see husband and wife playing opposite each other.

Moving on to actresses who are hopefully more likely to be cast, one I think would be brilliant is Jessica Brown-Findlay formerly Lady Sybill of Downtun Abbey. Based largely on seeing her in that part I think she comes across brilliantly on screen and has the right mix of presence, charm and prettiness (and aptitude for wearing impressive dresses) to be perfect.

Another actress I think would be brilliant in the 'English Rose' school of Bond girl is Emma Watson. Throughout the Harry Potter series she showed herself capable of great presence on the screen as well as having an ability to do action sequences. In my view, it would be the perfect opportunity to 'de-tween' her image and move into more adult roles.

For a slightly racier Bond girl, I think Sienna Miller would be perfect. I think she would be perfect for a character that was intended to give Bond a bit of a hard time before eventually reverting to the good-guys and have a bit of action thrown in.

Yet another suggestion would be Miranda Raison. When she was in Spooks she did some fantastic action scenes and had some wonderfully intense moments. In a later TV series she had some lovely funny moments and (along with Toby Stevens) had some wonderful flirty chemistry bubbling just under the surface. Both are just what's required for a brilliant Bond girl.

There are probably some really obvious choices that I have overlooked here in this quick run through of potential replacements. If any spring to mind, please flag them up in a comment below. Failing that, what do you think of my choices so far?

JR

Friday, 14 September 2012

Kate Middleton Topless

 I thought that might get your attention!

So it seems that someone has managed to get some photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge sunbathing topless while on holiday in France. They are set to be published in a French gossip magazine.

Now much as I very much like the idea of seeing Kate Middleton without any clothes on (which straight male - and some females - wouldn't?) all I can say is leave the poor girl alone. If she was cavorting around undressed somewhere very public then, to a certain extent, she should expect to get attention and photographs taken (even if she wasn't destined to be our next Queen). That may even be the point. However here it's quite different. She is a young lady sunbathing and under the impression that the only other person around is her husband. I'm willing to bet that the villa in question was chosen principally because it was secluded and offered a degree of privacy. Instead someone has got some seriously hardcore photography equipment and managed to reel off a couple of snaps. And why? What purpose does it serve?

Incidents like this make a strong case for the return of Britannia or something similar. This would serve a dual purpose. Firstly, it would give senior royals somewhere private to entertain people on their terms. It would be emphatically their property therefore they could set their own rules; no mobiles, no cameras, etc. Secondly, it would be a damn site more difficult to take compromising photos of a ship in the middle of the sea. There could be a family only area that is secluded and segregated from the rest of the ship where nobody could see them or interfere. No doubt some muppet would try and charter a helicopter or plane to try and obtain areal photos. Either that or try and hack into satellites to get photos that way.

There will no doubt be some people that say the Royals are heavily publicly funded and therefore are public property. This is true to an extent. Royals on official duty to represent the British population at home or abroad. And when they do that they generally do an extremely good job. However we cannot and must not forget that they are human beings too. Yes they are charged with representing the U.K. and her interests but that doesn't mean that they forfeit all rights to privacy and a personal life. Such an idea is ludicrous. What next? Webcams in the Queen's shower? A live twitter feed from Prince Charles' car? We neither can nor should expect the Royals to be on duty all the time so when they're off duty, leave them alone. Would anyone else like (or accept) their employers, workmates and everyone else minutely following everything they do when they're in private? Didn't think so. The sad fact is, animals in zoos have a greater expectation of privacy; most animal enclosures have privacy areas where the animals can hide away from being gawked at.

Of course some will say that if they didn't want this kind of attention then we should just disband the monarchy and be done with it. Maybe so but I genuinely think that the Monarchy is a force for good for the U.K. They are an apolitical organisation who's sole purpose is to promote our best interests. They know they will be there in the weeks, months and years to come so they can concentrate on doing the best for the country rather than worry about re-election. They also still have huge novelty value. People are excited about meeting senior Royals: this is true across the board from senior politicians to kids and pretty much everyone in between. Not only will this hopefully make decision makers more open to suggestion and negotiation, on a much more gentle note, it will brighten people's days. What's wrong with that? On an even more subjective note, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have more than a whiff of a Disney film about them (Prince William did feature in the film Princess Diaries 2) so rather than try to spoil it, why not just either let them be or enjoy the story.

If you were hoping to get copies of the pictures here then sorry, no chance. Hope you enjoyed the read none the less.

JR