Non Yemen-y Thought For Today

I'm allowed these every once in a while, right?

So, because it is unavoidable, and because I am a rageaholic, I've seen/read a lot about the royal engagement. I'm not English, so I don't have any emotional or historic ties to royalty, and so certainly won't begrudge anyone who is engaged by something that is silly and anachronistic, if ultimately harmless (although obscenely expensive- but again, no real dog in this fight).  Indeed, I don't even mind the main royals, who don't seem bad.  Especially Charles, who strikes me as a decent, well-meaning sort of guy smart enough to be aware of the crushing uselessness of his life.  Lots of sympathy for the guy, honestly.

But.

In nearly every report, there is a kind of breathless tone that William is marrying a commoner, and large dollops of self-congratulatory bullshit about how this isn't a scandal.  That last part is great, I suppose, but it also begs the question: why, in the 21st century, in a modern, dynamic nation, is anyone able to use the word "commoner" without a frisson of disgust?  Is there a more tawdry, dated, weighted word out there?  Of course, there are more heavily-weighted words, but none that can be thrown out so casually and without fear of approbation.  I would say that the daughter of self-made millionaires is someone less common, if common is meant to be the opposite of important, than the son of someone whose chief duties since WWII has been waving.

Again, the happy couple doesn't seem to be particularly freighted with the royal/commoner distinction, and both of the sons have been fully engaged in the military, which I admire.  And the Queen has done a lot to devolve hereditary titles and the cost of the monarchy.  It is the use of that word by reporters that I hate, and the fact that it can be used demonstrates just how worthless and insulting is the very idea of kings and queens.