Separated at birth? You tell me…
So, what do HM the Queen and Rolling Stone guitarist Keith Richards have in common? The obvious answer is money. They are both stinking rich, though one more than the other. I’ll let you work out which is which.
As you’ll have gleaned from reading my About Me page, I’m neither stinking rich nor a member of the British Royal Family. Nor am I a member of the Rolling Stones, though Mick Jagger has owed me £50 for rather a long time. But that’s a story for another day.
The History of ‘Separated at Birth’
As far as I can tell, this whole separated at birth thing was started by New York-based Spy magazine. I can’t say I’d even heard of this periodical and it’s no longer operating, anyway. Gone the way of many printed magazines in the digital era.
Wikipedia relies on a typically verbose explanation of what the term means:
…usually phrased as a question, is a light-hearted media device for pointing out people who are unrelated but bear a notable facial resemblance, implying that they are twins who were separated soon after being born and presumably adopted by separate familiesWikipedia: “Separated at Birth?”
I discover now that Spy magazine had a copyright on the term ‘separated at birth’. Just as well for me, they are no longer in existence. When I dig even deeper, I see there was even a book published of ‘Separated at Birth?’ images. I hope it’s not too rude to say that the ones chosen for the cover look pretty lame.
Although I’m not a regular reader, I seem to remember the British satirical magazine Private Eye having a go. From what I can recall, their efforts tend to be crueller and designed to make a point.
I think my sole attempt is as good as any you’ll find. I hope you appreciate it and realise that Keith Richards is not related to HM The Queen. No matter how convincing the photographic evidence might be.