Regina v Burrell

The collapse of the Regina v. Burrell owing to the incompetence of, er, Regina is a lot of fun. And for ordinary viewers, readers and listeners, a fine chance to hear some more of the opinions of the Patron of the Society of King Charles, Martyr, Lord St John of Fawsley. TV viewers, for example, were treated to a lengthy appearance by the artist formerly known as Norman St John Stevas on Friday’s Newsnight, complete with an outsized and particularly floppy poppy.

And, in yesterday’s press, he was ubiquitous. The Guardian quoted him as saying that, “The Queen is aware of her constitutional duty and has a strong sense of justice. As ever, the Queen is blameless and emerges with utmost credit.” No doubt. Warren Hoge, the dreary London correspondent for the New York Times, reported “>these additional words: “There could have been a constitutional crisis if it could be said that the queen was influencing the course of justice in her favor”; and the AP’s correspondent had the Sage of Fawsley packaged in slightly different terms: “She came to the conclusion that something needed to be said and quite rightly the meeting with Paul Burrell was brought to the attention of the police,” said Lord St. John of Fawsley, a friend of the royal family. “As for this conspiracy theory,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp., “anyone who knows the queen knows she would be incapable of such actions. You don’t have to meet the queen to know her. Everybody knows of her devotion to duty.” BBC Online had the best snippet, however: “The Queen is the greatest constitutional monarch we have ever had. She knows she is the fount of justice. She knows she cannot appear in a court and her majesty to have intervened would have not only been unconstitutional, but it would have been highly dangerous politically to intervene in the case where members of her own family were involved.” Indeed.

Please report further sightings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.