Court but not behind

Our thoroughly modern royal house seems to be keeping up with the latest trends (may one say, at last?). Their Spare Scion, only likely to succeed if four others fail, has introduced novelties of Churchillian proportions by proposing marriage to a Yank and that’s not all. Dare one say a colourful choice?

But more significantly, the worldly-wise Windsors are alleged to be avoiding the Trump factor altogether by simply not inviting him to the nuptials. I mean, who would, under any circumstances? That’s what I call Realpolitik. He of course will claim to have better things to do, whenever it is. But won’t he be a tad hurt with such a stellar rejection? One hopes so. (That ‘One’ may or may not refer to Harry’s Grandmama.)

Even more important – what will the bride wear? Will the groom’s best mate be revealed well in advance so that dirt he can be royally dished, character-wise, in good time? These and so many other vital issues to consider and so little time. So good wishes from me.

Author: janus

I'm back......and front

27 thoughts on “Court but not behind”

  1. One cannot blame the bride-to-be for being of mixed race. It is not her fault that her family hails from Ireland. I just hope Harry has more luck in the marriage stakes than his Mum


  2. In the PoW’s defence, conspiracy theories aside, he not only sired Harry, but raised him as well. If Harry turned out OK, then Charles can take a lot of credit.

  3. I agree with Sipu…

    I know my opinion will not be popular… but I hope that Harry has more luck in the marriage stakes than his father did…

  4. The fact that the ceremony will be held in St George’s chapel means that not so many guests can be invited – so sorry Mr Trump. As to the bride’s dress, I trust that she will not attempt to float down the aisle disguised as a white meringue but will follow the example of that other divorcee, the Duchess of Cornwall. I agree with Sipu and Boadicea, but this lady seems to be brighter and more mature than the late Princess of Wales.

  5. Janus and JL – again I disagree 🙂

    I find it quite interesting that so long after the events people’s opinions are still divided.

  6. Boa, not wishing to fight – but I find it hard to accept that Camilla was simply being a friend in the PoW’s time of need, starting before he married!

  7. There is probably something that I’m less interested in than the royal family’s choices in marriage but I can’t think what it might be apart from Greek or Latin of course.

  8. ‘Queen Camilla’ has a sort of ring to it likecharacter in Game of Thrones.
    Whether or not Camilla’ should become queen is a matter of supreme indifference to me.
    BTW Janus, looking at your link and the picture of Prince Charles’ . His complexion suggests that he ought to lay off the sauce.

  9. I suspect your ‘supreme indifference’, shared by many, goes some way to explaining why we continue to be ‘ruled’ by an often dysfunctional family whose many secrets remain locked away from public view. I am not a republican either – how weird is that?! As for the PoW’s complexion, now there’s a cure for insomnia.

  10. “…..I suspect your ‘supreme indifference’, shared by many, goes some way to explaining why we continue to be ‘ruled’ by an often dysfunctional family whose many secrets remain locked away from public view…..”

    Paradoxically therein lies their true value.

    If Tony Blair was Head of State we wouldn’t be indifferent…..and not in a good way.

  11. Janus – the very peculiar “Custom and Practice” pertaining to the English Crown and all those involved have, I would suggest, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with ‘public opinion’ or what the next generation of Royals might want.

    As my tutor at the LSE and now seen as a leading Constitutional historian has said: it is historically customary for the wives of the kings of England to be called Queen of England. It is, in fact, an empty title which carries no power whatsoever either while the king reigns or after his death.

    Charles may well want Camilla to be called Queen, but I really don’t think that the DM is a very reliable source for knowing what Charles or his children want.

    My personal opinion is that the ‘Family’, whose objective since the disastrous Hanoverians has been to ensure that the British monarchy survives, will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it does survive – and that, therefore, to placate public opinion, Camilla will have a very nice title – but not be designated “Queen”.

    As JM so often says: I could, of course, be wrong…

  12. As for Corbyn and McDonnell – I think the UK could do well to re-open a room or two in the Tower, preferably at the lower levels and consign the pair there in perpetuity.

  13. Boadicea,
    I think that a grand re-opening of Bedlam might be better for those two!

    In truth I have, in the past, had a sneaky respect for Mr Corbyn, Although most of us may not have agreed with a single word he said he kept on saying it anyway because, I thought, he believed it. That all changed pdq when the leadership opportunity came along and party politics became more important than his espoused beliefs though. Footie would be turning in his grave.,

  14. JL: Agreed. I despised what Corbyn stood for, but could respect that he had a coherent set of principles that he stood by for decades. Suddenly, especially when it’s clear that he has a chance at power, he’s bottling it and turning into just another Labour apparatchik. I had a pleasant chat last week with a couple from East London. We share the view that should this government fall, the next would be another hung parliament with Corbyn in a stronger position.

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s