UK News
Insights from the UK and beyond
from Royal Wedding Diary:
Can cops stop royal wedding trouble?
Will Prince William and Kate Middleton's big day be overshadowed by a minority of protesters smashing up central London and attacking police?
That's the fear of ministers and senior officers after a few hundred anarchists broke off from a mass march by unions through central London at the weekend and smashed the front of shops, banks, and the exclusive Ritz hotel among others.
Instead of pictures of the happy couple waving to crowds as they ride in a carriage from Westminster Abbey to Buckingham Palace, the worry is hundreds of millions of global TV viewers will instead be treated to images of black-clad protesters scuffling with officers.
It wouldn't be the first time that those angry with the government's public spending cuts and tax rises have taken out their anger on the royal family.
During rioting last December, the limo carrying William's father Prince Charles and his wife Camilla was attacked, and Camilla reportedly poked with a stick through an open window.
So concerned are the government that Home Secretary Theresa May has asked police, already faced with the major headache that Islamist militants might target the event, if they need new powers to prevent any trouble erupting.
But is there really much the police can do if they are faced with some people determined to cause problems without resorting to an over-the-top strategy that could do more harm than good?
from Fan Fare:
Parents cashing in on royal couple?
The parents of Prince William and Kate Middleton have not missed the marketing opportunity their children's upcoming royal wedding presents.
Middleton's family, which runs a party paraphernalia company called Party Pieces, has begun stocking regal trivia cards with crowns to scratch off and retailing at 3.99 pounds for a pack of 10. The cards, added to a range of products on offer for street parties -- expected to be held up and down the country on the day of the wedding -- have left the Middletons open to criticism that they are tastelessly cashing in on their daughter's marriage to the second in line to the throne.
Now Prince William's father Charles has hit the headlines after a jigsaw puzzle featuring a photograph of the young couple went on sale at the shop of his Gloucestershire home Highgrove. The wooden set is priced at 29.95 pounds, and while other wedding-related gifts are already available at the store, the Daily Mail argues that the puzzle "stands out from a range of more demure wedding souvenirs."
A spokeswoman for the prince said such items went on sale "in response to customer demand", and pointed out that all profits from the sales go to charity.
Are the parents guilty of vulgar profiteering? Or are they doing the sensible thing by taking an opportunity to boost revenues? And are they any worse than countless other companies selling souvenirs -- ranging from cheap porcelain to condoms to sick bags -- ahead of the April 29 celebrations?
Is Prince Charles right to weigh in on architecture?
Prince Charles is facing renewed criticism over his involvement in architectural planning after recent reports that he attempted to influence projects in London and Swindon.
The prince tried to have French architect Jean Nouvel removed from a 500 million pound office and shopping project next to St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, the Guardian said in an investigative report.
The prince is alleged to have written to Land Securities in 2005 when they selected Nouvel to suggest a meeting with his preferred architects, according to the newspaper.
The National Trust was warned that the Prince might withdraw his patronage of the organization unless the design of a new building in Swindon suited his taste, the investigation revealed.
Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, called for public scrutiny of the prince’s correspondence.
“The public have a right to know the full extent of Charles’s meddling,” spokesman Graham Smith told the Guardian. “We need to know if decisions are being made according to what the public wants and needs or according to what Prince Charles wants.”
Earlier this year, plans for luxury flats on the site of Chelsea Barracks were withdrawn after the prince wrote to the chairman of developers Qatari Diar asking for a re-consideration of the modern design.
Since when has someone in the Prince’s extraordinarily privileged position been best placed to judge what’s right, or otherwise, concerning good design in twenty first century Britain? Afterall, if he had his way we’d all be living in stone buildings, designed by classically-trained architects.
Of course population size, costs and constrained resources make this impossible – but, importantly, technology and modern materials enable fantastic, extraordinary and beautiful things to be built today. (Oddly, although the great architects of the past used the technology and materials of their day to build incredible things, the Prince never seems to get this in the modern context).
Pastiche is what happens when the Prince meddles. The extension to the National Gallery being the finest example: a ridiculous bolt-on to an otherwise handsome building. Compare that to Chipperfield’s stunning, sensitive and – shock – contemporary renovation of Berlin’s Neues Museum.
Unfortunately, the Prince’s track record suggests that he is unable to differentiate between good contemporary design and bad; to him, ‘good’ simply equates to classical and ‘bad’ to modern. And there lies the issue.
So farewell then Princess Diana?
**Read our special report about the Diana inquest**
Watching the Diana inquest unfold, you sometimes felt that the lunatics had taken over the asylum.
With an extraordinary cast of characters straight out of central casting, it would have been rich fodder for any scriptwriter on a surreal soap opera.
Or maybe it was more of a roustabout pantomine with a cast of starkly drawn goodies and baddies.
John Loughrey, the only member of the public to attend every day of the six-month inquest, got through seven boxes of paint writing the words “Diana” and Dodi” on his face each morning.
His appetite never waned — even when the word count from the 278 witnesses reached a staggering total of three million words over six, at times seemingly interminable months.
Diana verdict – will it put the conspiracy theories to rest?
**Read our special report about the Diana inquest**
Unlawfully killed by the negligent driving of her chauffeur and the paparazzi chasing their limousine into a Paris tunnel – that’s the verdict of the six-month inquest into Princess Diana’s death in 1997. But conspiracy theories have always suggested something far more sinister happened.
Lord Justice Scott Baker, the coroner heading the inquest, was sure about one thing….he ruled there was no evidence that Prince Philip was behind Diana’s death, something Mohamed al-Fayed, the father of her lover Dodi, who also died in the crash, has long maintained.
Fayed charged that Dodi and Diana were killed by MI6 agents on the orders of Prince Philip because the royal family did not want the mother of the future king having a child with his son. He alleges Diana’s body was embalmed to cover up evidence she was expecting a baby.
Will the verdict bring closure and put the conspiracy theories to rest?
All the conspiracy theorists forget one main issue IF SHE HAD BEEN WEARING A SEATBELT SHE WOULD HAVE SURVIVED how could anyone have planned that? The only person in the car with a seatbelt on survived. Also how would MF feel if the princes decided to take a private prosecution against his company for the accident…..
-
The Wall
I was in London for a concert and an exhibition on Saturday. It was very easy to distinguish between the marchers, the German tourists who were avoiding them, the hen parties, the Tartan army — and the little knots of storm-troopers gathering in fours and fives in quiet back streets.
I would say that, so long as the police are mobile during the morning, and not just sitting around waiting for the trouble to kick off, then a stop and search strategy which specifically targeted such groups might be quite effective.