On Slags and Unexpected Subtlety.

I noticed a little news item today in the tabloid-style rubbish you get from Yahoo. It concerned the Duchess of Cambridge’s sister, Pippa Middleton. Apparently, she ‘stole the show’ at the Duchess’s wedding to Prince Whatever-his-name-is by wearing a very tight dress which accentuated the curves of her perfectly proportioned posterior. ’Tis said that the eyes of all the men in the room were on her, and her tacit admission that she enjoyed the attention has elevated her from being merely the Duchess’s obscure sister to the status of  minor slag celebrity worthy of tabloid media attention. Well, I suppose if you’re inclined towards wanton exhibitionism, being seen as the cheap sister would be preferable to not being seen at all.

Ah, but, it gets better. Some French fashion designer has stated quite categorically – and quite credibly by all accounts – that the perfect posterior was not hers to exhibit. It was a false one. She didn’t have the dress made tight to accentuate her natural curves, she wore padding to fill out the dress more. She cheated! Allegedly.

Of course, none of this is of any consequence to me except as a source of mild amusement. What does interest me is the subhead:

If true, this will rock the British Royal Family to its very foundation!

Now I’m at a loss. I don't know whether this is a typical example of the excessive and absurd hyperbole to which the tabloid press is inclined to sink, or could it be – just possibly – a most untypical example of a tabloid hack expressing not one but two subtle puns on the word ‘foundation?’