Sunday update: Eric Asimov, that leading proponent of regional wine, has a well-done piece in the New York Times about why English bubbly would be appropriate: "The notion of fine English wine may seem as absurd as the thought of fine English food once did. Yet, just as London has become a dining destination, southern England has become a source of excellent sparkling wines, made in the illustrious mode of Champagne."
Apparently, the Windsors aren't going to serve any English wine at next week's royal nuptials. Decanter, in its wonderfully English way, reports that the official bubbly will be Pol Roget (which seemed to annoy the writer, who was pushing for Bollinger).
More shocking, though, was one of the threads in the comments. One woman wanted to know why English bubbly wasn't being served. She was immediately shouted down: English wine tastes like a dentist's visit, it's of poor quality and so on -- the usual sort of comments about regional wine, regardless of where it's from.
I'm surprised the English were so mean about this. I thought they were supposed to be more polite than those of us in the colonies. Because there are a couple of nice English sparklers, including Nyetimber. The Wine Curmdugeon has tasted it, and it's more than acceptable. It's more expensive that it needs to be, but that can be said about most Champagne.
I wasn't going to polish my tiara and make the trip to attend, but now that I know that they'll be serving Pol Roget. I'm in!
Posted by: kelkeagy | April 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM
No hating on the Pol Roget, a very fine choice indeed. I may have to bust some out when for the wedding myself. Is 6am too early?
Posted by: JDS | April 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM
It's never too early for bubbly, a fact that I always try to impress on novice wine drinkers. And who knows what centuries-old feuds may be in play when the English discuss Champagne.
Posted by: Jeff Siegel | April 22, 2011 at 12:57 PM