Lady Crabtree's Pearls

Royal Mail

2011-06-15T09:15:00.000-07:00

It has just been announced that the Royal Mail lost £100 million last year on its letters business alone. This comes as no surprise to me at all. Not only is the price of sending a letter ridiculously high - but now you not only pay by weight, but also for the size and shape of your letter or card as well, making things incredibly complicated. So many people now find that birthday cards don't arrive, or if they do the recipient has to pay a huge surcharge, simply because the sender has put an ordinary first class stamp on the card, when the envelope doesn't quite fit the Royal Mail's measurements and so should have had a large first class stamp on it instead. Madness and greed!

I have known a number of friends who have been extremely upset when they have received nothing on Mother's Day. Not because their children forgot, but because the Royal Mail decided that they wouldn't deliver the card because it had the wrong type of first class stamp on it. One friend of mine waited three months for her Mother's Day card to finally be delivered, and then had to pay a £1-26 surcharge for the privilige! When there is so much competition from email and other services, the Royal Mail should have competitive pricing to retain customers.... and surely losing £100 million in one year should show them that they're doing something wrong.

To cap it all, today I was asked to leave the Post Office. Why? I had my little West Highland Terrier with me.
"Sorry, we don't allow dogs in here," said a counter assistant.
I pointed out that I had been going into Post Offices every week with a dog for years.
"Last week a dog had a little accident in here, so we have to be strict," she said.
"So, if a child has a 'little accident' are you going to ban all children as well?" I said.
"I've just told a man with a dog to leave, so we can't have one rule for one and one for another..." she chuntered.
I hastily pointed out that the only reason I had a dog with me is because the Royal Mail has closed down all our small local branches, and the only Post Office available to me is in the centre of town - and so I combine it with dog walking. We used to have a very friendly branch at Marine Parade in Eastbourne, where not only were dogs welcome, but they gave out dog biscuits to everyone who had a dog with them. But today our main branch has pulled the Welcome mat from under my feet.
"No wonder the Royal Mail is losing so much money!" I said, loud enough for everyone to hear, as I stormed out.

I shall not be returning until I have something urgent to post. And then you can be certain that I shall have the dog with me. Well, I've become so forgetful in my old age.... I didn't know that dogs aren't allowed in the Post Office.....

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Core-Letters-Business-Loses-skynews-307619961.html?x=0

Duke of Edinburgh's 90th Birthday

2011-06-11T06:51:00.000-07:00

Happy 90th birthday to Prince Philip, who celebrated this milestone yesterday. I see that the Queen gave him a new title as a birthday gift. I suppose it's difficult to know what to give him at that age, and at least it was easy for her to wrap!

Dukedom for William

2011-04-28T04:04:00.000-07:00

The British media has been very quiet about possible titles for Prince William and Catherine Middleton, and there has been very little speculation about what they might be called once they are married. Maybe there has been too much hype about other things... but I suspect the tabloid press just assume that it will automatically be Prince William and Princess Kate of Wales.

I may be wrong, but I think the Queen will grant them a title tomorrow. Maybe Duke and Duchess of Sussex, it could be Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, or even Duke and Duchess of Clarence, which are all former royal titles that have died out. Or perhaps a new title will be created especially for them, such as Duke and Duchess of Anglesey with their Welsh connection. I don't think the title Duke of Windsor will be revived though! Maybe too many unhappy associations for the Royal Family.

Being a 'commoner', Kate is not entitled to be called Princess Catherine, and so would officially be Princess William of Wales (as in Princess Michael of Kent). This problem was overcome with two previous 'commoners' - Sarah Ferguson and Sophie Rees Jones. Instead of being Princess Andrew or Princess Edward, or incorrectly being referred to as Princess Sarah and Princess Sophie, the Queen made Prince Andrew Duke of York on his wedding day and Prince Edward became Earl of Wessex on his wedding day. So, we immediately thought of the new brides as the Duchess of York and the Countess of Wessex. This is what I think will happen to Kate, she will become the Duchess of Somewhere tomorrow. When Charles eventually becomes King, then William and Kate will become Prince and Princess of Wales, Duke and Duchess of Cornwall etc, but in the meantime they will need a title.

Philip Mountbatten became Duke of Edinburgh on the eve of his wedding, Princess Margaret's commoner husband became Earl of Snowdon on his wedding day, so it has happened with men marrying into the Royal Family as well. I looked back at the last time a Prince of Wales had a son and heir, which was Edward VII. When he was Prince of Wales, his eldest son had the title Duke of Clarence. Given that the Queen Mother, and now the present Prince of Wales, lived at Clarence House - maybe they will follow the precedent set by their ancestors and use the Clarence title. But as a resident of Sussex myself, I would love them to become the Duke and Duchess of Sussex !!

Good Friday

2011-04-22T07:52:00.000-07:00

I was walking along Terminus Road in Eastbourne this morning and actually heard a woman say, "Oh, I forgot it was Easter." Now would anybody forget it was Christmas? Yet, Easter is far more important than Christmas. Yes, we celebrate Christ's birth, but his rising from the dead was surely a much more significant event and it is the foundation of the Christian faith.

As a church-goer myself, it always surprises me how many of the regular congregation are missing from services on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday -- and yet they will be out in for force on Easter Day. It's a bit like coming in to watch the end of a film. You see the concluding scenes, but miss out on most of the story and the events that have led to that finale. Many vicars feel quite strongly that you cannot truly celebrate the joys of Easter Day if you haven't experienced the despair of Good Friday. Sadly, a lot of Christians don't feel the same. And depressingly, for so many of the population today, Easter is more about chocolate eggs and having a couple of days off work.

The Alternative Vote

2011-04-21T02:39:00.000-07:00

Well, a referendum looms about changing our voting system - and I've thought long and hard about it. Now, to me, if I have been on any committee or part of an organisation and a vote has been needed, then everyone has voted and the person who gets the most votes is the victor, or whichever resolution has the most votes has been passed.

I can't help feeling that this still seems the best way. The AV system doesn't work for me, because people have very strong political views and are either a staunch Conservative, a Labour supporter, back the Lib Dems, or whatever, and so want that ONE party of their choice to get in. If we had as an example three political parties called VEGETARIAN, FISH and MEAT -- I might say that I really want the VEGETARIAN party to get in, I can just about tolerate FISH, but I absolutely loathe MEAT - so I rank them in that order on the ballot. Now if VEGETARIAN got the most votes, but not the 50% required to get in under the AV system, then people's second choice, and maybe even their third choice would be counted. Once that is done, MEAT might then actually end up with more votes. So, although I wanted VEGETARIAN to get in, I might actually have helped MEAT win because my third choice was counted.

I think that AV only works if you really don't care who gets in and so just rank them in order of which you can tolerate. But maybe a lot of people will feel very strongly about just ONE party and will therefore only vote for that ONE party in the ballot and not bother to rank the others. Then we could still end up with the system that we already have!

Never Say Di

2011-04-15T05:13:00.000-07:00

With the Royal Wedding fast approaching, many radio and TV stations have been asking my opinion about the change in attitude towards the Royal Family over the last couple of decades.

I know people may disagree with me, but to me the moment when everything began to change dated from the moment when Lady Diana Spencer stepped out of the carriage before her wedding at St Paul's Cathedral in 1981. David and Elizabeth Emanuel immediately dashed up and began fussing round straightening the wedding dress. And immediately fashion designers grew in importance. Until that time, we all vaguely knew that the Queen was dressed by Hardy Amies and Norman Hartnell - but can you imagine Her Majesty stepping out of her carriage for the State Opening of Parliament and having the couturier rushing round pulling her hem down and smoothing out creases!

From that July day onwards, Diana never did anything without us being told who had designed her outfit - and clothes became such an important feature. That, to me, was when royalty began to be treated like movie stars and media reporting changed.

Then, when Diana died in 1997, there was such a media frenzy and a backlash against the Royal Family - with the constant demand that they should be more in touch with the people - and an effort to make them appear more ordinary. Along the way, much of the magic has been lost.

I remember the last time I saw Princess Margaret on an official engagement shortly before her final illness. We all stood waiting outside, with crowds of people eager to see the royal visit. Suddenly there was a cry of "Here she comes!" and we all watched and cheered as a gleaming Rolls Royce came into view.... and it was not HRH at all, but the Mayor of Hove. Then a very unassuming green estate car pulled up behind, and Princess Margaret stepped out of the back. It all just seemed so ordinary and lacklustre. And sad. I remembered all the times I had been at royal events and there was such a sense of wonder and anticipation amongst the crowds, then the thrill of seeing the police outriders appear, followed by a gleaming maroon daimler coming slowly into view, and the petite figure of Princess Margaret or the Queen Mother in the back. And everyone present, whether followers of the Royal Family or not, got a lump of patriotic pride in their throat. It was what made us different from so many other countries, and republics with their Presidents and political leaders.

In trying to make our Royal Family ordinary - and a continual cry of 'How much does it all cost?' (as if a President wouldn't cost the country anything) - then something has definitely been lost. Social commentator Walter Bagehot in the nineteeth century was right in many ways that we must not let daylight in upon magic. In trying to change the way we look and treat royalty, we now approach a royal wedding where many in the population at best feel half-hearted about it, and at worst couldn't care less. Prince William could end up as the last King of England -- and people really won't appreciate what they've got until they've lost it. Complacency will have killed one of Britain's greatest assets.

The Dales

2011-04-14T09:16:00.000-07:00

Over the last ten years or so many TV programmes have irritated me. Not the content necessarily, but the constant obsession with telling us everything that is going to be in a programme before we actually watch it.

Recently a series has begun on ITV called 'The Dales' - fronted by Adrian Edmondson, it is a gentle look at families that live and work in the Yorkshire dales, and could be a pleasant, undemanding programme to take us away from the stresses of modern life - but my blood pressure rises when we are shown a clip of everything that is going to be in the programme BEFORE the credits, then again AFTER the opening credts, and BEFORE the commercial break we are told what is still to come. After the commercial break we are given a recap on what we have already seen, and are told again what is still to come. And the programme ends with telling us what we are going to see in NEXT week's programme. This week I kept an eye on the clock, and we actually lost 10 minutes of a half-hour programme.

In some cases this format is counterproductive, because I have sometimes started to watch a programme, then seen that there is nothing in it that I actually want, and so I switch off. If the makers hadn't shown me what was to come, I would have watched the whole programme.

It is particularly infuriating in an hour-long programme, when 45 minutes in you are told what is still to come. Why? If you've watched that far, you're not going to suddenly turn off because you don't know what is in the rest of the programme.

Then we have the more recent fad in dramas of showing us everything that is in next week's programme straight after the final scene and before the end credits. If I'm watching a nice costume drama, I don't want to suddenly see the storyline of the next episode. If I turn off, then I miss the credits and sometimes I do like to see which actor or actress has played a specific part. That's if they don't condense the credits so small that you can't read them, just so that they can show you which programme is coming next. Now don't get me started on that. Do they think that we're going to switch off before a programme has even ended? And what do they think theme music of a programme is for? Someone has composed it, a director has chosen it to suit the mood of the programme, and yet continuity announcers simply speak all through it.

It's lovely when I watch a video that I recorded 20 or more years ago, and I am immediately aware that a programme begins with the theme music, rather than five minutes of the programme before the opening credits and music, and then when it ends - it finishes with the closing theme, you can read all the credits, and THEN the continuity announcer speaks. If only we could go back to that, programmes would be much more enjoyable. Programme makers and continuity should stop treating us as if we're all idiots, with the attention span of a gnat.