This was in yesterday's Times:

And this in the Telegraph two days ago:
I think that Vera Baird is completely right. I can see no reason not to change this rule. It is very much out of date and utterly absurd in the modern world.

In its time, the rules were fine and acceptable - if not absolutely necessary. But the time when the monarch was expected to actually run the country and to lead armies in the field is long long gone. There is no need for the monarch to be specifically male. And the past fifty-odd years of Queen Elizabeth IIs reign has proven it.

And as for the restriction over marrying a Catholic? Why do we we have this ridiculous law any more? It is a relic of the Glorious Revolution. It's about time, after 320 years, to repeal it.

How are either of these at all justifiable in the modern world?!

Just a note: This isn't the first time I have supported these modernisation.

So Prince Harry, third in line to the throne, is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, Helmand Province. And? This makes bugger all difference. Who cares? It's not like he's ever expected to become King Henry IX. He's the "spare", as they say.

He's supposed to be making a proper army career, not just doing it as work experience. If he were to be prevented from going to the front line, this would be impossible. That he was not sent to Iraq was probably a good thing, on balance, considering the heat of the fighting there. But Afghanistan, on the other hand, isn't as dangerous to the other soldiers.

The media blackout over Harry's trip was good. If it had been common knowledge that he was there from the start, that would have made it dangerous for his fellow soldiers. That is was broken by foreign media, however, was bad. They should be ashamed of themselves.

However, the massive amount of reports over Harry's tour of duty now that it has been broken is massively unnecessary. There is no need for an extended BBC News. It's really not important enough. Were they to be focusing on the entire situation in Afghanistan, yes. But not when the entire focus is on Harry himself.

This is the brand-new lecture theatre at my alma mater. Even though I never actually went in this hall, yet alone had lectures in it [because by the time it opened, I was in my postgrad year and didn't have any lectures any more].

I have to say, it doesn't strike me as a dustbin. Or even as my fellow former University of Essex student, Asp, describes it "a tin can". Rather, it looks like someone has just gone over-board with the tin foil on a Blue Peter model.

It is, however, as Asp notes, "a [nice] change from the rest of the concrete jungle that is the 'squares' structure of the University of Essex." And it is also, as the UoE spokesman says "probably the most striking modern building on the campus." That would be because it's the only real modern building on campus. But even so, it's still ugly.

Today the Queen and Prince Philip celebrate their diamond wedding anniversary, having been married for 60 years. That is a fantastically long time indeed. It is unfortunate that none of her children have managed to hold down a relationship.

To mark their anniversary, the Queen and prince Philip are returning to Malta, where they spent the first two years of their married life.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph

A decade ago, a woman was killed in a car crash in Paris. This caused extreme outpourings of "grief" from people who had never even met the woman, let alone actually had any sort of relationship with her. And this has led to what Cranmer has referred to as to the "Dianaification" of society:

I don't like the absurd lengths to which it seems necessary to go with the demonstration of grief at any public - or just publicised - death. They are just people, and people die every day in every way. Unless you actually knew the individual, there is really no excuse for such overt demonstrations. It's fine to feel sorrow at the loss of a life - we all do - but there is a line, which has been passed at seemingly every single opportunity since that event a decade ago today.

When she died in that car crash, I was 12. I remember mainly being annoyed at the way that the death of just one woman had completely taken over the airwaves, obliterating everything else than had been planned to be shown. And neither was it just for one day. I remember it went on for the best part of a week!

Diana the woman was not as saintly as he has been made out to be in the decade since her death. I know that it is the natural response - to erase the natural faults of a person in order to idolise them better, "never speak ill of the dead" as the saying goes. But the sanctification of Diana has come with the demonisation of Charles and Camilla, primarily along the whole "they committed adultery" line. But Diana did too. Maybe not until after Charles had, but she still did it. She is by no means a completely innocent partner in their break-up.

I hope that after the memorial service today that the ghost of Diana will finally be put to rest. Let it be over, for everyone's sake, not least that of her sons. She is dead, and has been dead for an entire decade.

Camilla shouldn't have been pretty much forced not to go to the memorial service for Diana.

Camilla was invited by Princes William and Harry. They asked her to go to the memorial service. What possible business is it of one of Diana's friends if her sons want their father's wife to go? Since they don't blame her the break-up of their parent's marriage, on what grounds does anyone else have the right to? They are the ones it affected more than anyone else.

Since Camilla was invited and asked to go by William, Harry and Charles, she should go. Ignore those "friends of Diana", who basically claim that Camilla is evil incarnate, and do it. It wouldn't "overshadow" the memorial service in reality - unless certain people came out to condemn for doing what her stepsons want her to.

Source: The Telegraph - article 1, article 2

Were the Princes in the Tower really murdered by Richard III? David Baldwin, a historian at the University of Leicester, claims not in his book The Lost Prince. In fact, he claims that Richard, the younger Prince, lived in Colchester and worked as a bricklayer.

The entire conjecture, however, is based on circumstantial evidence, which he admits, such as:

"The elder prince, Edward, was receiving regular visits from his doctor, and the treatments prescribed by medieval doctors, like blood-letting, were pretty awful. It's quite likely they would have finished him off.
Then there is evidence to suggest that the younger prince, Richard, was secreted in Colchester.
First of all, Frances Viscount Lovel was one of Richard III's closest friends, and after the Battle of Bosworth he rode straight to Colchester Abbey for no obvious reason.
Philip Knighton was sent to Colchester by Henry VII carrying secret papers is 1486, so it appears that there was some kind of secret there.
And when Henry VII became king, he visited Colchester no less than four times during his reign, which he didn't do for other regions.
The impression is that there was something going on there behind the scenes."

It is a very interesting idea. However, as convincing as the circumstantial evidence seems, it is just that - circumstantial. The man who called himself Richard Plantagenet, was able to read Latin (unusual for a bricklayer) and claimed to be an illegitimate son of Richard III could well have been just that, and not Richard of York, one of the Princes in the Tower.

However, it intrigues me, so I think I shall now have to buy the book and read it cover to cover rather than just picking quotes from news reports!

Sources: The Telegraph, Life Style Extra, Daily Mail