2013-05-18T22:54:27-04:00 Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=bill-coles Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Bill Coles Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3238834 2013-05-09T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-09T13:00:55-04:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
No, not just beat them. Absolutely cane them.

We hope.

Of course, it may all go pear-shaped. That is the nature of being a punter. But if I'm right, then I - or at least my kids - will be rolling in so much money that they will finally be able to stump up for the £340 Star Wars Lego Death Star.

So here is my analysis of that tricksy little business that is the naming of our future monarch.

If you look on any of the betting websites at the moment, you will see that as regards Royal Baby Bets, traditional girls' names are far and away the favourites. On Betfair, names like Elizabeth and Mary and Margaret are all coming in at pretty short odds of around ten to one.

Compare these odds to those for boys' traditional names. When I last looked, names like Charles, Michael and Andrew were all over 100/1.

The reason the boys' names are such long odds is because of that now infamous "D-word" that the Duchess of Cambridge uttered two months ago. Some woman in the street gave Kate a teddy and Kate is then thought to have replied, "Is this for our dau..."

Royal pundits immediately took this to mean that Kate had practically blurted out that she was expecting a daughter. Suddenly it seemed a racing certainty that Kate was having a girl.

That's a pretty big assumption - based entirely on whether Kate did indeed say the "D-word". It now seems - and I'm not kidding - that Kate may in fact have said, "Is that for us, Awww..."

On such trifling details are gambling fortunes won and lost.

What it means is that the odds on Kate having a girl are exactly what they've always been: 50-50.

Meanwhile this week, we have news that Kate may well be expecting a boy. Prince Harry certainly thinks it's a boy and Kate has also been seen buying some blue baby-kit.

The smart punters should definitely bet on Kate having a boy. They're getting fabulous odds on what is effectively a two-horse race.

But you've still got to get the right name. I think it's safe to say that Kate and William will not be going off piste with this one. They will be picking a safe, traditional, commonplace name like Henry, or Philip, or William, or Charles. They might, perhaps, plump for something a little off-beat like Louis, after Lord Mountbatten, or even Michael. But not in a million years are they going to be picking names like Dexter or Geordie or Max.

That is my analysis - and since the weekend, my two sons (aged eleven and seven) have been piling right in. They have been using their pocket money to make a series of £2 bets on all of the more traditional boys' names.

Now all we need is for Kate to kindly deliver us a male heir. My only slight worry is what will happen if any of my boys' bets do actually bring home the bacon. They'll be hooked on gambling for life!]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2716062 2013-02-19T08:20:02-05:00 2013-04-21T05:12:02-04:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
Mantel has taken Kate to task for being just a plastic princess. Mantel paints Kate as this vacuous show-pony who hasn't got a single thought in that pretty little head of hers beyond the next piece of clothing that she'll be wearing to the next deliciously gilded party.

Well it's a view. But it's a pretty harsh one.

Kate faces the same problem that every other royal faces when they're out in public. The very moment that they step out of line, say something a little risque or a little daring, then get absolutely pilloried.

So for the past decade, Kate has been absolutely squeaky clean. Hasn't done anything wrong. Hasn't been controversial. Has smiled in all the right places, said all the right things. Definitely has never spoken to a journalist. This, of course, has not made for much newspaper copy, or anything for the magazines to dissect beyond Kate's taste in clothes. None of us know "the real" Kate - which leaves her open to people like Mantel who can tuck on in and say that she's got no "personality".

Rest assured that if Kate were to start expressing a little more of character - and I don't doubt it's there, in full - then she will start offending minority groups the world over. She'll come out with some merry little quip, or say something just that little bit punchy, and the next moment you will - I absolutely promise you - get a ton of people whining away about how "offensive" she is.

Basically if you're a royal and you're saying anything of even the remotest interest to all the hundreds of punters that you're seeing every day, then one way or the other, you're going to put your foot in it. As the Duke of Edinburgh does on a regular occasion.

It's difficult to know what Mantel is looking for when she demands a bit more "character" in Kate. She wishes that Kate would be a bit more like Princess Diana, "whose human awkwardness and emotional incontinence showed in her every gesture..." Well yes, Hilary - but let's face it, Diana may have had this wonderful human awkwardness, but she had to go through a hellish couple of decades to get there, what with her parents' acrimonious split up, followed by her own even more vitriolic split with Prince Charles. Is this the sort of thing that we wish on Kate to perk her up and give her a bit more "character"?

There are a few royals who would be deemed to have "personality". These are, without exception, the odd-balls and the liabilities who are prone to "gaffes". In no particular order, they would include the aforementioned Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Harry; the bluntly spoken, bordering on rude, Priiness Royal; and the Duchess of York, who may have "character" by the bundle, but who just comes across as slightly potty.

Kate, we hope, is in the Royal Family for the long haul, and so there will be years - decades and decades - for her personality to shine through. But, here's a tip for her from an old Sun Royal Reporter: Kate, you should not even think about letting the world see your true character. You should not start making perky little quips which will leapt on and then devoured by the press mob.

At the moment, she is a global superstar, the biggest royal by far; and when she has her baby, she's going to get even bigger.

But like our Hollywood stars, we think that we want to know their "characters", but all ever really get is the mere froth on the top of the Cappuccino. And that's all to the good - because the reality of their characters will never match up to our expectations.

It's the same with Kate, this future Princess, this future Queen. The very moment that she starts to reveal a bit more of her "character", she will start to lose her glamour and her mystique - and then, doubtless, you'll have Hilary Mantel giving her yet another hatchet job for being unkind to some wee pressure group that's getting itself all hot under the collar.

Kate did, of course, get exactly what she wished for. She wanted to be a Princess and, for years now, she's known all about the publicity pressures that come with that. Frankly, life in her gilded cage sounds like hell on earth. But it must be slightly galling for Kate to have this kick in the teeth from Mantel; Mantel probably thinks that it'll be yet more proof of Kate's lack of character that the Duchess will never dignify her acidic attack with a response.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2678944 2013-02-13T12:40:23-05:00 2013-04-15T05:12:01-04:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
I know. Maybe I'm just a raddled old cynic. Maybe I've worked on newspapers too long. But as soon as I'd heard that Chi Magazine had run these pictures of Kate's baby-belly, I thought that it would not be long before some TV presenter accidentally contrived to flash them on live TV.

Maybe I've suddenly developed clairvoyant powers...

Maybe I really can see into the future.

But lo and behold, not a day later and an uncensored shot of the offending front page is just flashed up on our TV screens.

Spooky, eh?

And then, of course, we have go through the whole farrago of ITV apologising and saying that the incident was "deeply regrettable"... as they doubtless lick their lips at all the huge amount of coverage that they're garnering.

The problem is that, rather like the boy who'd cried wolf, we've heard it all before.
Over and over again, a TV presenter will be dissecting the latest outrageous photos of the day - only then to "blunder" by flashing the offending picture at the camera. And the row rumbles on, only the TV show itself is now right bang centre in the middle or the row.

I remember when that scamp Matthew Wright happened to inadvertently blurt out on live TV that the person who was suspected of raping Ulrika Jonsson was John Leslie. Oooops! Hell of a mistake, terribly, terribly sorry, now just sit back please while I revel in my spot on the centre-stage.
Perhaps it's not even a conscious decision though...

Perhaps it's like when you tell a young kid, "Don't drop the milk!" and the poor tyke then spends so long thinking about "not dropping the milk" that the next moment it's all over the floor.
What's probably happening is this: in the pre-production meetings, the producer is saying to his hapless team, "You know what, it would be really, really bad - bad beyond awful - if you happened to flash up those pictures of Kate on the front of Chi magazine... because it's live TV and a lot of people see it, and a few might get pretty offended... so please, please, please, whatever you do... DON'T FLASH UP THE PICTURES OF CHI MAGAZINE!"

And then, well you know how it goes... The guys are just trying to do their jobs, but all the while they're thinking, over and over again, "Don't flash up the pictures from Chi" and then... Dohhh! They've gone and flashed up the pictures from Chi, and the milk is all over the floor, and daddy is sooo NOT HAPPY!

That's how it all happened, I'm sure of it. Obvious, really, when you think about it.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2667668 2013-02-12T19:00:00-05:00 2013-04-14T05:12:01-04:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
When Prince Charles and Camilla got engaged in 2005, it was inconceivable that she would ever been taken on the title of 'Queen'.

Instead, Charles peddled the line that she would be his 'Princess Consort'. But let us be candid: this was only ever a sop to the British public.

If, ten years ago, people had thought that Camilla was going to be the Queen, there would have been rioting in the streets. If the matter had come up in 1997, after the Princess Diana, the public outrage would have been so visceral that today we probably wouldn't even have a monarchy.

But now that Camilla's public rehabilitation is all but complete, we might as well cut the cackle: when the Queen dies, there will be no abdication, there will be no Prince William leap-frogging onto the throne, and Prince Charles will become Charles III.

Further to that: Charles's wife is going to be right by his side - and she will not be his 'Princess Consort', she will be his equal. She will be The Queen.

For a few diehards, this title will very much stick in the craw. Camilla is, after all, the woman who seemingly stole Prince Charles away from his Diana. Who the hell is this schemer, this adulteress, to think that she can lord it over the rest of us and become Charles' Queen Consort of Great Britain, Ireland and her other Realms and Territories?

But that is how it is: in over a thousand years of British Monarchy, the King's wife - no matter how loathed - has automatically become the Queen. Do not think for a moment that this practice is going to stop when Charles takes the throne.

The title of 'Princess Consort' was merely a ruse to give the flinty-hearted British public enough time to warm to Camilla. It seems that they have now done just that.

There are still, of course, a minority of Brits who have never warmed to Camilla, and who will for ever be Princess Diana's champions. But though the majority of Brits may not have accepted Camilla into their hearts, they are at least slightly endeared to her.

For her part, Camilla has played an absolute blinder. Since she married Prince Charles in 2005, she's not set a foot out of line. She hasn't said a single word out of turn, or dropped a single Prince Philip-like clanger; she has thrown herself into her royal duties and her various charities; and, most important of all, Camilla has seemed loyal and supportive to both Harry and William, not to mention the latest Royal darling, the Duchess of Cambridge.

So: pish to all this babble about Prince Charles abdicating from the job that he's been groomed for since the day he was born; and double-pish to this cant that Camilla will one day just be his 'Princess Consort'.

Though these two debates have provided endless entertainment for the masses over the past decade, it is time to say things as they are: when Charles takes to the throne, Camilla will be the Queen, and when we meet Her Maj, we all of us will be expected to be bowing and scraping like the best of them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2270205 2012-12-10T08:07:22-05:00 2013-02-09T05:12:01-05:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
Above all, it raises the slight chance that the missing Earl of Lucan may have been telling the truth. There is a possibility, albeit a small possibility, that he was innocent.

I have long been interested in the saga of the missing Seventh Earl of Lucan; I've even written the book.

And for journalists like me, this mystery has always been seen as the Moby Dick of World Exclusives. We know this great white whale of an exclusive is out there - and, one day, somebody will make their name on Fleet Street by landing the big one.

I should perhaps start by acknowledging that at the heart of the Lord Lucan mystery is a tragedy - not just for the family of Sandra Rivett, the murdered nanny, but also for Lord Lucan's family and friends. The scandal cast a very deep shadow over the lives of his three children which continues to affect them even to this day.

But what has kept this mystery in the public eye, as we constantly rake over the details, is not so much the murder as what happened afterwards. The evidence that we have is so sparse, so scant, that pretty much any scenario is as feasible as the next one.

All we know is that 38 years ago, the Lucans' nanny was bludgeoned to death in the basement of Lady Lucan's flat. Immediately afterwards, the Earl disappeared and has never been seen or heard of since. It has long been assumed that he was up to his neck in the murder.

After the murder, Lord Lucan did leave a very small trail. He sent a few letters while he was on the run, and his blood-spattered getaway car was found dumped in the port of Newhaven, Sussex.

And as for the rest - we can argue and surmise what we like. But for every sighting that there has been of Lord Lucan in Africa and India, and even in Scotland, there is always another counter-claim from one of his old friends to say that, actually, Lucan did the decent thing and committed suicide soon after the murder.

Who knows. It's a mystery - and, so long as it remains a complete mystery, then it will continue to be discussed over dinner-tables across the land.

This latest piece of information to be uncovered by BBC's Inside Out is remarkable, however, because for the first time, it appears to provide some slight corroborative that Ms Rivett may indeed have been murdered by another man.

While he was on the run, Lucan repeatedly claimed that he'd just happened to be passing by the house in Belgravia when he looked down into the basement and saw Ms Rivett struggling with an intruder.

There has never been any evidence to either prove or disprove this claim.

But if this new nugget from the BBC is true, then it would indicate that there may well have been some other man involved. For the past 38 years, there's always been a difficulty in pinning a motive onto the murder. Why would anyone want to kill Sandra Rivett?

It's always been assumed that Lucan killed Ms Rivett after mistaking her for his estranged wife.

But if Ms Rivett had a lover and if she was sharing that lover with somebody else, then it puts quite a different complexion on the whole murder. Suddenly, we now have not only a motive but also a mystery man in the house.

For the first time, these old police files provide a small tantalising kernel of evidence which shows that Lucan may not have been the killer. He may have been, as he said all along "lying doggo" because he thought he'd never get a fair trial.

It is possible. And yet as one piece of new evidence comes to light, it merely raises more questions. How is it that this extraordinary piece of information has been kept under wraps for nearly four decades?

I hesitate to use the phrase, but it almost smacks of an establishment cover-up. Perhaps it was felt better for all concerned if Lucan just happened to disappear off the face of the earth.

* William Coles' book, Lord Lucan: My Story, was published by Legend Press in 2009.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2249453 2012-12-06T06:40:19-05:00 2013-02-05T05:12:01-05:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
And, even better, this is not the most outrageous fantasy. There is a possibility, a sporting chance even, that this might actually happen.

What if... What if Kate is currently pregnant with twins. Apparently, given Kate's severe morning sickness, it is more than a little possible.

Let's coin a new term for the Royal Twins. Let's call them... The Pwins (Trademark pending).
What if these twins happened to be a healthy little boy - and a healthy little girl... And now - the last and most wondrous step of all: What if the babies were delivered by Caesarean Section?

Just imagine it: there is the royal doctor, the dishy Mr Alan Farthing. The scalpel has been wielded. The cut has been made. Now - not that I know the slightest thing about C-sections, but since we are still in the realms of the hypothetical... Then: What If Mr Farthing sees the two little babies; sees that there's one little boy and one little girl.

Which one's he going to choose, knowing as he does, that the hand of history is upon his shoulders; knowing that thanks to the latest changes in the rules of succession, first-born trumps all; knowing that Britain's destiny is, quite literally, in his hands.

There's the boy, and cuddled in tight next to him is his sister: which baby will Mr Farthing decide to pluck first from the womb?

He's got perhaps a minute to weigh up the situation.

It's like the central dilemma in the movie Sophie's Choice - only even better. In Sophie's Choice, Sophie only has to choose who's going to live between her son and daughter - a tough decision, obviously, but it's not something that's going to shift the world on its axis.

But in Mr Farthing's Choice, well... There he is, looking at these cute, adorable Prins, and does he want to be a King-Maker - or a Queen-Maker? It may be the Archbishop of Canterbury who actually crowns the Monarch, but in that moment, the British Crown will undoubtedly be in Mr Farthing's hands.

And let's not forget that Mr Farthing is undoubtedly a gentleman who would naturally insist on Ladies First...

If he does pick the girl over the boy, well, just for starters, he'll have ensured that he's made his indelible mark on history.

He'll have struck a glorious blow for women - and primogeniture - the world over.

And for the law-makers in the Commonwealth. Won't they feel chuffed? Since they've just passed this brand new rinky-dink law on the rules of succession, it would be such a waste not to use it.

Or - one last scenario...

Another equally delicious scenario that is also entirely possible... What if Kate is pregnant with twins - The Pwins - of which one baby looks perfectly healthy, and meanwhile the other... well he's not looking quite so good. There is Mr Farthing doing his C-section. He needs only the briefest of glances to be able to tell that one of the babies has some slight physical handicap.

And he weighs it up, and he thinks to himself - Why the hell not pick the kid with the handicap?

After all, the lad's going to need all the help he can get in life.

With one scoop of his hands, Mr Farthing could do more to change our attitudes to the physically handicapped than even the London Paralympics...

I can see it now: one small baby for Mr Farthing - one giant leap for mankind.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2230356 2012-12-03T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-02T05:12:01-05:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
It must be tough for Prince William as it won't be long before we're seeing his face on everything from our bank-notes to our stamps.

And yet a decade ago it had all seemed to be going so well: William was a great looking guy.

He was tall, he was fit, he had swimmer's shoulders and a winning smile; he had pretty much everything you could want from a Prince Charming.

And now, 10 years on, as I looked at the footage of him and his wife in Cambridge last week, I realised that his good looks have gone. Of course he's still tall and lean and he's got those great teeth. He's still got the smile.

But as for the rest... It seems that William is taking a little after the Spencer side of the family. He is developing the rather heavy-set look of his Uncle Earl Spencer.

Then there's the hair.

It must be a good move for William to go with his recent short-cropped hair. He's thinning and proud of it.

But the truth is that for the first time since the Norman conquest, Britain will soon have a bald king. (But not the first bald monarch - that was Queen Elizabeth I)

I wondered if I was being unfair to the Duke of Cambridge. I asked a number of women friends. Is it just me - or has he gone off the boil?

The verdict was unanimous. William is nowhere near the pin-up that he once was. Years back, he was a poster-boy. Today, it would be quite a stretch to imagine his picture up on any girl's bedroom wall.

But let's get to the nub. Does it matter - in the slightest - if our future King is not a dish? Does it matter if Prince William is not up there with the rest of the Euro-hunks like Prince Felipe of Spain or Prince Haakon of Norway?

And the answer is... well maybe.

Britain's Royal Family has no actual power, but what it does have is influence. It has clout. The Royals talk and people listen. Witness all the dozens of letters that Prince Charles has written to politicians over the years. He's not doing it for his health.

So - are people more likely to listen to men who are handsome? Will your message be better received if you're a good-looking guy?

And again - maybe.

One thing that's undeniable is that pictures of good-looking guys are much more likely to make it into the papers and onto the internet than pictures of plain-looking men.

What is happening with William is that when he's out on tour with his wife, then the pictures that we see are invariably of Kate just by herself. We see very little of William. That's how it is around the world. Picture editors will always go for pictures of Kate over pictures of William.

So in ten years' time, will William still have the global recognition that he does today? Though he is a Royal, he is also a superstar - and politicians and superstars like to hang out with superstars.

Without the publicity, will people still be turning out in their thousands to see him? Will world leaders still be hanging on his every word, when they can see that their voters are indifferent?

Of course it would be just lovely to say that a man's looks are as irrelevant as his skin-colour. But is that really the case - or is that just a sop to the politically correct?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2204918 2012-11-29T19:00:00-05:00 2013-01-29T05:12:02-05:00

Bill Coles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-coles/
But if you think it's bad now with this huge raft of Old Etonians in power, then just wait another 20 years: the Old Etonians are going viral.

I have a strong hunch that Old Etonians will soon have infiltrated the upper echelons of every aspect of society, whether it's the arts, the City or that traditional Old Etonian bastion, Westminster.

The reason is that the school now has such a gigantic reputation that it can cherry-pick the very brightest boys in Britain - if not the world. And that reputation is going through the roof after last month's "Eton-style" Gangham video - over 3 Million viewers on Youtube and counting.

Sixty, 70 years ago, boys usually went to the school because their parents were rich. These days, Eton is looking not for power or wealth, but red-hot talent. Boys are interviewed at just 11-years-old to see what they might be able to offer. Competition is so fierce that the masters are almost able to ask, "What can you bring to the party?"

Being bright is certainly necessary to make it into Eton's unique hot-housing system - but it is no longer sufficient.

Over the last year, I have talked to both old boys and old masters, and I have a sense that the bumbling mediocrities, who may be intelligent and affable enough, are being filtered out to make way for the potential super-stars.

Eton is still keen to keep its links with old boys, and apparently some 40% of the current crop are in some way related to Old Etonians. There's even a means-tested bursary for such candidates, where prospective parents have the ignominy of having to state just how impoverished they've become; I believe they're even asked for the make and registration of their car.

But Eton has become like the big teams in Britain's Premier League - if you've got talent, then one way or another, the school will try and snap you up.

Eton has more money for scholarships than anywhere else on earth (I may be wrong on that one, but I very much doubt it). A fifth of the boys are currently on some sort of bursary. On top of that, Eton is in the throes of an immense fund-raising drive, with its old boys regularly being tapped up for a mention in the will.

But Eton's vision has changed. Once it might have seen itself as a training ground for the country's politicians; now they don't really care what the boys are good at - just so long as they're heading for the top table.

Even a quick trawl through Wikipedia shows the astonishing diversity of Eton's old boys - Hugh Lawrie and Damian Lewis and Dominic West, all A-listers over in Hollywood; Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall the cook; Bear Grylls the adventurer and Chief Scout; the Olympian Sir Matthew Pinsent; and then let's not forget the future King William V.

To some people, it must seem like this most frightful infestation of toffs; they have good reason to be worried. This infestation is going to get considerably worse.

* Bill Coles was in the same year at Eton as Boris Johnson, Earl Spencer and the former Prime Minister of Thailand Mark Vejjajiva, as well as - amongst others - the reformed international jewellery thief Darius Guppy.]]>