Magazine article The Spectator

The Spectator's Notes

Magazine article The Spectator

The Spectator's Notes

Article excerpt

If you are a monarchist, this does not automatically make you an admirer of the royal family. But it does lead you to give members of that family the benefit of the doubt, particularly when so many others so viciously do the opposite. In general, too, our monarch has shown shrewdness in preserving the institution and so one trusts her judgment more than that of her more emotional, wilful heir. But, try as I might, I cannot see that her refusal to attend the marriage ceremony of Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles does anything but harm. It is easy to understand why, over the years, the Queen has opposed her son's remarriage, but now that it is happening, matters can only be made worse by foot-dragging. On moral, ecclesiastical and prudential grounds, some people question the legitimacy of the marriage. Therefore the task for the Queen is to give it legitimacy. She has agreed to this by making Camilla 'HRH'; now she undercuts it by not attending the legitimising moment. It is a serious mistake.

I cannot persuade anyone to share my concern about Brigadier Andrew Parker Bowles, yet the risk is real. As pointed out before in this column, the Brigadier is the only living impediment to a full church wedding for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker Bowles. No brigadier, no need for registry office; no registry office, no anxiety about the established Church, the venue for the ceremony or the presence of the groom's mother; none of these troubles, no threat to the throne. Of course I am not suggesting that anyone in the circles of power is plotting anything against this gallant former soldier, but isn't it a little surprising that a man who was head of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps does not appear in Who's Who? It is up to the public to make sure that the brigadier is not quietly airbrushed out of our national life.

'Forward, not back', 'Forward, not back': thanks to my family's scholarly knowledge of the subject, I have returned to the source of labour's current election slogan. In an episode of The Simpsons, presumably produced at the time of the 1996 US presidential elections, Homer is fishing in a lonely spot when he is abducted by aliens. They want to know who the presidential candidates are. When he tells them, they kidnap Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, and come to earth disguised as them. At a campaign meeting in Springfield town hall, 'Bill Clinton' (actually the alien Kodos) addresses the crowd as follows: 'My fellow Americans, as a young boy I dreamed of being a baseball. But tonight I say: we must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom.' Will the Prime Minister's advisers draw further on their source as the campaign progresses? On the steps of the Capitol on election eve, Kodos/Clinton speaks in public once more: 'I am looking forward to an orderly election tomorrow, which will eliminate the need for a violent bloodbath.' Are we quite sure that 'Tony Blair' is who he says he is?

Dreadful as are Charles Clarke's proposals for house arrest, and even more dreadful as have been the government's methods of forcing them through the Commons, one wonders if the Conservatives are placing themselves rightly in the whole argument about terrorism. It is hard to think of a single useful proposal made by the Tories on the subject since 11 September 2001. Although some of Tony Blair's moves on the subject are bogus and others are oppressive, he is at least making the running and trying to work out what needs to be done. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.