I think William and Kate are trying to steal my thunder ...

Hello, blog readers? Are there any of you left out there? Have I lost you all as a result of my long, ridiculous absence? Well, it would serve me right, wouldn't it?

Even if any of you still have any desire to continue to read this blog, I know that you won't be reading it for a couple of days, because YOU, as PROUD CITIZENS OF THE WORLD, are surely overwhelmed with frenzied preparations for the celebration of WILLIAM AND KATE'S HISTORIC WEDDING. In approximately 5 hours (if you live in Toronto) you will have the privilege of witnessing this TRULY MAGICAL EVENT, and it will be forever remembered as THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE.

Meh. I think they're trying to steal my thunder.

As many of you know, I too am getting married this spring. I can only assume that the paparazzi presence and tabloid interest in my wedding will pick up after Kate and Will get their shindig over with. In order to allay any confusion that might ensue as a result of two such important weddings happening within a month of each other, I thought I would compile a handy reference guide so that everyone can keep them clear.

Similarities:
Purpose of wedding: Declaration of a lifelong commitment between two heterosexual human beings.
Season of wedding: Spring.
Wine: Yes.

Differences:
Guests: Will and Kate: 1900.
Alison and Jonathon: 90

Location: Will and Kate: Westminster Abbey/Buckingham Palace
Alison and Jonathon: Butterfly Conservatory (Cambridge, Ontario)

Animal Participation: Will and Kate: 186 horses (not including police horses.)
Alison and Jonathon: lots of butterflies and some tropical birds.

Transportation: Will and Kate: Rolls-Royce Phantom VI/ The 1902 State Landau Carriage
Alison and Jonathon: Mazda 5/hopefully bum a ride with someone heading to the Butterfly Conservatory for the wedding.


But here's the biggest difference, folks. I think that my wedding will lead to happiness. I'm not so sure theirs will. The happiest relationship will be put under tremendous pressure in circumstances like these.

Oh, I think they love each other. They both seem seem like perfectly kind, goodhearted people. And neither of them have ever donned a Nazi Uniform for a costume party. They are very rich, and will have lots of things done for them for the rest of their lives. I bet that they can book back massages whenever they want and can get tickets to any sold out concert and don't have to worry about what is or isn't covered on their dental plan.

But let's face it, their lives are going to be awful, and this wedding will just be the start of it. A 1900 person wedding means that there are probably going to be a maximum of 200 guests that the bride and groom actually feel close to, 1699 guests who are perfect strangers and (if the tabloids are to be believed) Kanye West. Seriously. Can you imagine?

"Yo, Will and Kate ... I'm happy for you, and Imma let you finish ... but Charles and Diana had one of the best weddings of all time!"

Oh yeah. Apparently this guy is coming too.

But it's not just the 1900 guests. Don't forget about the military, the police force, the undercover security, the throngs of spectators - all strangers. Add to that constancy of the television cameras and the inevitable public scrutiny ... and it's basically a description of my worst nightmare. Did I mention that Kanye West might be there?

I feel so sorry for these kids. As soon as they are married, they will make a trip to Canada, in order to glad hand another big bunch of strangers. Royal watchers are already eagerly awaiting the couple's first child (well, MALE child that is. Who cares that it's 2011 - the laws of succession have not changed, a boy still trumps a girl. If you get an heir AND a spare, so much the better!) They are too good looking to ever escape the media spotlight, and Kate will have to face critiques of her hair, her outfits, and of the placement of each pound on her body every time she steps outside. And finally, if they have any modicum of self-awareness or perception, they will be aware that, like no other time in history, their inherited positions in Britain and the world are losing relevance every minute.

So yes, their wedding will be very beautiful. I won't wake up early in the morning to watch the wedding, but I will search for pictures of their flowers and cake and, of course, Kate's dress when I do get up. And Jonathon and I may roll up to our wedding in our dog-fur-covered Mazda 5 rather than a gilt-edged horse-drawn carriage, but at least we know that our wedding will be full of friends and family that we actually know and like. And, more importantly, we are getting married because we are looking forward to how our lives will unfold after the wedding day. If I were Will and Kate, I would not feel so optimistic.

Here's to us, honey.

My new BFFs

This summer, I had two gargantuan celebrity encounters. I saw Britney Spears in concert and I met Sandra Bullock in a restaurant. I suppose the Britney experience wasn't an "encounter," as there were 20,000 other people there too, but I was standing really, really close to the stage, so in my mind, we're now BFF's. Sandra too.

My 2.1 readers will know that I have long harboured a not-so-secret-interest in Britney Spears, which is mainly fueled by my immature taste in music and appalled fascination with people who get pulled through the Play-Doh-Fun-Factory-of -Stardom. I have also been a longtime fan of Sandra Bullock, despite feeling only lukewarm about many of her movies.

(Note: This is not true of Bullock's breakout role in the movie "Speed," where she and Keanu Reeves drive a bomb-rigged bus on the highway, through Los Angeles, on the airport runway and, for an inexplicable 10 seconds, into thin air. I LOVE that movie. I had just broken up with my university boyfriend when it came out and every time I started feeling blue, my friend Graham hauled me out to see that movie in the theatre. It was cheap, wonderful, bicep-filled therapy. "Crash" and "Infamous" also prove that often the material she works with does not match her true abilities as an actor.)

As these two moments were certainly the most momentous of the summer, I thought I would do a compare and contrast treatment of the two life-defining moments. Students, take note; you're going to have to do this soon with books that I force you to read.

Similarities:

1.) Prettiness.

However pretty you thought Sandra Bullock was from the movies, multiply it by 1000 and that's what she looks like in real life. The fact that America thinks of her as "the girl next door" only makes sense if America lives next door to the "America's Next Top Model" house. Britney doesn't fare so well in this respect when it comes to how she has been seen on the billion feet of celluloid that have captured her every meltdown, but let me assure you, in real life she is pretty stunning. She may not look great in all of those candid shots of her, but her genetic material is pretty darn good - when she's all dressed up, she's awful purdy.

2. ... um ... well, maybe there's just prettiness.

Differences:

There is only one here too, and it's big. Life. Sandra Bullock has got one, Britney Spears doesn't.

When my friends and I were eating in the restaurant that Sandra (Sandy) owns in downtown Austin and she and her husband and stepdaughter took a table right next to us, we were all floored. After all, we had been joking all week, to ANYONE who would listen (and several people who didn't really care to) that we were going to meet Sandy there and we would become best friends forever. And here we were, eating together! Or near each other, at least.

I was instantly overcome with shyness, but I had to take advantage of this opportunity. I had to say SOMETHING to her, didn't I? I mustered my courage and blurted out:

"We like your restaurant!"

Sigh. Oh well, it could have been worse. I could have told her how much I liked her in "Pretty Woman," or something.

But then the most amazing thing happened. She turned to our table and had a conversation with us, like a real human being. About the restaurant, about her plans for a bakery down the street, about what she liked to eat there. It was short, but it was genuine. And as I looked around the restaurant, I realized that in this place, she wasn't a celebrity. Nobody in the restaurant was reaching for their cameras and cell phones when she walked in. The waitress asked her about the health of her dogs. There was no TMZ crew stalking her, no security detail. It was just a pretty lady out with her tattooed husband and their adorable daughter, and nobody lifted an eyebrow. Sandra Bullock seems to have found a balance between fame and anonymity; she is at once exceptional and normal.

Sadly, the same could not be said of poor Britney. She is exceptional in every way. Her show, I am not ashamed to say, was spectacular. There were jugglers and magicians and acrobats and circus freaks and in the centre of it was Britney herself. She certainly has that "it" factor; the Corel Centre was packed to the rafters with screaming Britney wannabes, and none of us, me included, could take our eyes off the stage. And for a moment, when she is performing in front of her adoring crowd, it seems that she has the best life in the world.

But of course, she has no life. At least when she was spiralling downwards into the mire two years ago she went out in her car for coffee and cigarettes. She has virtually disappeared from the tabloid media radar, and I'm sure that it's not for a lack of hunting. She is so carefully managed that we don't even see her at Starbucks anymore. You know that she is still drinking frappachinos, but you also know that now there is a team devoted to getting them for her while she is relentlessly shielded from the tabloid glare. Britney has become the most rare of all circus animals - one that is taken gingerly out of its cage for the performance of a lifetime, only to be packed carefully away again and whisked to the next town under the cover of night.

The concert was mesmerizing, but it was pre-fabricated and structured down to the last millisecond. No interaction with the audience was planned or permitted. When she slowed the show down for it's one ballad of the night, she did send out a "What's up, Ottawa?" but that was all we were allowed to see of non-singing, non-writhing Britney. Upon reading reviews of other shows in other towns, I see that the exact same pithy phrase was inserted in the exact same point in the show each night.

Most stars dread fading into obscurity. This is made painfully clear every time I turn on MTV only to learn that Biz Markee needs to lose weight or that Scott Baio is 45 and single. But Britney must yearn to have the kind of anonymity that is now enjoyed by former child stars like that kid from the Sixth Sense or the kid who played Natalie on "The Facts of Life," or the Karate Kid. (Although I do actually remember the name of the guy who played The Karate Kid - it was Ralph Macchio and he is the same age as Barack Obama. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, children of the seventies!)

I kind of wish that Britney would move to Austin. After all, she's a good old southern girl, and maybe she could learn a thing or two from beautiful, gracious Sandra Bullock, who took time out of her own dinner to converse briefly with a few stammering patrons of her lovely restaurant. Maybe she and Sandy could be neighbours and end up sharing iced tea on the porch and clucking their tongues about the latest Miley Cyrus exploits.

If that ever happens, I really, really hope they invite me. After all, they are my BFF's.