Thursday, April 21, 2016 

90 glorious years.

From world war to World War Z, reluctant heir to hair apparent, Lilibet to I'm now so old that my pussy is haunted, Septicisle reflects on nine decades that have shaped a royal dynasty.

1926-1936: The nappy years
When the home secretary, Sir Tolbert Jingobird-Pustule is torn away from the pressing matter of giving his manservant a damn good thrashing to witness the birth of Princess Elizabeth, no one imagines that the ugly little bag of flesh and bones, remarked upon by the Queen Mother to more resemble the royal wastepaper bin after one of her gin parties than a child, will be Queen.  Elizabeth, soon known to everyone as Lilibet after the amount of drink she is slipped most nights by her parents to shut her up, was third in line to the throne.  Growing up in a life of the utmost privilege, Lilibet spends most of her days chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool, shooting peasants outside of nothing I put here is going to scan, is it?

1936-1946: That American woman, and mass death
Entering her teenage years Lilibet dreams of nothing more than being a country fishwife, settling down and spending her days nagging away at a husband, who as a matter of course cheats on her on a regular basis.  This is all shattered when her uncle Teddy insists on marrying some American brass everyone regards as a bit common and is duly forced to abdicate.   Now second in line after her father, who apart from his Kingly duties stars in a film about declaring war on Germany but not being able to get the right words out, a happenstance that ends with life imitating art, Elizabeth hides her parents' contraceptives in an attempt to escape her fate.

Happily, she shortly afterwards meets "Blockhead" Phil of Greece at Royal Navy College Croydon, where the straight-talking seagull puncher is the only student in the entire school not to be a raving homosexual.  Noted royal commentator Vincent Bandersnatch described it as destiny.  It was in an attempt to meet Phil that Elizabeth and Margaret famously sneaked out from Buckingham Palace into the crowds on VE Day, only for the pair to become caught up in the moment and get drunk on half a pint of Watneys Red Barrel.

1946-56: Apple pie and dressing up
In a still garlanded radio broadcast, Liz pledges to "devote" herself to "your service".  This is an offer quickly taken up by the rest of the royal household, the future Queen banished to the backstairs for months on end as punishment for showing them up.  She and Phil marry in November 1947, despite it being well known to all, including Liz, that Phil spent the night before the event in the bed of prominent society hostess Kitty Malone.  Malone dies in mysterious circumstances within a week.  Most of the royal families of Europe are invited to the wedding, except Phil's sisters who married Germans, naturally, and Ted and his tart, whom spent the war years trying their best to convince the rest of the royals that Hitler wasn't a bad sort really, just misunderstood.  It is on a trip to what Phil calls "Bongo Bongo Land" that George IV dies from complications arising from his haemorrhoids, and Lilibet the Unlikely duly becomes Queen.

1956-66: Tramp stamps and Johnny Foreigner
With the country at war with Egypt, Phil puts the royal household on a similar footing.  Servants are shot at dawn for the most minor of alleged misdemeanours, while savage beatings are administered by the precocious Charles as punishment for not wiping his backside properly. The young prince is soon known to everyone alternately as both Ronnie and Reggie.  Exposed in the News of the World, the prime minister Rab C Nesbitt orders that Charles be sent to borstal; instead Nesbitt is found hanged the next day.  After a drunken frisson with a Hackney sex worker in December of 1963, Phil is arrested.  The entire matter is quickly hushed up, but not before the press gets wind of a VIP with a tattoo of a crown on his lower back having been accused of cottaging.

(Continues interminably for thousands of pages, broadcast hours, Commons debates, etc)

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

4/21/2016 05:45:00 pm | |

Wednesday, March 09, 2016 

Leave for the Queen.

In the annals of tabloid stories that are complete bollocks, the Sun's QUEEN BACKS BREXIT is set to be a future classic.  All the tropes are present and correct: headline that isn't backed up by the story itself?  Check.  Story based on anonymous sources?  Check.  Story denied immediately by those who are named, while the others that we now know were present refuse to comment?  Check.  Story reflects the editorial line of the newspaper?  Check.  Story refers not to a recent event but to in fact something that supposedly took place years ago, which is now being used to portray those named as supporting a campaign that wasn't even a twinkling in Nigel Farage's eye then?  Check.  Complaint made to the press regulator about inaccuracy?  Check.  Paper running obviously untrue story for reasons known only to itself?  Check.

Quite how the Sun thought it would get away with it boggles the mind to such an extent that it makes you wonder if that wasn't the point in itself.  Only yesterday the Sun was whinging about our glorious future King William going off on holiday with the People's Kate and his two devil spawn, as though the entire point of being second in line to the throne isn't to get out of this dive of a country as often as possible.  The Sun's beef is not of course that Wills 'n' K8 are hitting the slopes as and when they can, it's that they're being stingy with the number of snaps of the sprogs they're handing over to the nation's finest.  It's a bit of leap from there to splashing on a story they know full well will piss Brenda and the palace off, thinking that it will in turn make Madge urge her grandson to loosen up a little with the hacks, but then the Sun's relationship with the royals has always made no sense.

Because the Sun truly is reaching with its reporting.  Even if you accept that she apparently said Europe was "heading in the wrong direction" to Nick Clegg at a privy council lunch, and told another group of MPs at some shindig when asked that she "didn't understand Europe", neither suggests for so much as moment that she favours leaving the EU.  The second claim especially seems laughably out of character, given how careful the Queen is about anything vaguely political.  She knows full well it's part of the reason why there's such forelock tugging crap as Clean for the Queen; her standing aloof while her husband acts the twat and Charles involves himself in every cause going only enhances her reputation.

More pertinent is just how odd the idea that Liz favouring one side or the other somehow helps the cause overall is.  Did anyone voting in the Scottish independence referendum really think twice about going Yes or No after Lilibet urged everyone to "think very carefully" about it?  There might have been one wavering royalist/Sturgeon fancier living on the edge of a loch in a tumbledown cottage who was persuaded not to go Yes after her social better asked her to consider things again, but come on.  It only works as part of a general campaigning theme: if you have a cross-section of businesses, academics, politicos and other assorted figures all saying the same thing, then it might just become a nagging doubt in the back of the mind to the undecided.

Otherwise, it's a boost only to the credulous and those with an absurdly high opinion of Queenie's interest in such things.  Jacob Rees-Mogg, fresh from telling Bank of England chairman Mark Carney he was an EU stooge for doing his job, comes across as this close to rubbing himself as he exclaims he always felt the monarchy was our last line of defence against European domination.  Well yes, apart from every other institution, but you get the point.  The Queen is always going to be important to those who still regard Britain as this light in the darkness, a bastion of freedom, a symbol of defiance in a world going to hell in a handcart, where campaigning for Leave is comparable to the struggle for the vote itself.  This projecting of a fairy world helps explain why Leave is floundering so; it doesn't why the Sun would think giving such refugees from reality the slightest encouragement is going to help in any shape or form.

 Which leads to the only possible conclusion for why it would run such nonsense, horrifying as it is: the Sun is negging the Queen.  Stay classy, Tony Gallagher.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

3/09/2016 08:40:00 pm | |

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 

Aenema.

This might just be me, but there are days when such is the weight of general arsebaggery and overall cuntitude, you pray to the empty sky for a cataclysm.  Our great country has after all played host to many shows of depravity down the years, some in recent memory.  Few though have been quite as revolting or nauseating as the transformation of central London into little Beijing for the duration of Xi Jinping's state visit, the Chinese premier treated in a way usually reserved only for US presidents, and even then it feels embarrassingly over the top.  Generally, the criteria for addressing both houses of parliament if you've not been elected yourself is to be the monarch; such niceties can however be suspended if you're about to sink massive amounts of cash into nuclear plants.

It's not just that Jinping has been welcomed in a style so sycophantic that it makes our usual shows of pageantry look restrained, it's the way in which our representatives and then those reporting it have gone about doing so also.  For John Bercow and Prince Charles to be the heroes of the day, for respectively introducing Jinping while making reference to Aung San Suu Kyi, flawed as she is, and finding something else to be doing rather than attending the banquet, is something in itself.  Not his old man's mutterings for Wills however, who bravely brought to the attention of Jinping the suffering of China's wildlife.  Kate meanwhile wowed the tabloids by wearing red, clearly demonstrating her dedication to Marxist-Leninism, topped off with a tiara that the Chinese first lady, Peng Liyuan, probably thought a bit proletarian.  Queenie for her part was given two whole albums worth of Liyuan's popular folk warblings, to be filed alongside her Slayer CDs.  And while Cameron and Jinping discussed their mutual passion for keeping the workers down, being served up for their delectation was roasted loin of Balmoral venison, most likely shot by Philip himself.

This was all happening as Tata laid off workers at three of their steel plants, in part down to China dumping its own excess onto the world market at rock bottom prices.  One union representative appeared on the news to state that he and the company's representatives had calculated that even if they worked for nothing, they still wouldn't be able to compete.  Having boasted at the beginning of the year of the success of the steel industry thanks to the strength of the rest of the economy, any help beyond commiserations from the government has been solely lacking.  Sajid Javid stood up in the Commons and stated this wasn't something governments could do much about, rather than it being something that governments have made the choice to leave to the market.  In the words of Simon Crutchley, at the Scunthorpe plant collecting a delivery, "he's ruining fucking everything, Cameron".

Not that he could give a stuff.  Unfortunate as it is that the nation's steel industry is collapsing just as the leader of the country principally responsible arrives to be fawned over, and bad as it looks, Dave can rest safe in the knowledge that those workers, their families and all the other people the plants will have supported are not likely to have voted Tory.  It makes something of a mockery of George Osborne's beloved Northern Powerhouse™ also, but really, what's more important, Chinese investment in nukes or laughable claims about revitalising a whole area of the country?  We couldn't possibly borrow the money at still historically low rates rather than put something as vital as new nukes under the control of the Chinese, and besides, doesn't it make perfect sense to ask the Chinese and French states to build power plants rather than doing so ourselves?

Our politics has become so deranged on the fiscal front that keeping on the lights has been put in the hands of a French company majority owned by the French state which has not yet completed any of the plants of the European pressurised reactor design mooted for Hinckley Point (the Chinese plants of the same design are also yet to come online).  Moreover, once it is up and running, which will be 10 years time at the earliest, we'll be paying the Chinese and the French twice what the market rate was in 2012, not including inflation.  This could only make sense to politicians who have made a fetish out of the deficit at the expense of everything else.  The Conservatives claim to be acting in the interests of the country's economic security, and yet have concluded a deal that will see future taxpayers' money going straight into the coffers of an authoritarian state that can be trusted about as far as it can be thrown.

Like the cancelling of the contract for a training programme for guards in Saudi Arabian prisons, which led to Michael Gove being feted for his role when surely the idea ought to have been so demonstrably wrong that not helping one of the most repressive governments on the planet torture its citizens is the bare minimum we expect, so too the Chinese have promised in return for handing over vast wads of cash to not steal any British company's intellectual property.  Chinese cyber-attacks are more than likely exaggerated by those with an interest in doing so, but if we're equals why on earth is such an understanding so much as required?   As others have pointed out, there has been next to no debate about this sudden decision to place our faith and our infrastructure in the hands of a state that so many of our traditional allies are suspicious of, rightly or wrongly.  It wouldn't be as bad if this was being done because we genuinely could not do it any other way; instead, this is a choice by politicians who are determined at the same time to renegotiate our relationship with Europe.

Forgive me then if the attention paid to reaching an arbitrary date in a film and still not having a fucking hoverboard does smack a bit of well, decadence.  Just as it's a reflection on us as a people that the politicians we produce regret not their inability to stop the government of the day passing things like the bedroom tax, but instead not projecting our strength as a nation by launching a military attack that would have achieved precisely nothing.  As the Roman empire collapsed, so the distractions, the circuses, became ever more exotic.  This tends to be how these things end.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

10/21/2015 11:35:00 pm | |

Wednesday, September 09, 2015 

Long may she reign.

Tributes were paid today to a woman who has spent the past 63 years on the toilet.

The lady, Bessie Warhammer the IIIrd, 96, from Cleethorpes, was diagnosed with Hopkins' dysentery, an especially virulent and incurable form of the infection in 1952.  Although it is not known at precisely what time Warhammer took to the brick shithouse in her back garden, it is believed her lengthy reign on the porcelain telephone has now broken the record previously set by Lady Victoria Price, who famously suffered so badly from incontinence that she walked around with a convenience strapped to her at all times.

Leading the messages of encouragement was prime minister David Cameron.  Speaking in the Commons, he described Warhammer's long battle with the sewage system as "truly humbling".  "Bessie has such a sense of selfless service that she thought today should just be an ordinary day.  When so much else has changed, that one woman could have made the sacrifices she has, not seeing her children grow up, witnessing her house burn down and being unable to do anything about it as she was indisposed, refusing to lower the Warhammer standard when Princess Diana died, things we can hardly begin to imagine, on today of all days her honour must be recognised.  Truly, her smallest room struggle has been the brown thread running through three post-war generations."

In one of her final acts as interim Labour leader, Harriet Harman added that it was "no exaggeration" to say Warhammer was "admired by dozens around the world".  "Many of those people are still having to poo in a hole in the ground, and Bessie's story reminds them that they too can aspire to live in a toilet of their very own.  The Labour party will do everything it can to help them achieve those dreams."

Speaking from the specially constructed bathroom in the nursing home where she now lives, Warhammer maintained the understated air she has become known for.  "This was not a title to which I have ever aspired, but I thank everyone for their touching messages of great kindness.  Now will someone please put me out of my fucking misery?"

In other news:

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

9/09/2015 08:04:00 pm | |

Saturday, July 18, 2015 

If the Sun had been around in the 30s...

...it would have been hurrahing for the Blackshirts along with the Queen Mother and the Mail.

And I probably would have been a Trotskyist.  Or maybe even an outright Stalinist.  Who knows.  Not that it's exactly been a secret the royals before Brenda were fairly right-wing, all told.  When even Madonna did her best (i.e. produced one of the worst films ever made) to apologise for them, they ought to have known things could only get worse.

Labels: , , ,

Share |

7/18/2015 12:50:00 pm | |

Thursday, October 24, 2013 

Those letters between the press and the Queen in full.

Your Majesty,
                             (Actually, before we get started, do you mind if we call you Liz? Your Majesty is really quite formal, and as modern press representatives we loathe formality, as your friend and ours Paul "double cunting" Dacre attests. OK, Liz it is.)

Liz,
      As you will no doubt be aware as a regular puruser of our publications, your government is currently try to ram through statutory regulation of the press. We believe this would signal the end of 300 years of press freedom, and as it is being achieved through a royal charter, we also believe it has the potential to sully the good name of the finest monarchy in the world.

We're sure you agree far too much has been made of the fact one or two newspapers were caught breaking the law on an industrial scale just to get the latest exclusive on which celebrity was shagging another, as we know you're as partial to OK! magazine as most other housewives. That we may have also smeared a few people who were arrested for serious crimes and then released without charge, or hacked the mobile phone of a murdered schoolgirl we can't condone, but such things have to be put in the context of our contribution to democracy, as recent articles such as Red Ed: Did his evil Marxist father help with the attempt on the life of Princess Anne? make apparent. Hopefully you'll also overlook this whole thing started with the regrettable hacking of the phones of members of the royal household. You wouldn't hold that against us, would you?

Britain has long stood as a shining beacon of freedom, and the vibrancy of the press has always reflected that. Our notoriety worldwide has been hard won, and not something we will relinquish lightly. The freedom of the press is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by our very own Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, and the fact that some of us have long campaigned for the abolition of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from his charter for criminals and terrorists by no means makes us horrendous hypocrites.

Worst of all, the charter would almost certainly be used by autocrats and repressive governments worldwide as an excuse for attacks on the press in their respective countries.  This terrifying knock-on effect will be all the more devastating as it will carry with it the respect in which you personally, and the crown institutionally, are held throughout the world.  Of course, that we've never previously shown the slightest interest in freedom of the press worldwide, and have no problem with running supplements paid for by tyrants is something that shouldn't be held against us.  Nor does the fact some of us have suggested the Guardian should be shut down, prosecuted for endangering the security of the nation, and Alan Rusbridger strung up from the nearest lamppost mean that far from believing in the freedom of expression we believe only in the freedom to make money.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

We therefore urge you, Liz, as the final guarantor of freedom of expression across the UK and your Commonwealth, not to sign this charter.  We hope you found this morning's headlines, where we universally described your great grandson as "Georgeous", to your liking, and that you've forgotten all about our publishing of photos of Fergie toe-sucking, Harry buck-ass naked and the hounding of your daughter-in-law to the point where she died trying to escape from our photographers.

Signed by the Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch no surrender committee

-----------------------------------------------
 
Dear representatives of the press,                                           
                                                                     Piss orf.
The Queen (Liz)

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

10/24/2013 07:30:00 pm | |

Tuesday, August 13, 2013 

Waiting for kingship.

Here's a question that doesn't seem to have an answer: just how long does it take someone to prepare to become king?  Depending on whether you measure it from when Mumsie became Queenie, or from when little Prince Charlie was born, the one and only Duchy Original has either been waiting in vain for 61 or 64 years.  Despite being the longest serving heir apparent in British history though (® Wikipedia), it seems he still isn't quite ready to take on the reins, at least if we're to believe successive governments.  Both the coalition and the last Labour government vetoed the release of 27 letters written by Charles to ministers over a seven-month period, although it was left to Dominic Grieve to explain this was necessary as to prevent anyone falling under the misapprehension that Chaz wasn't politically neutral when expressing his "most deeply held personal views and beliefs", when all he was merely doing was "preparing for kingship".

This latest defence of our glorious Prince of Wales comes after the Mail discovered that since 2010, Charles has had just the 36 meetings with ministers (or 53, if you count the ones with juniors as well).  That this is almost certainly more than some of those ministers have had with the prime minister is clearly nothing to be concerned about; no, according to Tim Loughton, one of those lucky enough to have dunked biscuits with his royal highness, it's a "grotesque caricature" to portray these meetings as lobbying sessions.  Rather, ol' big ears is a concerned citizen who just so happens to have the influence to get personal sessions with senior politicians, and he's "well briefed and knowledgeable", the engagements even "hugely beneficial".  Again, these meetings also help him to prepare for his "future role as king".

Indeed, Clarence House presents these cosy arrangements as being the "Prince's right", even his "duty", to bring his "unique perspective" and "reflect the many issues people raise with him personally".  If we were being cynical, which we're obviously not, then we might suggest at this point that discussions that consist precisely of Charles regaling ministers with all the jobs people he's met do might be a bit dull.  Clearly though, Charles is nothing if not a sponge, soaking up the concerns of ordinary people only to then drench the minister unlucky enough to have picked the short straw this month.

The first question then leads to a second.  If Chaz's preparing for kingship only ends once he's crowned, then just how did Brenda herself get ready to become queen?  Did she start preparing to become queen only once she was heir presumptive, was it from birth, or was it from when she took on public duties during WWII?  Did this involve bringing her "unique perspective" on how the war could be brought to an end sooner, or did she perhaps confine her views to the nationalisations of the Labour government after 1945?  Was there a meeting between Ernest Bevin and Liz on what should be done about India, maybe, or have a chat with Nye Bevan about the establishment of the NHS and the possible inclusion of homoeopathy?

Whichever it was, Lilibet prepared for her queenship for only a fraction of the time Charles has been doing so, and most tend to agree that on the whole, she's been fairly good at it.  Isn't it then perhaps time that the heir stopped preparing and maybe started, err, acting like an actual monarch?  Or is that too terrible a prospect for all concerned to consider?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

8/13/2013 06:35:00 pm | |

Thursday, August 01, 2013 

That Queen's speech on the eve of nuclear war in full.

When I spoke to you less than 3 months ago, we were all enjoying the warmth and fellowship of a family Christmas.  The horrors of war could not have seemed more remote as I once again regaled you all with how well the Commonwealth had been doing.

Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.  We intend to do this by carrying out a "first strike" on the Soviet Union with a "limited yield" nuclear weapon.  The experts war gaming this entire thing seem to believe this will be enough to make the Soviets back down, rather than launch an all out war.  I'm not quite sure about the logic of that myself, but I'm assured the prime minister knows what she's doing.

In any case, I have never forgotten the sorrow and pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939.  If we should get through this, I hope that moment could be immortalised on celluloid, and go on to win Oscars from the typically gullible American awards system.

Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.  In fact, the thought surely must have dawned on me at one time or another, especially during the Cuban missile crisis, but then you can't get the scriptwriters these days, can you?

But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength.  I can't quite remember what those qualities were at this precise moment, as it's dubious as to whether they'll help much if all our major cities are vaporised, but try not to worry, everything is in hand.

My husband and I share with families up and down the land the fear we feel for sons and daughters, husbands and brothers who have left our side to serve their country. My beloved son Andrew is at this moment in action with his unit and we pray continually for his safety and for the safety of all servicemen and women at home and overseas.  Actually, I couldn't much care if the silly sod gets blown to kingdom come, but scriptwriters again, eh?

It is this close bond of family life that must be our greatest defence against the unknown. If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country's will to survive cannot be broken.  This is why I am immediately opening Buckingham Palace to the public as a refuge.  What's that Philip?  Oh, you're right.  We can't be dealing with mud on the carpets.  Sorry, change of plan.  Ha ha ha.

As we strive together to fight off the new evil, let us pray for our country and men of goodwill wherever they may be.  I'm now off to a bunker with the rest of my family and the government.  You can be safe in the knowledge that even if you, your friends and your family die in the terror to come, that we and the rest of those who got the world into this mess will come out of it alive.  God bless you all.

Labels: , , ,

Share |

8/01/2013 01:32:00 pm | |

Wednesday, June 19, 2013 

Important news story.

Mr and Mrs Tyler Wallbanger have "decided not to find out" the gender of their baby, a spokesman for the Scunthorpe couple has said.

The baby will be delivered on the very public maternity ward at the Scunthorpe General Hospital, where Diana Spencer might have had her sons had she been born into a northern working class community and not into the landed gentry, and therefore never met the Prince of Wales.

The baby is due in mid-July, and Tyler Wallbanger hopes to be present if his duties as a spellchecker for the council allow. Officials at the Wallbangers' home on the Rick Astley estate have appealed for an "appropriate degree of sensation" regarding the birth.

The birth was "a very personal matter for Tyler and Ashlee," the same officials said.  "But they also know it's a time to celebrate and many will want to share in their joy.  This is why, should the hospital's permission be forthcoming, the couple hope to broadcast Ashlee's labour live over uStream.  It will also mean that if Tyler isn't able to get away from work that he'll be able to watch the birth from his desk."

"Both Tyler and Ashlee are very excited about how their friends and the general public will learn the gender of their baby at the same time as they do.  In no way is their announcement at this time designed to further public interest in their child, as they believe the BBC has been hyping the pregnancy and birth up more than adequately for them."

Despite the possibility of the live stream, once Mrs Wallbanger goes into labour there will be no further public statement until the baby is born and the Queen, the Wallbanger family and other senior celebrities have been told.

Senior gynaecologist Dr Serena Williams will be delivering the baby.

Asked whether the couple have decided on any names, officials at the semi-detached were giving little away. "Let's just say, if it's a boy, they're thinking of naming him after the place where he was conceived, and if it's a girl, after a British national hero."

The Wallbangers are known to have visited Jamaica last year, while Tyler has long been under the misapprehension that the commanding officer at the battle of Trafalgar was a woman named Fellatio.

Reports suggest that the Wallbangers have asked the foreign secretary William Hague for some of the surplus weapons not fit to be sent to the rebels in Syria to enable them to fire a 21 gun salute to mark the birth.  It is not yet known whether he has responded.

Labels: , , , ,

Share |

6/19/2013 09:52:00 pm | |

Tuesday, February 19, 2013 

A plastic newspaper, edited to mislead.

When it comes to taking comments out of context, or to be accurate, deliberately misconstruing them, the hatchet job being performed on Hilary Mantel comes second only to the monstering Jeremy Clarkson received in late 2011 when his joke on the One Show was misunderstood by nincompoops.  "Venomous", says the Daily Mail's front page, Mantel savaged for daring to suggest the People's Kate is perhaps a little dull, as though she was "machine-made" for her role as duchess and (eventual) queen.  "Completely wrong and misguided", says David Cameron, taking a break from selling weapons to foreign johnnies to talk to the media, and what's more, she's "a fantastic ambassador for Britain".

A comment which says pretty much everything about how politics now sees the royal family.  Almost 80 years ago the then prime minister tried but ultimately failed to persuade Edward the VIII not to abdicate; now their usefulness extends only to how they influence Brand Britain.  As for how the rest of us view a family on welfare that is most certainly exempt from the bedroom tax, much of it comes from a media that doesn't really know what to do with them, post-Diana.  Once the likes of the Mirror urged royal princesses to make their mind up on whether to marry or not; now the closest they get is pondering as to whether they should publish incredibly grainy shots of Kate in a bikini.  The Sun might print Harry buck naked, covering his crown jewels with his hands, or indeed put a model wearing just a bikini and a pout on its front page the day after her violent death, but to publish snatched shots of a pregnant princess is now beyond the pale.

The end result of this decision as to which members of the royal family should be protected or venerated and which should be mocked or held in contempt is, as always, the most cynical humbug and hypocrisy.  While none of the papers would touch the shots of Kate on holiday with a barge pole, they will of course describe her as "putting her bump on parade" when she does venture out into the glare of the cameras.  Harry, meanwhile, used as a propaganda prop by the MoD, was treated even worse, his "comments" about killing Taliban which were in fact nothing of the sort becoming the story in part because of his open disgust for the media as made clear in the interview.  No one can say anything even slightly detrimental about Brenda herself, while it's all but permanent open season on Charles and her other two sons.

Even the most cursory glance at Mantel's speech makes clear that she is not saying unequivocally that Kate is an automaton, without character or personality or any of the other things that the Mail and other papers have got up in arms about, but rather that this is how the media and indeed the royals themselves have constructed her image.  Mantel writes in her very first paragraph that she "saw Kate becoming a jointed doll on which certain rags are hung", not that she is, or was.  Mantel sees her like this because this is how either the royals or the media want her to be seen, and in her view, it's as far from the image of Diana, as she was presented and later presented herself as it's possible to imagine.  The worst that can be said about Mantel's depiction of Kate is as the Heresiarch says, it comes across occasionally as "gratuitously mean", even if it also seems to be all but confirmed by the responses from Cameron and the boss of her charity.

More intriguing though is quite how far Mantel appears to fall for the cult of Diana.  This entire paragraph, taken from mid-way through the speech is almost certainly a shoe-in for the next Pseuds Corner:


In the next stage of her story, she passed through trials, through ordeals at the world’s hands. For a time the public refrained from demanding her blood so she shed it herself, cutting her arms and legs. Her death still makes me shudder because although I know it was an accident, it wasn’t just an accident. It was fate showing her hand, fate with her twisted grin. Diana visited the most feminine of cities to meet her end as a woman: to move on, from the City of Light to the place beyond black. She went into the underpass to be reborn, but reborn this time without a physical body: the airy subject of a hundred thousand photographs, a flicker at the corner of the eye, a sigh on the breeze.

A sticky stain on the newspaper, perhaps?  Quite why Diana continues to inspire this kind of almost idolatry is unclear: Mantel describes her as both receptive and passive, but she was also manipulative and more than capable of playing the media at their own game.  Her Panorama interview with Martin Bashir is the ultimate example of the underdog turning the tables on her accusers, and while she may have been uninformed by history as Mantel writes, she succeeded in writing her own.  Charles undoubtedly deserves all he gets and more, yet the idea that there were three people in the marriage is to completely forget about Diana's lovers, as indeed she wanted the public to.

That slight diversion into pretension aside, Mantel's speech is beautifully written, and if nothing else its seizure by the Mail means that many more will read and hear it than otherwise would have done.  I haven't read any of her novels so can't comment on how they ultimately play out, but her speech portrays the monarchy as a centuries long tragedy, and brings out the loneliness and futility of being a part of it, whether it be the guests at Buckingham Palace avoiding speaking to Brenda or the detritus of the event Charles was attending which he must notice everywhere he goes.  Where I part company with the Heresiarch is when he says "Kate herself is an entirely blameless woman, doing her best to make sense of her bizarre role in national life".  The second part is certainly true, and she may well be blameless, but she most definitely did have a choice as to whether or not to join the entire rotten institution.  She may not be able to control the way she has since been projected, or how her sister (or just a part of her anatomy) has been made into a sex object in her stead, but she didn't have to go along with the pantomime.  And ultimately, that's why she has to put up with the occasional jibe thrown her way, misconstrued in repetition or otherwise.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

2/19/2013 07:41:00 pm | |

Tuesday, December 18, 2012 

Don't leap to conclusions on Andrew Mitchell officer, says police chief...

...that's our job, insists Bernard Hogan-Howe.

In other news:
Desolate, frozen wasteland, neither use nor ornament, named after Queen
Lawyers disagree over how best to change human rights legislation to enhance their fees
Photo-sharing website owned by tax avoiders declares ownership of every highly filtered sex organ posted
UKIP voters "detached from reality", says Baron Ashcroft of Belize
 

Labels: , , ,

Share |

12/18/2012 06:15:00 pm | |

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 

An absurd decision for an absurd institution.

In the year of Brenda's diamond jubilee, you expect there to be a certain amount of royal bum-licking, just as you expect those Tory MPs still over-awed by the sheer majesty of generations of inbreeding to jump on anyone daring to suggest the monarchy isn't the most magnificent institution on the planet.  When the brown nosing reaches the heights it did in David Cameron's Conservative party conference speech though, where he described Lillibet as the "finest head of state on earth", it's difficult not to be staggered by the level of cynicism involved in such a statement.  

Never mind the implication that, regardless of the flaws of democracy and the individuals who put themselves forward for such a position, the hereditary passing on of patronage is still a superior system in the 21st century, it's the absurdity of saying such a thing at all.  Why celebrate the Queen's actual position when you can celebrate the person?  And moreover, why say it when it's the equivalent of saying The Sun is the best tabloid newspaper in the world, or indeed that Katie Price is the best topless model turned one person brand in the world?

This is the kind of mindset you have to enter in to to even begin to comprehend the decision by Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, to veto the release of 27 letters written by Prince Charles to various government departments over a seven-month period during 2004 and 2005, as ordered by a freedom of information tribunal.  The Guardian has been trying for 7 years to get the letters released under the FoI legislation, and is now considering appealing against the decision by successive governments not to do so at the High Court.

To judge by what we know of Chaz's personal interests, you'd imagine that the letters in question must be terminally boring.  Tessa Jowell spoke today of his interest in the "perceived lack of traditional skills such as stone masonry and hedge laying", which you can file alongside his fascination with chocolate box architecture, homeopathy, fox hunting and the dangers of nanotechnology.  Not a bit of it, if we're to believe Grieve. 

According to his statement, were these 27 letters to be released, there's the very real danger that Charles would be seen to be disagreeing with government policy, endangering his party political neutrality.  Moreover, the letters while containing nothing improper, do reflect his "most deeply held personal views and beliefs" and "are in many cases particularly frank".  At the same time however, Grieve argues that Charles is doing nothing more than engaging in what would fall under the "tripartite convention" once he becomes monarch, whereby he is perfectly allowed to make his own personal views known to ministers.  Hence his lobbying of them is simply part of his "preparing for kingship".

As arguments go, this has to be one of the most spectacularly fatuous to have been given by an otherwise decent minister for some time.  If we take Grieve at his word, his statement implies that the next in line to the throne (or indeed, any of the others who come after Charles in the line of succession, as you never know when we might have a Nepalese style massacre on our hands) is preparing for their ascent to the throne from the moment they are born until they either become monarch or die waiting.  Anything they write to a minister, regardless of how inappropriate or party political, is therefore part of their preparation for their future role.  Despite it being us serfs who pay for the royals to continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed, we're not allowed to know how they lobby in private and how this might influence government policy because, err, it might encourage us to believe they're not politically neutral after all.  We're meant to just take at face value the insistence of ministers that they are.  Indeed, if we were to know, then it would damage the very concept of "preparing for kingship".

And so ministers of the capability of Grieve have to humiliate themselves to ensure that the rantings of a Prince are protected and the monarchy as a whole is not embarrassed.  There's a very simple choice here for Charles: either emulate your mother and let your views be known truly in private, or renounce your title and join the rest of us proles at the back of the queue in getting our letters read and answered.  Alternatively, we could just decide that Elizabeth the II will also be Elizabeth the Last, solving the whole wretched problem. Clearly though, when the Saxe-Coburgs make for the "finest head[s] of state on earth", homeopaths or not, the end of this rotten anomaly seems as far away as ever.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

10/17/2012 09:52:00 pm | |

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 

Two for the price of one.

There was widespread outrage today when a foreign publication published not just the paparazzi shots of Catherine Middleton sunbathing topless, but also a collage which superimposed her naked breasts onto an image of the prophet Muhammad.

The Albanian satirical magazine, Horatio Longoria, estimated to have a circulation of approximately 6 copies, went ahead with the printing out of this month's issue despite the legal action taken by the Royal family, and in spite of the widespread rioting across the Muslim world that greeted the sudden discovery on YouTube of a trailer for a movie of truly laughable production values.

Asked as to why he would do such a thing, the editor of Horatio Longoria, 14-year-old Simon Quinlack, was quoted to have said: "Well, it's for the profit. I might sell a few more copies to people at school. Never has then been so much fuss about such inconsequential things. And yes, I do mean that in more ways than one. Oh, and it was this week's hobby."

Albanian police, fearing that Quinlack might become a target for reprisals by deranged monarchists and hysterically hypocritical tabloid journalists have posted an armed guard outside his bedroom, which he is any case not allowed out of as he is grounded. Worldwide reaction to Horatio Longoria's slur on the prophet has so far been relatively muted, although Anjem Choudary is said to have called for Princess Eugenie to be beheaded.

Labels: , , ,

Share |

9/19/2012 05:56:00 pm | |

Friday, August 24, 2012 

Yes, they were so in terror of Leveson, weren't they?

Ah yes, so it was fear of Leveson stopping the papers from publishing the pictures of Harry, wasn't it? Poor old Neil and Kelvin, it's always sad when it's your former employer that knocks your claims into a cocked hat. The Sun's editorial justifying their decision doesn't so much as mention Brian, for the reason this was all the doing of the PCC and royal aides.

Not that the Sun's reasoning is anything other than specious. The Sun, and Murdoch for that matter, have never cared a jot for press freedom, only for publicity and profit, the former of which this latest move has certainly brought. The Sun claims there was a need to publish the pictures in order "for the debate around them to be fully informed". This is, frankly, crap, and the paper knows it is. Anyone who wanted to see them had already done so, and anyone else has certainly read the descriptions of what they show. The Sun's public interest reasoning amounts to 23 words, or 2 whole sentences, that there are questions of his security and how his position in the army might be the affected. Soldiers have done far worse and kept their jobs, while we hardly needed to see the pictures to be able to talk about his security.

As for Harry having compromised his own privacy, can the Sun really have forgotten about Sienna Miller so quickly? By any yardstick, Miller's partying a few years back with a married man in full public view looked a far more open and shut case, and yet she still won a number of privacy actions. We already have reports that Harry's security detail asked his guests not to take photographs, more than suggesting that consent was not given. Lastly, the Sun claims that a previous ruling by the PCC makes their stance this time round a mockery. Back in 2010 they ruled that Loaded magazine had not invaded the privacy of "epic boobs" girl by reprinting images of her as they had been so widely disseminated online. The differences though are apparent: even though Loaded hadn't taken them from the young woman's Bebo page (she was 15 when they were posted), she had made them available herself. Moreover, there had been four years between the images being posted and Loaded republishing them, a period of time over which they had gone viral and become a meme. In this case we are talking about three days, not years.

All this said, this is hardly an issue worth getting out of your pram about, as some of the usual suspects have decided to. If Lord Leveson decides that it's further evidence of how certain sections of the press, despite everything, will continue to do whatever the hell they like, then the Sun has no one to blame but itself. And let's leave it at that.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

8/24/2012 12:05:00 pm | |

Thursday, August 23, 2012 

It's the end of the free press as we know it!

Neil Wallis is, Kirsty Wark reminded us on Newsnight last night, still on bail after being arrested in connection with phone hacking. Rather than being humbled by this chastening experience (and Wallis is of course completely innocent of any involvement with what went on at the News of the World until proven otherwise), Wallis, alongside the ubiquitous Kelvin MacKenzie was everywhere yesterday claiming that the only reason that no newspaper had taken it upon themselves to republish the naked photographs of Prince Harry enjoying a game of strip pool in Las Vegas was terror of Lord Brian Leveson and what he might say should they do so. The end of a free press they warned! The triumph of the "unpopular" press over the popular! What delight for the BBC! The same BBC, it should be said, which invited both Wallis and Max Clifford (and Vanessa Feltz) on to discuss this latest journalistic crisis.

Instead, as we learned today, fear of Leveson played only the very slightest of roles, if one at all. As anyone could have guessed, it was St James's Palace that had the real chilling effect. Relying on the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, the same code which has remained unchanged on privacy since long before Leveson was convened, royal aides pointed out that the code prohibits the publication of photographs where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when photographs have been taken without the person's consent. A hotel room is clearly a private place, and we simply don't know whether or not Harry consented to the taking of the photos; one suspects he may not have even known, as they look to have been taken without flash and are extremely blurry. The Daily Mail reports that a "minder" told one of those taking photographs not to, and they may well have even asked them to delete them, underlining the apparent lack of consent.

The rules on expectation of privacy are not new. The News of the World was reprimanded by the PCC way back in 1995 when it ran photographs of Charles Spencer's then wife walking in the grounds of a clinic, leading an embarrassed Rupert Murdoch to chastise then editor Piers Morgan. It's also hardly the first time that royal aides or their lawyers have stepped in to ask newspapers to moderate their behaviour, although this might be the first time they've issued a pre-emptive strike as it were. The media were asked to respect Kate Middleton's privacy when the paparazzi were making a habit of following her around every day, as they were more recently when the same treatment was being meted out to her sister, Pippa.

The real "villains" of this piece then are Harbottle and Lewis, as are the PCC, who passed on their view that publication of the photographs would be a breach of part 3 of the editor's code. Indeed, while the Mail and the Sun both complain that they've been in effect "banned" from publication, neither has put any direct blame on Leveson, even if both have quoted certain figures claiming the inquiry has had a role. The Mail doesn't so much as mention the furore in today's leader column, while the Sun merely makes a joke of the whole thing. And this isn't out of fear of Brian, either: representatives from both the Sun and Mail complained during the inquiry that they risked being scooped by the internet should privacy restrictions be made even more draconian. In this case, they've been stopped by the old PCC code they've long been signed up to.

In any case, by the time today's papers went to press the whole thing was already old news. TMZ posted the pictures up early on Wednesday morning our time, meaning the vast majority of people who would have wanted to see them had already done so by last night. Any additional revenue they might have brought in would have been through advertising clicks, not extra sales, had editors decided to be publish and be damned before they heard from the palace. There also isn't any real great scandal here which would have warranted publication through the public interest defence: much as I resent the fact that it's our tax money allowing Harry to live the high life, protected as he is by Scotland Yard's most lucky, it's not as if he's been caught in flagrante in the middle of an orgy, just stark bollock naked having a bit of fun. The sad reality is that the vast majority of our fellow citizens are perfectly happy for the monarchy to continue to function in the style to which it has become accustomed, and it's the institution that remains objectionable, rather than the inbreds that represent it. Oh, and drop the nonsense about Leveson meaning the end of press freedom Neil and friends, yes?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

8/23/2012 08:38:00 pm | |

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 

The return of pre-emptive policing.

Last week Craig Murray wrote that those visiting London during the Olympics from authoritarian states would be hard pressed to notice much in the way of difference. For those thinking that was a bit strong, then it seems the British Transport Police are trying their level best to live up to the very worst of expectations. Depending on who you believe, yesterday saw the BTP arrest either four or up to thirty graffiti artists, all of whom were bailed on draconian conditions banning them from any railway system for leisure travel, from carrying art equipment and from being within a mile of any Olympic venue.

The BTP claims that the arrests were made in connection with "incidents of criminal damage committed between January 2007 and July 2012", something that Darren Cullen, one of the men arrested finds difficult to believe. Talking to the Guardian, he says that he has never painted illegally, and considering he runs a company that works with other corporate firms to provide graffiti-style art to them that seems perfectly believable. The London Vandal blog suggests that others arrested were similarly either "retired" or hadn't touched a spray can in years, more than suggesting these were raids aimed at picking off those either well known in the community or to the police with the intention of ensuring that they wouldn't be able to go anywhere near any Olympic venues with artistic intentions. Even if the BTP's account is more accurate than that from the graffiti artists themselves, then the specific condition barring them from within a mile of any Olympic venue is ridiculously broad, and in any case the condition stopping them from carry spray paint ought to be enough to cover any eventuality.

What's more, we can look forward to the pre-emptive arrest becoming standard practice due to the ruling from the High Court today that those detained prior and during the royal wedding were dealt with perfectly legally. Among those who had asked for a judicial review into the police's tactics was someone dressed as a zombie who was on their way home. Justifying the arrest, the officer wrote in his witness statement (paragraph 51):

"… we were also told to … look out for potential breaches of the peace for which the police response would be pre-emptive, if necessary, and zero tolerance of potential disorder. While acknowledging the right to peaceful protest, the vast majority of the crowds that day would be supportive of the wedding and therefore there was a concern that, potentially, any public display of anti-wedding sentiment in the faces of that supportive crowd could lead to breaches of the peace. (By this I mean fights breaking out.) Moreover, on the basis of recent events, those displaying anti-wedding views might well be intending to disrupt the wedding itself, if they could."

In other words, the "justification" for some of the arrests was that it was for their own good, more evidence of how the Public Order Act is in desperate need of redrafting. At least in the case of the wedding some of the arrests were "intelligence" led; the BTP seems to have just picked on old hands they knew about, and without the slightest evidence they had any attention of doing anything. That this is happening under the civil liberties defending coalition rather than ZanuNuLiarbore seems to have passed some people by; where is Henry Porter now, incidentally?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Share |

7/18/2012 09:56:00 pm | |

Wednesday, June 06, 2012 

The shape of things to come.

As you might have noticed, I decided not to pass too much comment on the jubilee. With the exciting four days of fun, frolics and relentless sycophancy finally past, it would have been nice if the same policy had been adopted in general. Almost every single article or broadcast could have been done in advance, with a sub or work experience kid left to edit them as appropriate, such was the predictability of it all. From the papers on the right that couldn't hold themselves back in praise of this Britain that they wish still existed, to the Guardian treating the whole thing semi-ironically, everything you expected to be written was and nothing that might have enlivened proceedings was allowed to puncture the atmosphere of stifling conformity.

It also proves once and for all that whatever the BBC does, it will get criticised for it. Having decided to televise the Thames pageant almost in its entirety, it was left with the task of making something inherently tedious that lasts for hours as interesting as it possibly could. This it did by not focusing wholly on the sight of boats slowly making their way along the river, but by occasionally switching to segments presented by the likes of Tess Daly and Fearne Cotton. Asking for it as this perhaps was, the idea that these segments were in any way worse than the interminable shots of the Queen and the rest of the family, equally bored as the rain poured down, is ludicrous. If the BBC hadn't brown nosed enough (and it's worth remembering that the tabloids complained that Peter Sissons wasn't wearing a black tie when he announced the Queen Mother's death) then the press would have screamed just as loudly; as it turns out, if anything the Beeb's been critiqued for being too obsequious, but then it always has been towards the royals. Anyone subsequently claiming that the organisation is dominated by Trots should be forced to watch the BBC's entire output of the last four days, Ludovico technique style.

Doubly ironic is that Monday's concert, widely regarded as the best of a bad lot, was entirely funded and produced by... the Beeb. Then again, it didn't exactly have much to compete with, especially when so many in the face of all evidence declared that the torrential rain on Sunday hadn't dampened the pageant, and if anything improved it. Yes, some really do seem to be back in the old habit of trying to convince themselves that regardless of how bleak everything seems, the reality is that Britain always comes up trumps when the moment arrives. And look at the selfless dedication of the monarch and hangers-on regardless of the unpleasant conditions: they sat there and shivered like everyone else! Hardly anyone dared to suggest that the whole thing would have been a bit shit even if there hadn't been a cloud in the sky; about the closest we got was Simon Jenkins suggesting it would have made sense to postpone it until a clear day, and that some of the rowers, having been on the water for 8 hours, were angry and in distress by the end.

The whole weekend suggested though that if there's one thing the establishment doesn't have, it's sense. You would have imagined for example that there would have been hundreds, if not thousands of people prepared to volunteer to act as stewards for the Sunday, even if they required a crash course to do so. The last thing you thought would have been allowed to happen was for some of the job to be farmed out not just to the private sector, but to firms taking part in the DWP's inaccurately named work programme. Having been burned over those forced to work for their benefits in the likes of Poundland and Tesco, only something on the scale of making a group of the unemployed stand in the rain for 16 hours, having dumped them under London Bridge at 3am without anywhere to sleep, wash or change clothes could reignite the protests over workfare. The juxtaposition of hereditary patronage, unearned wealth and class superiority all being fawned over while this sad crew monitors it for either £2.80 an hour or sweet Fanny Adams, with the empty promise of a job doing the same at the Olympics the only sweetener really couldn't be starker.

Downing Street shoots back that it was a "one-off" and that Close Protection UK has apologised. In truth, they only thing they've said sorry about was dumping them under London Bridge at 3am when they weren't meant to be there until 5; leaving them with nowhere to change and without access to toilets for 24 hours is apparently part of the job, as is then taking them to a camp site in a swampy field. Buckingham Palace has naturally not commented, although the Queen or those who represent her are astute enough to recognise that this was the last thing they would have wanted.

Regardless of whether you support the principle of the monarchy, are indifferent towards it or loathe it with a passion, there was at least the possibility of avoiding the whole thing, or just dipping into it if you felt like it over the past 96 hours. The viewing figures suggest that despite the hype, far fewer were interested this year than they were for the wedding 12 months previous. There might have been 3,500 street parties, but to claim this was a nation united is absurd, or indeed that there has been communion simply isn't true.

What's more, there's no such opportunity for escape when it comes to the aforementioned Olympics, when there's not just four days of it but a whole three weeks, all of which are work days even if it's during the silly season. London is essentially going to be shut down for the duration, and MI5 and friends are already hyping up the supposed terrorist threat, as though there hadn't been an immense target they decided to ignore on Monday night. Even if the cost of the jubilee was far more than the £15m claimed, it's small change when compared to the £9bn spunked on an extended sports day. The only consolation is that at least when it's over, everyone involved goes home. We seem to be stuck, if not with Liz who you can warm to, then her spoilt obnoxious offspring for some time to come.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share |

6/06/2012 05:44:00 pm | |

Monday, May 28, 2012 

Never mind the jubilee.

Peter Wilby in the Graun:

The glossy newspaper supplements are out, the BBC (supposedly a hotbed of subversive lefties) is preparing wall-to-wall coverage, MPs are going on holiday for two weeks, the populace is ready to put out the flags and the picnic tables. In an orgy of deference, we are celebrating Elizabeth II's 60 years on the throne. If any other country were paying homage to an unelected head of state in this way, while the living standards of the majority of the population fall and schools and hospitals struggle with diminishing resources, we would call it "the cult of the personality" and probably think about invading.

Well, quite. I thought last year the wedding showed just how quickly a lot of people would adjust to a dictatorship, and if the pre-emptive arrests are repeated again this time without so much as a squeak of protest as before it will just underline the point.

Labels: , ,

Share |

5/28/2012 05:05:00 pm | |

Friday, October 28, 2011 

This is a dead parrot!

The Graun's editorial on the changes to the rules of royal succession says it "would be churlish not to welcome the news". Would it? What exactly is the point of making an institution which is discriminatory by its very nature ever so slightly less discriminatory? Whether you want to compare it with putting lipstick on a pig or nailing a dead parrot to its perch, it's an absolutely nonsensical gesture. Anything that helps to prop up something, however slightly, that should just be abolished is a waste of everyone's time.

(Interestingly, I wrote a far angrier rant against this change back in '08 which I'd completely forgotten about.)

Labels: , , ,

Share |

10/28/2011 12:27:00 pm | |

Friday, September 16, 2011 

Hitchens on Prince Charles.

Only a year and three months late on this, but still:

The heir to the throne seems to possess the ability to surround himself—perhaps by some mysterious ultramagnetic force?—with every moon-faced spoon-bender, shrub-flatterer, and water-diviner within range.

Labels: , , ,

Share |

9/16/2011 07:28:00 pm | |

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Links

Last posts

Archives

Email me
Syndicate this site (XML)
Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates