I was wondering if you’ll be sitting wide-eyed in front of the TV at 5 a.m. Friday. If you are, you’ll have plenty of company.

Around 2 billion people are expected to watch the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton at 11 a.m. London time Friday. That’s 5 a.m. Texas time, if my time-zone math is correct.

Two billion people. That’s about one in every three people who call this planet home.

If that many folks do indeed tune in, the royal wedding will be one of the biggest television events in history. By comparison, a mere 750 million watched Willie’s mum and pop tie the knot back in 1981.

The wedding is not only big news in Britain, but here in the Colonies as well. On Friday afternoon I Googled “American television coverage of royal wedding,” and got 791,000 results. When I clicked on one of the stories, I learned that CNN plans to begin live coverage of the big day at 2 a.m. our time.

I Googled “Kate’s dress” and got 1.5 million results. Chew on that for a cybersecond. There are at least 1.5 million entries on the Internet that address to one degree or another the matter of the bride’s mysterious wedding dress.

Mercy.

I have to admit to a Yankee- doodle-dandy of a bias against things royal. If I remember my American history correctly, we fought a war a couple centuries back so we wouldn’t have to step and fetch it for royalty any more.

Yet here we are, 200 years and change later, going weak in the knees at a British royal wedding. And if we’re honest with ourselves, even those of us who are cynical about the whole royalty thing have to admit it’s interesting.

I’ve been wondering why that is.

Do we consider the royals to be jolly good role models? Do they teach us how to keep our affairs in good order as we go about our daily existence?

Does Prince Charles, who has never had to squeeze his own toothpaste from the tube but whose private miseries have been played out for all the world to watch, give his fellow gray-hairs a blueprint for peace and personal fulfillment?

Does Prince William — well-bred, well-educated, well-groomed and well-fixed for the remainder of his natural days — represent a formula for success that young people around the world can follow?

Are the royals appealing because they’re above the fray? Are we so weary of the squabble of democracy that the thought of a monarchy is perversely refreshing? Do we secretly wish for a smack of the royal scepter now and then to bring order to the chaos?

Is it the strict royal social structure that we find appealing? Do we appreciate the fact that — on paper, at least — Camilla may now have to curtsy to Kate?

Maybe. But I suspect there’s a much simpler reason that we pay attention to these people who are so far removed from our reality.

We find the royals fascinating not because we believe they’re better than the rest of us, but because they consistently show us that they aren’t. In the unblinking glare of the spotlight, they prove again and again how a bloke can make a jolly good mess of things even when he’s born with the world by the tail.

In the final analysis, the royals are entertainers born and bred to practice the art of wretched excess. And what could be more wretchedly, excessively entertaining than a $33 million wedding that we don’t have to pay for?

For once we can just sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

So pass me a spot of tea and a crumpet, would you, old chap?

Donnis Baggett is publisher of the Waco Tribune-Herald . Email him at dbaggett@wacotrib.com.