The Beeb continues its undistinguished role as the Channel You Can Rely On To Make Howlers.
Unwisely, I had thought that they might make a bit of an effort on the present occasion. Naive fool ... me, I mean.
Last night, we were informed that Queen Elizabeth's youngest son was the Duke of Wessex.
That Queen Elizabeth was 'head' of the Church of England.
That she is to buried in Westminster Cathedral ... although, to be fair and honest, the newsreader immediately corrected himself.
Kai ta loipa ...
But boobs can happen higher even than the Beeb. At the beginning of the week, it was announced that only "Working Royals" would wear military uniforms (there are currently rumours that this ruling will be modified).
This would mean that the Dukes of York and Sussex would not be uniformed. The surreal result of this would be that wearing a military uniform would be forbidden to the two members of the 'Royal family' who have actually familiarised themselves with the unfriendly end of a bullet. They would have to march along in morning coats while most of the other members of their family enjoyed full Ruritanian splendour.
Atcherlee the idea of 'Working' and 'Non-working ' members of that family has, as far as I am aware, no legal basis. It was a mistake to invent the distinction.
There must be better ways of visibly indicating deep family rifts.
6 comments:
One commentator (not BBC) said that Charles was the new Queen.
Joshua: I'm a bit worried about the laws of libel ...
I think the idea is that at receptions to which other heads of state are invited, 'working' royals who daily represent and deputize for the monarch are tasked with mingling and diplomatically intervening on behalf of the monarch and being privy to affairs of state. Such top level inter-state diplomacy cannot be carried out by non-working members of a family.
Where the mill-owner's nephew works in the mill as his second-in-command, the absentee son who does not work for the firm does not get to discuss contracts with a supplier or a merger with another company, etc. The nephew and any other family members working at the factory would be the core hosts. Plus - as in diplomatic ambassadorial receptions - their spouses who are expected to actively support the firm's interests.
Where the mill-owner's absentee son and his wife may have some grudge against the family firm, there is all the more reason to prevent them being present at such delicate discussions, in case market-sesitive information be leaked (deliberately or negligently), thereby damaging the share price.
I understand that a pre-2020 list of working royals to be convened at such an occasion had simply not been updated after the retirement of the Dukes of Sussex and then York, and this was only recently realized and corrected.
Sometimes causing offence is preferable to risking grave damage.
My employer put out a notice referring to Her Late Majesty as 'Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth.'
I'm told the trick is to phrase the statement as a question.
At all events in September 19, the Dukes of York and Sussex in fact did not wear uniforms.
Post a Comment