UH-OH. Recollections have only gone and varied again.
And it was all going so, ahem, well.
This time it’s about whether Prince Harry actually sought his grandmother’s permission to name his newborn daughter after her childhood moniker, or whether he simply told her of his and Meghan’s intention and Her Majesty felt it was a non-negotiable, done deal.
But, interestingly, the national broadcaster stuck to its guns and no one at the Palace has refuted the story either.
Now, in a significant move away from the old “never complain, never explain” mantra, it is claimed that our monarch will “no longer remain silent” in the face of “mistruths” about her family.
From now on, it will reportedly be “complain, explain” where deemed necessary.
So, if true, what has prompted this significant volte-face after several decades of biting one’s tongue?
Well, a reluctance to endlessly confirm or rebut every little story run by the myriad media outlets in this country is perhaps understandable.
After all, who’s got the time?
And the majority of royal gossip stories are like those Italian biscuit wrappers we used to set fire to in the 80s — burning bright one second, vanishing the next.
But when the narrative is being driven by someone from within the inner sanctum of Palace life — a former “senior royal” themselves, no less — then their varying viewpoint could easily be taken as gospel if you don’t correct it.
Remember when the Sussexes casually lobbed in that hand grenade of alleged racism towards their son Archie by a member of the Royal Family?
It was a deeply serious allegation and clearly took The Queen and her advisers by surprise, not to mention Harry’s own brother, Prince William.
So when, during a school visit in East London in March, he was asked by a reporter whether his family was racist, he broke the usual protocol to reply.
“We are very much not a racist family,” he insisted, his quiet anger palpable.
One can only imagine how the Sussexes’ damaging slight played out behind the scenes, and how the supposedly olive- branch gesture of naming their new baby “Lilibet” must grate in the extreme.
After all, do they seriously think that’s all it will take to rebuild the bridges they blew up when they sat down with Oprah Winfrey and fired the opening salvo of their continuing “woe is us” narrative?
Particularly after Harry’s recent criticism of his father Charles’s parenting skills, as well as those of his 95-year-old grandmother and the husband she’s just lost?
So if, via her Palace team, The Queen is going to stop the Sussexes exploiting her previous never complain, never explain stance by coming out fighting when they say something inaccurate about a supposedly private chat, then who can blame her?
After all, Harry and Meghan’s Netflix deal is one of ever-diminishing returns and, chances are, there will be more varying recollections to try to drum up interest in brand Sussex — whatever that even is.
If they know that every story pushed out by their pet biographer Omid Scobie will, if wrong, be swiftly and stiffly rebutted by the Palace, it might make them think twice before betraying any more of their varyingly recollected family confidences.
For those who haven’t seen it, the drama about police corruption focuses on flushing out a wrong’un known only as “H”.
What a coincidence.
First duvet days … now pub days
WHEN 66-year-old Colin Kane called in sick from work and headed to the pub instead, he was spotted by a colleague and later sacked from his job.
Fair enough, you might think.
After all, if he’s well enough to neck pints and smoke fags down his local in Newcastle, then surely he’s able to turn up for work with a tarmac firm and not let customers down.
In a judgment that perhaps confirms the world has gone mad, an employment tribunal concluded that Colin – who suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and told his boss he was spending the day “in bed with his chest” – had been unfairly dismissed and might be entitled to compensation.
Judge Andrea Pitt said: “It is not clear the exact nature of misconduct of which the claimant was found guilty.
“[The firm] made a gross assumption, without evidence, the claimant should not be at the social club because of the nature of his condition.
“There is nothing in the disciplinary procedure prohibiting an employee from acting this way.”
Words fail me.
So, in future, any business that doesn’t want its employees to ring in sick and then go off and do something fun instead of the dreary old work they’re being paid to do has to actually specify in its code of conduct that this isn’t acceptable?
God only knows what message this sends out to Colin’s colleagues, who no doubt had to pick up his slack while he was “in bed with his chest” but was actually at the pub.
Meanwhile, as COPD is primarily caused by smoking, perhaps Colin could use any compensation to get hypnosis and give up the fags.
Swearing in PG films is offensive
THE erosion of childhood continues apace with the news that words such as s***, b*****ks, bloody, bugger, b*****d and p*** are now considered acceptable in films rated PG.
Sigh. In addition, films rated suitable for 12-year-olds may sometimes include the F word as well as pr***, w***er, bitch and slut.
Meanwhile, U-rated films can include damn, hell, God, Jesus Christ, butt, jerk and screw-up.
Call me old fashioned, but does any of this add to the plot?
Why don’t they just use different words?
Otherwise, how long before the rot moves down to toddler TV and we hear Peppa Pig exclaiming: “I f***ing love muddy puddles” or Bugs Bunny inquiring: “What’s up, d*c*?”
FANS of social media influencers who pose with the spoils of a high-end shopping spree are buying just the packaging so they can copy the image.
Rolex boxes are going for a hefty £160 on eBay, and a pile of 17 Chanel paper bags recently sold for £265.
Even a used designer perfume bottle sold for £30.
The description read: “Please note the item is empty.”
Much like the shopaholic “influencers” who encourage this vacuous trend.
MI7 – a period drama
Temper tantrums on set.
Resistance from Derbyshire locals over filming plans.
And now he and 59 others have to quarantine after 14 of his UK film crew tested positive for Covid – giving him just two weeks to hit the finish deadline.
Perhaps he should have played it safe and made a period drama.
Because by the time this movie hits the screens, whatever futuristic special effects he plans to wow us with might be as obsolete as a telex machine.
Craze is a waste
A BRITISH man is fighting for his life after falling from the third floor of a Costa del Sol holiday apartment.
The 31-year-old suffered a severe head injury, internal organ damage and multiple fractures after trying to jump into the pool while taking part in a dangerous practice known as “balconing”.
While my sympathy goes out to his family back home, it’s also extended to the Spanish emergency crew who had to spend 40 minutes of their valuable time trying to stabilise him after he missed the pool, bounced off a sunshade and hit the ground.
Dog theft law weak
A THIEF who stole two Labradors from outside a supermarket has been jailed for six months.
He caused a young family from Nantwich, Cheshire, to suffer “the worst three days of our lives” until their dogs were found.
Now they’re backing calls for a law – currently before Parliament – that introduces tougher sentencing for the rising crime of dog-napping.
The theft isn’t about the monetary value of the animal, it’s about the unnecessary distress caused by the abduction of a beloved pet regarded as one of the family.