Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Random Reflections About A Reburial

My exams are over, and I'm back in front of my computer - just in time for a very special reinterment!



I started watching Emma Approved sometime during my exams, and I have been obsessed with it ever since. I'll write about it later, but now is not the time to talk about an excellent web series. Today is all about, and only about, a certain King Richard.

For those of you who have been living under a rock, or just too busy watching the cricket World Cup to notice anything that doesn't have to do with bats and balls, King Richard III was reburied today. Or will be, anyway. At the time that I'm writing this, it's still very early in the morning, which means that it must be slightly after midnight in Leicester. But I will keep this window open all day, and whenever I have a thought that is related to the reburial, I will write it down. And then I'll post it. This is what I do for fun.

~

To quickly summarise: King Richard III was the youngest son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, and the younger brother of the Yorkist King Edward IV. Edward seized the throne from Henry VI during the Wars of the Roses, and ruled for over 20 years, albeit with some hiccups along the way. When Edward died, his son, Prince Edward, was only 12 years old and became the new King. But Richard wasn't having any of that. He booted the young King Edward off the throne by claiming that his father's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was a sham (and therefore Edward and all his siblings were illegitimate), and locked the boy in the Tower of London with his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York. Then the older Richard had himself crowned King.

But the people weren't happy that Richard wasn't following the order of succession (apart from the two boys, he had also bypassed Edward, Earl of Warwick, the son of his older brother George), and the situation got worse when the two Princes in Tower suddenly disappeared. No one knows what happened to them - maybe Richard killed them; maybe Henry VII killed them when he came to the throne; maybe they just caught some common disease and died; maybe they escaped and fled to France - but they were missing and it was all Richard's fault.

In 1485, Henry Tudor, a direct descendant of King Edward III and a Lancastrian heir to the throne, returned to England after years of exile in Brittany and claimed the throne for himself. He challenged Richard to battle, they fought at Bosworth, Richard was thrown off his horse and bludgeoned to death, Henry Tudor won and he was King. Richard was buried in a priory which was destroyed under the rule of Henry VIII, but then his body was discovered under a car park in Leicester three years ago. The rest is history (Well, all of this is history, but the rest is recent enough history that you should have read about it in the papers).

Richard III was a good King. He was a good military commander, he made fair laws, his economic policies were quite good, and, mostly importantly, he was not a twelve year-old mama's boy. He had real world experience, and had lived through most of the Wars, and made a much better ruler than Edward ever would have. It's a pity he had to have his head bashed on the battlefield.

~

Note: I follow Indian Standard Time, which is UTC+5:30, or five and a half hours ahead of GMT.

10:30: My father pointed out a column about the 'Car Park King'. I read it, and then I read it again, this time with a pen, which I used to circle all the factual errors. There are lots. I understand that British history may not be the columnist's strength, and I forgive her for that, but is it really acceptable to be making such basic, factual errors when it is SO easy to just Google things like dates and titles.

You can read the column here, and if you can identify all the errors, you win. There's no prize - you just have the satisfaction of winning.

11:30: I have mixed feelings about Benedict Cumberbatch giving a reading at Richard's reburial. On one hand, I'm glad that they've got a prominent actor who understands the gravitas of the situation (Cumberbatch will be playing Richard III in the upcoming series of the BBC's The Hollow Crown, and is also distantly related to the King... what!?) and not just some random person, but on the other hand, does Benedict Cumberbatch really know Richard or does he just know him as Shakespeare's hunchbacked, villainous, nephew-murderer? I can't be sure.

11:45: I have to write a piece for Royal Central about the descendants of the Battle of Bosworth meeting at Leicester for the first time since their ancestors met there 530 years ago. I don't feel like writing it though. I'm getting very jittery about this whole reburial thing.

12:45: Done. Here.

14:00: I've been texting my mother fun facts about Richard III all morning. I don't think she's reading them, but that hasn't stopped me in the past.

15:30: I've decided to take up another article about King Richard. I don't have anything to do until the service starts, and I'm determined not to write about anyone other than Richard because, like I said before, today is his day.

17:00: Finished. Here.

17:30: I spent the last half an hour thinking about whether Richard would have ever, in his life, imagined that this would be his future - a miserable defeat and burial, and then such a splendid ceremony 500 years later. The answer is 'Of course not. Why would he possibly think that?'

On a side note, I have no idea what time this service is supposed to start at.

17:45: It's already started. It's almost over, too. The Countess of Wessex is here, along with The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. There are two 'Richard, Duke of Gloucester's in this Cathedral - one sitting on the side as a guest of honour, and one in a hole in the ground.

18:00: Benedict Cumberbatch is looking very dapper. The white rose pin in his lapel is actually for sale online, and if I find the link you can go to it by clicking on this sentence. I actually wanted to buy it, but it was too expensive after shipping, and I would never have had an occasion to wear it anyway.

This is so great. I wish they would dig up a few more Monarchs and rebury them, just so that we can have ceremonies.

18:15: If they reburied Henry V, would they call Tom Hiddleston to give a reading? I wonder.

I do wish they had invited Aneurin Barnard to this. He's Welsh, so he's probably descended from one Tudor or another, and he's played Richard III on television. A more accurate depiction of Richard, not Shakespeare's evil version.

18:30: Fun fact - The Archbishop of Canterbury sprinkled the coffin with soils from Fotheringhay, Middleham, and Bosworth. Richard was born in Fotheringhay Castle in 1452, Middleham Castle (a possession of the Earl of Warwick before his death) is where is lived after her married Anne Neville, and where his son Edward was born, and Bosworth, of course, is where he died. So soils from every phase of his life.

19:00: I've finished looking at all the pictures, and reading all the tweets, and watching all the guests leave. I guess this is it, then. He's finally buried.

Rest In Peace, Richard.

You'll always be my favourite Plantagenet King.

19:45: Another one! "A search for bones of Henry I is planned in Reading"

Oh, this is going to be fun.

N

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Valentine's Day* Post About Love**

*Not actually on Valentine's Day
**Not actually about love

I've been meaning to write this post since Valentine's Day proper, but I've had exams and just generally been busy, so here it is now, a fortnight after it should have been published.

I was asked a very important question on Valentine's Day:

I panicked. I don't know why - I have not known answers in qualifying exams that went on to determine my future and not panicked as much as I did when I couldn't answer Historic Royal Palaces' rhetoric question about my favourite royal couple.

I could have said Victoria and Albert, but that's too clichéd for my liking. King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville is certainly a tale for the ages, but they weren't asking about the 'Best Royal Romances'. It was about my favourite royal couple, and when it comes down to it, I can't stand Elizabeth and Edward. And can I really make a favourite out of a couple whose marriage ended in a beheading? I think not.

Obviously, my favourite royal couple, and perhaps even my favourite couple of all time, is William and Kate. As if that even needs to be said. But since it was Historic Royal Palaces, I had to name a couple that had been dead for long enough to qualify as history, or else risk looking like an amateur.

I chose King George II and Queen Caroline of Ansbach. Perhaps not my absolute favourite, but they had a lovely relationship, and I was thinking about what the King said about having known many women, but none fit to buckle her [Caroline's] shoe.

It wasn't a bad choice, but that question really got me thinking. Why don't I have a favourite royal couple? What if I'm ever in a situation where I have to be able to name a favourite royal couple on the spot? I can't think of a time that I would actually be in a such a position, but I figured, better safe than sorry.

And so I'm going to make a list of my five favourite royal couples in history and put it on my blog! That way if Historic Royal Palaces tweets the same question at me next year, I'll have an answer. Also, some peace of mind.

5. George II and Caroline of Ansbach

Caroline of Ansbach was a Queen of England, and a very intelligent one at that. But when she married George in 1705, she wasn't marrying a King - she was marrying the heir to the heir to the Duchy of Hanover. But in 1714, both Electress Sophia and Queen Anne were dead, and Caroline was the Princess of Wales. 

George's father, King George I, had been married Sophia Dorothea of Celle, and despised her for every minute of it. Because he didn't want his son to go through the same ordeal, he let him marry his bride of choice. George chose Caroline, his first cousin. He chose her for her 'good character', but the couple soon bonded over their mutual dislike of people - the first King George, their own son, and there were probably others.

Caroline influenced her husband greatly during his reign. When he traveled to Hanover, he appointed her as Regent, instead of his son, who, as I previously mentioned, he hated. When she died in 1737, that was when it was evident how much King George II had loved her in life. 

When it was evident that she was dying, Caroline asked George to remarry. He said that he wouldn't, and that he would only take mistresses. He died 23 years later. He didn't marry again. He never met a woman fit to buckle Caroline's shoe.

4. Henry VII and Elizabeth of York

The circumstances under which Henry VII and Elizabeth of York got married were more political than romantic. He was a Lancastrian claimant, and she was a Yorkist heiress and his only chance at uniting the two rival houses to prevent further civil war and give their children an indisputable shot at the throne. A bit like Romeo and Juliet. Or, you know, Matthew and Mary Crawley. In fact, more like Matthew and Mary than Romeo and Juliet.

But without as much of the drama. With her father dead, her mother out of favour with the court, and her brothers locked up in the Tower of London, Elizabeth of York really didn't have much of a say when Henry Tudor promised to marry her, in Rennes in 1483. Two years later, the Battle of Bosworth happened, her uncle Richard lay dead on a battlefield with his head smashed in, and Elizabeth found herself betrothed to King Henry VII of England.

Of course, I will never know what Henry and Elizabeth's relationship was actually like. But from what I've read, it seemed like they loved each other. Or at least grew fond of each other over time. And I've grown fond of them. It was a Tudor romance, the likes of which there would never be again. They were married for some seventeen years, and they had seven children together, four of whom survived infancy. Elizabeth died during childbirth in 1503, and Henry never really got over her death. He died six years later of, if Wikipedia is to be believed, a "broken heart". I'm sure he missed his wife, but I doubt it.

3. Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor

Speaking of Tudor romances...

Catherine of Valois was the younger daughter of King Charles VI of France, and so quite a pawn in the 100 Years War. Her older sister Isabella had been married to King Richard II as a child, and after Richard died (or was murdered, whatever version of history you believe), Henry IV tried to marry Isabella to his son, Henry, Prince of Wales. That plan came to an end when Isabella married the Duke of Orleans and King Henry died. Separate events, not related to each other.

The new King Henry V was a remarkable military leader. He led his army in the war against France, and after the spectacular victory at Agincourt (and some negotiating) he was recognised at heir to the French throne. As his spoils of war, he took the King's daughter Catherine as his bride. She gave birth to the couple's only son, Prince Henry, in 1921, just ten months before King Henry died. Of dysentery.

Now, Catherine was only 21 years old at the time. No one expected her to live out the rest of her life as a widow. But I don't think anyone expected her to do what she did next either - marry Owen Tudor, a Welshman at the court of the late King Henry. It was a royal scandal. As Dowager Queen, she was expected to get the King's consent before remarrying. The problem was, the King was a child. He probably barely understood what was going on.

Anyway, Catherine and Owen got married and had some children. I'm not sure how many, but among them were Edmund and Jasper Tudor, the former of whom sired Henry Tudor and began the Tudor dynasty.

This isn't the greatest of love stories, but I think it's sweet that Catherine finally got to stop being a piece in the political game that was the 100 Year's War, and just be happy with someone that she loved. She died, eventually, predeceasing Owen who was later beheaded for his participation in the Wars of Roses. History is grim.

2. John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster

Normally, when someone thinks of John of Gaunt as being one half of a royal couple, they think of the other half as being Katherine Swynford. And why shouldn't they? It was quite a love story: he married his mistress, and their descendants caused a great upset and ended the Wars of the Roses. But what people sometimes forget is that John of Gaunt was married three times, and before he was married to Katherine Swynford, he was married to Blanche of Lancaster.

Blanche of Lancaster was the first wife of the third son of King Edward III. Through their marriage, she brought him the title of Duke of Lancaster, which he continued to use and share with his other wives, even after her death. She also brought him a lot of money - her father was one of the richest men in England at the time - and palaces. Their son, Henry, would go on to become King Henry IV, the first King of the House of Lancaster.

The pair were married for a very, very short time before Blanche died at the age of 23. And, to be honest, I think Geoffrey Chaucer was more upset about her death than John was - he wrote The Book of The Duchess in her memory. After Blanche's death, John of Gaunt married Constance of Castile in a bid to have himself crowned King of Castile and Leon. In the meantime, he took Katherine Swynford as his mistress, and after Constance died, he married her. Yet, when John died while he was still married to Katherine, he chose to be buried next to Blanche.

I have no idea whether John and Blanche were happy together or whether, like with Constance, he only married her for her title and inheritance. But I do like to imagine that they were. I ship them, I ship their happiness with each other. And perhaps the fact that John didn't take a mistress while he was married to Blanche (Katherine Swynford was well and alive at that time too) proves that he loved her at least enough to remain faithful to her. Doesn't it?

I think it does.

1. Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson

Nothing says true love like giving up a throne, giving up a country (Edward never returned to England after his marriage) for someone. If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times - the story of Edward and Wallis is a marvelous love story.

[It's definitely a better story than Victoria and Albert. I mean, the couple is remembered for having known that it was true love from the moment they met each other, and the fact that Queen Victoria remained in mourning for her whole life after Albert's death. Thousands of people love each other and don't remarry after their significant other dies. Does that mean that every third person has a spectacular love story?]

I was reading something about Wallis Simpson the other day, and I ended up just staring at her picture for ten minutes thinking, "Someone gave up a throne for her." It had never happened before - no English Monarch had ever abdicated the throne by choice. And definitely not for love. Except King Edward. And I think that's great.

When she married Edward, Wallis Simpson had already been divorced twice. But she didn't divorce him. Maybe it was out of pity for the fact that he had given up a throne for her. And maybe it was because she loved him. He definitely loved her.

Edward and Wallis lived out the rest of their lives in France and the Bahamas, as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. The two were buried side by side in Windsor; and whatever animosity the Royal family might have harboured against them in life, their funerals were attended by the Queen and the Queen Mother. I'm glad.
~

And that's it. Happy much belated Valentine's Day.

N

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

I Can't Write Without The Internet

The Grammys and the BAFTAs both happened this week/last week, depending on which part of the world you're in. Eddie Redmayne won something, Kanye West made a fuss, just usual things. I couldn't care less, to be honest. I was more concerned about the fact that Sophie Hunter's dress didn't seem to have any pockets for her to put her free hand into (Seriously, if you search Google Images for 'Sophie Hunter BAFTAs' you just get a bunch of pictures in which her right hand is dangling uselessly by her side.) than about who was winning what.

I've been busy with exams (Which is apparently a good enough excuse for me to completely neglect my blog, but not a good enough reason to stop watching Downton Abbey.) so I haven't had time to write a post that isn't just a string of random words. Please excuse me.

At the end of last year, I wrote a short blog post about the life of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. I knew that I had to write it about a month before it was actually to be published, but, as is usual with me, I only started to write it half a day before it was due, by which time the editors were breathing down my neck and there was really no room for error.

Just one glitch - my Internet wouldn't work. I reset my computer. I reset my modem. I yelled at my modem. I yelled at my service provider (they couldn't hear me). I yelled at everything that wouldn't feel upset that I was yelling at it. It was all to no avail.
So I just typed out a string of gibberish. That is literally what I did; Sat in front of a screen and typed out words from the top of my head. Thankfully, my Internet was working the next morning, and I typed out something halfway decent about The Kingmaker, or else I would have just handed in that nonsense.

But I didn't delete my senseless ramblings, for some reason, and so here they are today, passed off as a blog post, for you to read and make what you will about my competence as a writer. Have fun!
~
What do we know about Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick? Probably nothing.

Battle of Towtown, Battle of Barnet, Battle of Tewkesbury, Battle of Bosworth, Battle of Agincourt, Battle of Whatsits.

I can’t write without the Internet.

I wonder what Plantagenet Somerset Fry has to say about the kingmaker. Let’s see.

I wonder – will it be under Edward IV or Richard III? Or Henry VI? Definitely not under Edward V. I should check the index.

 Checked. I was right on all counts. There is a mention of Warwick in the section about Henry VI and the Wars of the Roses, Edward IV, Richard III and also in the introduction to the House of York.

I don’t know anything about the Earl of Warwick, but I can name all the children of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. In order of age, they are:

Elizabeth

Mary

Cecily

Edward

Margaret

Richard

Anne

George

Catherine

Bridget

Is that ten? Yep.

Fie upon Elizabeth Woodville.

Why was Warwick called the Kingmaker? He only made one King. And restored one King. Technically, that’s not making a King. His daughter married a King, though. He was a Queen maker.

Richard Plantagenet’s sons were such narcissists. All their boys were either called Edward or Richard or George. 

Edward, Richard, George. 

Edward, Richard. 

Edward. 

Did no one think to name a child after their poor dead brother who had died fighting for the York cause? NO. Because the three sons of York are too important to think about anyone but themselves.

Henry VII had a son called Edmund. He died. Edmund, not Henry. Well, Henry died too. All of them are dead. It's been half a millennium.


Kingmaker, kingmaker. Something something Wars of the Roses.

~

Now, I'm not an expert on Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, but I do know a fair bit about The Kingmaker - enough to write a couple of paragraphs at the very least - and so it's strange that I couldn't muster a simple sentence like "After his death, the Earl of Warwick's younger daughter Anne married King Edward's brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester" or something. 

As much as I like to assure myself otherwise, I'm handicapped without the Internet. Either that, or I was just very sleep-deprived when I sat down to write that piece. 

Oh, well. Something something Wars of the Roses.

N

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Random Book Review : The Red Queen

The second episode of Wolf Hall was on television last week. I haven't watched it. I saw the first episode when it came out, but then I decided not to watch the rest because I have exams, and I really should be studying (I say that, but then I spend my days watching the older seasons of Downton Abbey instead, so I haven't a prayer of passing. Unless, for some reason, all the questions are about Downton. Or Prince George).

I read Wolf Hall at the end of last year, and since it's been adapted for TV, now would be the perfect time to 'review' it. Instead, I am going to talk about a book that was made into a TV series a long, long time ago.


Like its counterparts - The White Queen and The Kingmaker's Daughter - The Red Queen is set during the Wars of the Roses and told from the perspective of an important woman - this time, Margaret Beaufort. Margaret was the mother of King Henry VII, a descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford, and the ultimate victor of decades of war between the Lancastrians and the Yorkists.

Now, it's no secret that I have grown to love the Wars of the Roses. The thirty odd years between the time King Henry VI starts to go mad and is overthrown and King Henry VII's ascension in 1485 is one of my favourite periods in English history. Which is odd, because I have very firm bias against the charmed House of York. So strong that I don't even feel sorry about the certain imprisonment and probable death of the Princes in the Tower, ever though they were only boys. So strong that I never choose white when I'm playing chess. I always play with black.

But there's just something about The Red Queen. It invokes pity, like none of the other books in the series did. I felt sad when Edmund Tudor died. I felt sad when Richard, Duke of York and Edmund, Earl of Rutland died. I felt sad when Henry Stafford died. I even felt sad when King Edward died. And I was practically in tears when the Stanley army charged onto the battlefield and smashed poor, poor King Richard's head in.

I also felt sorry for Margaret Beaufort. She had an extremely poor lot in life. By the time she was my age, she had been married twice, and had a young son who she loved so much, and had such great hopes for, but who she almost never got to see. She spent 28 years championing Henry's cause, sending him to Brittany where he wouldn't be in danger, and marrying men who she thought could protect her interests, only to have two of them die on her and one of them betray her and her son the minute Perkin Warbeck showed up. Elizabeth Woodville, on the other hand, spent these same 28 years living in comfort, with all her children and her one, loving husband, and achieved the same end result as Margaret - a child on the throne of England and a dynasty descended from her.

And yet you can't help but be in awe of Margaret Beaufort. The other day, I was on Pinterest (I have become addicted to that website after my friend Pippa Peters - here's a link to her blog - introduced me to it) looking at pictures of Aneurin Barnard, and I happened upon this one of the cast of the BBC series based on this book:


Two things that I noticed; One, George and Isabel are clearly the most handsome couple of the lot. And I'm not just talking about the actors - look at this beautiful stained glass window of them in Cardiff. Two, Margaret Beaufort (played by Amanda Hale, far left) doesn't have a husband standing with her.

Margaret Beaufort had three marriages - two more than Isabel Neville and one more than each Elizabeth Woodville and Anne Neville - and yet none of her husbands are important enough to be remembered in history. She treated men in the way that the patriarchal society of the 15th century treated women - as nothing more than a means to have children by which to fulfill their dynastic ambition.

It takes a certain amount of courage to carve your own path as a woman in Medieval England. It also takes a certain amount of selflessness to fight so hard to put your son on a throne that should rightly be yours, which makes Margaret Beaufort one of the most extraordinary women of the Middle Ages - second only, perhaps, to Empress Matilda. She was the kind of woman who makes you glad that a bloody dynastic war ended in her favour.
~

I liked The Red Queen, even though I spent most of the time that I was reading it morbidly depressed because someone or the other had died. You can buy The Red Queen on Amazon (click here) or on Flipkart (click here) if you live in India.

N

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

About Too Many Things To Be About Anything In Particular

My first blog post of the year is neither about nor at the beginning of the new year. But I've been busy watching romantic comedies with Hugh Grant in them, so never mind that.

I have a new header now. It's a work in progress, but I'll finish it eventually. I hope. Over on Twitter, I'm continuing my 100 Book Challenge from where I left off last year. I will keep reading and keep updating until I reach a hundred, even if it takes years. Which it probably will. I'm currently reading Dan Jones' The Plantagenets, which is a fabulous book, and which I will completely butcher in my next book review.

And that is all. Let's jump right to it.

The Golden Globes were last week. Well, they were on Sunday night, so that would technically be two weeks ago, but because of time zone differences, I only saw them on Monday, so it was last week for me.

For some reason, I love award shows. I love watching them, and also love betting on the outcomes, even though I've probably not seen any of the movies. I've only ever seen one Oscar winning movie in the theater, before it was nominated, and that was The King's Speech. Obviously.

I also love looking at what people are wearing on the red carpet. It is one of my many indulgences, to see what people on Twitter and Mia Thermopolis have to say about red carpet fashions. And this first awards ceremony of the year saw some relatively new faces in the crowd, including Hannah Bagshawe, Sophie Hunter, and Amal Alamuddin. The three of them in particular have quite a few things in common - they are British, very beautiful, and I had never heard of them until they got engaged/married to famous actor-men.

All of them are WAGs. This term is traditionally associated with wives and girlfriends of sportsmen, and seems very derogatory. But I actually really respect these 'wives of'. It seems like a very hard job, to try and make something of yourself when the only thing that you're known for is being married to someone, but some people have managed to do it quite well - so well, in fact, that they've fast overtaken their originally famous significant other in the popularity stakes.

Here is a list of seven of my favourite people, some of who have had quite an influence on my life, and who I greatly admire, whom I have found out about only because they married someone famous.

7. Danielle Jonas

I don't know anything about Danielle Jonas, but I didn't have a seventh name and I didn't want to have a list comprised of six people, so, really, she only serves as a filler. Oh, and an obligatory Jonas Brothers reference (Tip of the hat to a certain group of friends. You know who you are).

6. Amal Clooney


Funny thing about Amal Clooney: Practically the instant she got married to George Clooney, everyone (I mean, the press) stopped calling her by her maiden name of Alamuddin. But they still call the Duchess of Cambridge Kate Middleton, which isn't just incorrect, but improper.

Anyway, she showed up at the Golden Globes last week, dressed like someone out of The Night Circus (Great book, by the way, which I just finished reading. I loved the story, but I have a feeling that the actual circus itself would have bored me to death) and Amy Poehler and Tina Fey made jokes at her husband's expense.

To be honest, I don't know very much about Amal. She just seems very accomplished. Not to forget, her wedding dress was gorgeous.

5. Sophie Hunter



When Benedict Cumberbatch announced his engagement, I got too distracted by the reaction on Tumblr (To say that I was shocked would be an understatement. No one was sending her death threats, or Buboter Pus in the mail! Everyone was taking the news calmly and nicely. And these are fangirls, who plot how to get away with murder and would kill to spend one night with their celebrity crush.) to actually Google Sophie Hunter.

Then she started to make appearances on the red carpet, at which point I immediately thought two things; 1) Her dress has pockets. Why don't all dresses have pockets; and 2) I wonder what she sounds like.

I still do. I haven't got the foggiest idea what Sophie Hunter sounds like, and I'm doubly curious because her fiance has a very distinctive, much admired voice. If she sounds like a chipmunk, I am just going to die of laughter.

But those pockets are inspired.

4. Autumn Phillips


Autumn Phillips, or Autumn Kelly as she was before her marriage, is the wife of The Queen's oldest grandson, Peter Phillips. When she met Peter, some eleven years ago, she apparently didn't know that he was The Queen's grandson until she saw something about him on television, six weeks later. Now, maybe the Internet wasn't as easily accessible in 2003, but surely she would have Googled him sometime? No?

Anyway, I have always felt that Autumn is one of the most under appreciated members of the royal family. She shows up and weddings and Ascot and thanksgiving services, but hardly anyone notices her, because her clothes aren't as fashionable as Kate's and she isn't as seemingly immortal as The Queen. She made sacrifices to marry Peter - she had to convert to Anglicanism, or he would have lost his place in line to the throne - and she does a good job raising her children, whose descendants may, someday, sit on the throne of England. It's happened before.

Also, that woman can curtsey.

3. Kim Sears


I had to have at least one sports name in the list. Also, she and Andy Murray recently got engaged, so huzzah for them!

I can't stand sports. I never play them, and rarely watch them. In fact, the only sport that I watch is tennis, and the only tournament of tennis that I watch is Wimbledon. And for the most part, my eyes are glued to the royal box, looking out of members of the nobility and Pippa Middleton. And when there is no one, I watch Kim Sears. She seems like the kind of person who doesn't take any nonsense from her boyfriend. Or her boyfriend's mother. Or anyone who defeats her boyfriend. Or anyone, really.

And, the faces that she makes. They're so funny.

2. Giovanna Fletcher


Giovanna Fletcher is married to Tom Fletcher of McFly. She is also the author of three (is it, now) young adult novels, and a column for Hello! which I used to read diligently, every Monday, but have now fallen behind on. I really should catch up.

I am ashamed to say that when I found out that Giovanna had published a book, I immediately dismissed it as not worth reading. I mean, obviously she had only got the book deal because she was Tom Fletcher's wife, or so I thought. (In my defense, I wasn't being anti-feminist so much as I was believing that just because you can entertain people does not mean you can write a good book. It's true now, though, isn't it? With Zoella, and her ghost writer scandal, and now Tanya Burr is writing a book. It's ridiculous.)

But I read Billy and Me, sometime last year, and I absolutely loved it. It's not going to go winning any literary awards, certainly, but it was a really lovely, touching story. The best analogy that I can come up with is that it is the comfort food of books - you read it when you're upset or stressed or whatever, and it just makes you feel really happy and warm.

In addition, Giovanna is very talented at singing and making announcements with her husband. She's number two on my list mainly because I feel really awful about having misjudged her.

1. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

Good ol' Catherine. I needn't even have said it, it's so obvious that she's my favourite. I have absolutely adored her from the moment when, a few weeks after her engagement to Prince William, I read an article about her, which claimed that she had once said, about Prince William, "He's lucky to be going out with me."

Now, as I've come to know Kate better, from afar, her saying that seems rather out of character, and it's very possibly not true, but I don't care. The Duchess of Cambridge will always be my favourite.

I really hope she has her baby on the 16th of April. It'll be a fun thing for the rest of my life, the fact that I share a birthday with the future King's younger brother.

Yes, brother. That's my bet. I'll elaborate on it next week.

Or whenever I stop watching soppy Rom-Coms.

N

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Royal Babies Rule! (Well, They Will Someday)

Last week, we saw some truly horrific things happen around the world (If you don't already know what I'm talking about, good for you, ignorance really is bliss.).

But since it's almost Christmas, and I'm in a really good mood, I'm going to risk the chance of going to the darkest place in hell, and completely skim over all terrorist attacks and only talk about royal babies.

Lots and lots of royal news this month, after a relatively dry spell. To begin with, two royal babies were born - TWO.

The twin children of Prince Albert II of Monaco and his wife, Princess Charlene, were born on the 10th of December. The daughter, Princess Gabriella, was born two minutes before her younger brother, Jacques, Hereditary Prince of Monaco, but because Monaco still follows the principle of male primogeniture, poor Gabriella is only second in line to the throne. As consolation, perhaps, she was given the title of Countess of Carladès, but it's not as though she's going to appreciate that much when she's told that the reason she won't be Queen is because she's a girl.

But that's a few years in the future. For now, both Jacques and Gabriella are probably sleeping in their cradles, not really bothered about anything at all, let alone the prospect of ruling a country. The babies will be introduced to the Monegasque public on the 7th of January, which has been declared a public holiday... for some reason? Was the day Prince George was born a public holiday? Well, either way, there are some adorable pictures to look forward too.

Speaking of adorable pictures: In the spirit of Christmas, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge released three new pictures of this charmer:
He's growing up too fast, faster than I can handle. Very soon, he won't be making grumpy faces at the camera any more, and then what?

But thankfully, I'll always have this picture of George to remember him by.
Not to be outdone, the Swedish Royal Family brought in their own cute child in a knitted jumper. And they made it into a video, just to give themselves an edge in this competition between royal babies.

I give you, Princess Estelle of Sweden.



I was introduced to Princess Estelle through Order of Splendor, and I instantly adored her, She had the most sass that I have ever seen in a child, let alone a royal baby. In fact, I'm almost sorry that George came along, because that meant I paid less attention to her. But then I'm also not sorry, because Prince George.

A similar situation is going to be created next year, when Baby Cambridge No. 2 is born, and I shift my attention from George to him/her. These royals really need to stop having children in such quick succession.

Which leads me to the last piece of royal news. Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Chris O'Neill have announced that they are expecting their second child. Their first child, Leonore, will turn 1 this coming February, so that will make it two children in two years for Madeleine and Chris. Which is only a little bit better than the Cambridges - if Prince George had been born in February, they would have been two for two too (Alliteration).

~

That's all for this post. I'll have more news on each of these royal babies as they are born/presented to the public/grow up, and until then I'll continue to type away about something or the other.

Happy Christmas, and best wishes this festive season if you don't celebrate Christmas. Don't forget to write to your favourite royal!

N

UPDATE: Literally minutes after I published this post (And I don't use the word literally lightly), I saw on Twitter that the first photos of Prince Jacques and Princess Gabriella had been released. Take a look.

Adorable!

Monday, December 8, 2014

Welcome To New York

Everyone's favourite Duke and Duchess (because, let's face it: the Duke of Edinburgh's wife is The Queen; no one knows that Prince Charles is also the Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay; the Duke of York isn't married anymore, and even though Sarah Ferguson hold the title of Duchess, no one calls them the Duke and Duchess of York anymore; and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are way too far down in the line of succession to be anyone's favourite) William and Catherine are in New York City!

Minus their baby boy George, which is always a disappointment.

William and Kate arrived yesterday, and they're leaving tomorrow, so it isn't a very long visit, but they've got quite a packed itinerary (see here) and I think they're meeting the Obama's at some point.

They are staying at The Carlyle Hotel. Now, I have no idea where that is, but if you live anywhere near by, or even a subway ride away, you should go and just stand in the lobby, waiting for William and Kate to pass by when they go to the pool or something. 

Unlike nearly two years ago when she was expecting George, Kate looks a lot more obviously pregnant now.

Look:


I have a fair bit more to write about this Royal visit to New York, but, seeing as how I'm currently quite bogged down with projects and assignments and procrastinating, I'm going to have to put it off until next week.

There will be more pictures,