I don't suppose, dear transpontine readers, that you keep up-to-date with our pettier news stories ... so let me explain that a member of our Current Governing House, Andrew, styled (as our Eminent King Henry IX once was) Duke of York, has been having a spot of bother. Sex comes into it. He was a chum of some wealthy American, but we can keep him out of this. We Brits can only take a limited number of wealthy Americans, sex or no sex. (But we do do a good line in wealthy Russkies.)
As a subsidiary issue: an accusation has been made that this same prince once vocalised the actual phrase "Nigger in the Woodpile", instead of resorting to politically correct Woke English displacement evasions such as "N****r in the Woodpile". I hasten to add that this accusation has been definitively denied by the Royal Household. That is why we definitively need to have a Royal Household. I bet you definitively wish you'd got one. It's millions of times more fun than having a Pelosi (is she a Trollope fan? Pelosi is an anagram of "I Slope", or "Slope the First".)
In our media, the 'f-word' and the 'c-word' are increasingly uttered ... aloud ... in full ... on TV. But apparently, the same liberal approach is not allowed to the 'n-word'. Quite right too. Any limitations placed upon Virtue Signalling would inflict an intolerable Conceptual Famine upon our Chattering Classes.
Some procedural and contingent questions:
(1) Would our cuddly liberal Gauleiters permit us vocally to utter this: "The n-word in the Woodpile"?
(2) There is an English phrase with a similar meaning: "The fly in the ointment". Would it be reprehensible to use imitatio cum variatione and to allude to the Forbidden Formula by saying "The Fly in the Woodpile"?
(3) If one did so, would this in itself be 'speciesist', and thus in breach of the irreformable and rigidly irreversible dogmas of PF (Laudato si) and of papissa Greta?