A Constitutional Promenade

Kew Palace is such a long walk from Buckingham Palace and Clarence House, even for horses.  In view of this, and to ensure that my assistance for the royal wedding continues to be impeccably superb, Queen Charlotte has recommended I be provided with...


...a suite of rooms for the next few days at Devonshire House.  I shall then be able to take my morning constitution in Green Park, strolling across to Constitution Hill and the centre of things.

William Cavendish, the 3rd Duke of Devonshire, whose main home is in Derbyshire, has very kindly provided me with his quietest London rooms, away from the bustle of traffic, streets and tourists.  He will be amongst the guests in Westminster Abbey on Friday, of course, being the nearest common ancestor of both parents of the groom.

My host

Unlike Miss Middleton, who I am told will be sleeping in an ordinary public hotel on the night before her wedding, my ethereal duties require a more intimate, private venue, both day and night, before the big day itself.  Devonshire House is, as I am sure you are aware, dear reader, just across the road from the Ritz Hotel, though I am told the Goring is a more elegant and less flamboyant establishment than the aforementioned Piccadilly hostelry.

The architect of Devonshire House, Mr William Kent, is reputed to prefer exterior austerity and interior grandeur.  My own view is that architecture frequently reflects the political views of architects, their patrons and perhaps even the property's more prestigious later occupants.  Such views usually take into consideration constitutional matters regarding peace, stability, and sustainability.

Mr Kent will also be an ethereal guest at the royal wedding, though I have ensured that he will be seated well away from Mr Hogarth.  The two do not get on at all well.  I have also been urged to inform all guests that card playing will not be permitted at all during the ceremony.

The Duchess of Marlborough and Lady Fitzhardinge will be especially reminded to abstain from that pursuit.  Lady Fitzhardinge will also be seated well away from the 1st Duchess of Cleveland, though both ladies may be something of an embarrassment at times to the royal family.

Dealing with important issues?

The structures of political institutions, and architectural ones, are very important matters indeed.  I shall be dining tonight in the Banqueting House at the Palace of Whitehall, where I shall have the opportunity to discuss such matters with many distinguished, and less distinguished, guests.  You are most welcome to join us in an ethereal way, or to join my staff in the virtual parlour if the latter is your preference.

Problems within any sort of institution are usually a consequence of carelessness, regardless of its proximity to a royal park.  An institution is also constituted of rather more than an edifice and a superficial public face, which is certainly a great advantage in many respects. In view of this, it is wise to note that many carbuncles are caused by misfortune rather than lack of care or cleanliness, and this must be taken into consideration when attending to such matters.

A Staphylococcus aureus may affect your own constitution, dear reader, as might a Streptococcus.  I do wish you well, both materially and politically, even if you are unable to distinguish between a bacteria and a dinosaur.  Can you distinguish between the material and the political?

Political or material mapping?

Now, there is nothing snobbish or superior about knowing about constitutional matters, and institutional ones.  As a firm supporter of democracy, I do believe that properly composed constitutions play an important role in maintaining peace, stability and sustainability.  This is especially important within that most prized of institutions, namely marriage.

I do hope Monsieur Adelaidezone agrees with me on this point.  My dear husband tells me he has spent the last few days relaxing on the coast at Middleton in South Australia.  He says he misses me but has no desire at all to be in London.  Are you familiar with Middleton, dear reader?  Perhaps you are more familiar with Bucklebury or Buckingham Palace.

Whilst informing you of my usual duties, when at home in Adelaide, Australia, I have frequently referred to constitutional principles as the foundational structures for the institutions within which I serve.  In my work, however, I use standards of performance as the proper criteria for assessment, rather than relying on mere matters of principle.  It is especially important to know the difference between standards and principles in a democracy.

Australia's high-heeled Head of State

Preferential voting is an essential way to maintain standards.  This can be achieved quite easily, by acknowledging that most voters make many of their choices in life on the basis of emotion rather than fact, or even values.  Do you know the difference between facts, values and emotions, dear reader?

One of my most regular observations in the 21st century relates to the confusion many persons experience whilst assessing their own values. Such persons, who frequently have a fondness for that monstrous machine known as television, are rarely likely even to know their own emotions, especially without the assistance of enlightened beings such as myself.

The facts too, on most occasions, are difficult for members of the public to determine and then assess without a great deal of time and care, even in the easiest of circumstances, and with all the required information and misinformation at hand.  These confusions are the reason why it is tremendously difficult for most mere mortals to make proper assessments during election campaigns, and why most candidates are usually of a lower quality than circumstances require.


Hence my very simple method of good voting standards.  All that is required is that the voters are aware of their own, real emotions (not media-induced ones) and then vote based on the following priority preference listings:

1.  Calmness - Always give your first preference to a candidate who makes you feel calm, even if you consider that person to be quite boring

2. Amusement - Your second preference should go to a candidate who makes you laugh.  This person may not meet the standards of good governance you require, but at least parliamentary debates will be more interesting with the inclusion of their opinions.

3. Excitement - Your third preference should go to the candidate who excites you the most.  You may find them attractive.  You may think they can solve all the problems in the world.  You may believe they will make you rich.  Excitement usually fades when reality sets in, often within six weeks of an election. 

4.  Anger - Only very silly people would give a higher preference than this to someone who makes them feel angry.  Unfortunately, many elections provide more than enough candidates who make the majority of potential voters angry, and rarely provide any who make them feel calm.

5.  Fear - If a candidate makes you feel afraid, put them at the bottom of your preference list.  There is no where else to put such a candidate without the intervention of a psychiatrist. 

Well, I do hope you find my suggestions useful, but now I must go promenading in the park.  Then I shall make my way to raise some concerns with the appropriate authorities regarding the fact that Westminster Cathedral is nearer to both the Goring Hotel and Buckingham Palace than is Westminster Abbey.  It will be a constitutional crisis in the making if the horses and chauffeurs take a wrong turn on Friday.

Which way should I go?  Do I need to alert the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, the London-based Agent-General for South Australia, or the Archbishop of Canterbury?