A thought occurred to me this morning. That in itself is worth reporting but this thought is particularly on point. (Is that the right phrase?)
I received a reply from the First Minister of Wales (leader of the Welsh Assembly, the bit of self government Wales is allowed by England) in response to my email about the naming of William as Prince of Wales. In it he says, "The decision to appoint a Prince of Wales is solely for the monarch to make."
A bit of a cop-out but no doubt the First Minister was caught out as much as the rest of us. But why did King Charles use his very first speech to the nation to make such an announcement? One that should have been discussed and - radical thought - maybe even the people of Wales themselves should have been consulted before having another English man foisted on them. There was no hurry for the King to say anything on those lines. Charles himself wasn't created Prince of Wales instantly the Queen became monarch. Admittedly he was only three at the time but still it was another six years before he was given the title.
So my morning thought. It was less about the prince and more about the princess.
King Charles was desperate to have the title Princess of Wales associated with someone other than Diana. Especially when that someone is a woman who has made herself popular with the people and the media.
I am definitely not a Diana conspiracy theorist in any way, but I think it's likely that Charles resents the attention Diana still gets.
So that's my little thought for today. No doubt others have already come to the same conclusion. It takes a while longer for the cogs to turn in my brain.
* * * * * *
There was a march for Welsh independence in Cardiff on Saturday. Ten thousand people turned up.
I need to find out more, about figures and finance and how an independent Welsh government would run. We're don't exactly have a flourishing economy. A stroll through Swansea with its closed-up, pound and charity shops doesn't inspire confidence.
* * * * * *
And on a completely different note, I was thinking about the advert below the article about cement coffins. "All children love California Syrup of Figs."
I doubt that was true, but it is true that parents seemed a lot more concerned about their children's toilet habits back in the day.
Every time I went to the toilet as a child my grandmother (who was largely responsible for my upbringing) would check up on what I'd accomplished when I exited, her hand always ready to bring out the Syrup of Figs, Andrews Liver Salts or Milk of Magnesia as appropriate.
And as the toilet was outside the kitchen, her domain, she was always on the lookout for a lazy gut.
3 comments:
Those medications sound very familiar. I wonder if the foods available at that time related to this concern? When I was a child in wartime, no fruit except apples for schoolchildren from the Canadian growers, bless them. Not a lot of nonstarch foods.
Well, you know, the English felt entitled to keep the Stone of Scotland in the Coronation Chair forever until just very recently when they agreed to give it back to Scotland. The Scottish agreed to loan the Stone back temporarily for future coronations only. So take heart! Perhaps they too will one day recognize the imperial/colonial insult it is for an English prince to be named Prince of Wales for the past few centuries.
People forget that the first countries to be oppressed, exploited and conquered by English imperialism were the other 3 countries of Britain itself. Then Britain moved on to the World.
Ugh - syrup of figs sounds icky and generally bad.
Post a Comment