Restoration 10:10

There would have been a lot of corpses under arrest if Guy Fawkes had succeeded in blowing up the Commons. The reason is that it’s against the law to die in the Houses of Parliament. I don’t think it’s an absurd law. It’s a class law related to snobbishness and royal arrogance. The coroner of the queen’s house hold still has to hold the inquest into the death of anyone whose body is lying 'within the limits of any of the Queen's palaces; or within the limits of any other house where Her Majesty is then residing'. As parliament is still classed as a royal palace, any death of an MP would in theory require members of the royal household to sit as the coroner's jury. And this raises all sorts of questions of parliamentary privilege. The queen is not subject to any legal action, at least on civil grounds. Well if someone should die in her majesty’s house I do hope it doesn’t inconvenience her too much. Hopefully under the circumstances her majesty would accept an apology if such a terrible thing did befall her. After all we can’t just go and die where we want you know. There are laws against this kind of thing. Who do you think you are? The same goes for our burial too. Eunice Fitch’s family have lost their campaign to get permission to have her buried in Christ Church, Gentleshaw.They were refused permission because she lived just outside the parish boundary by about 500 yards. Her family appealed to the Queen and Archbishop of Canterbury to make an exception for the 65-year-old. Huh as if they’d show compassion on a nice kind fundraiser who raised thousands of pounds for charity saving government money and improving lives. Apparently there wasn’t enough space to bury this stalwart of the community in Christ Church. I could take this as an insult, but I won’t. Eunice had a big heart and that’s what I will focus on. Not the little community pettiness and small-mindedness of conceited office holders. Our prayers and thoughts are with the family, as Eunice’s funeral is set to take place on June 24, with the service at St Luke’s Church, Cannock and her burial at Stile Cop Cemetery in Rugeley.

Prince William is to fight in the war against South American drug barons in the Caribbean. Not because they are his personal enemies but because the future heir to the throne must be seen playing his part in the armed forces. If that’s the case why not send William to Iraq or Afghanistan? Of course that would be too dangerous. In the Middle East William would be an easier target for al-Qaeda. But ‘the Caribbean on a Royal Navy warship is an ideal tour as it has operational potential and it works diplomatically’ said a senior military source. No soldier is one hundred percent safe in any conflict. The senior military source sounds complacent if not condescending. It will be a total waste of a Royal and a greater shame should our Prince be taken out by mere drugs cartels. History teaches us that you can’t hide a king safely in any battle. Whether King Harold was shot in the eye with an arrow or cut down by Norman Cavalry in 1066 makes no difference. It was a fateful day for the English and the Royal Family. Other royals have perished in armed conflicts too. Lord Mountbatten, a World War 2 hero died unexpectedly in 1979. Thirty four years after the war. The Earl thought he was safe when he holidayed in his summer home in County Sligo. He went sailing in a thirty-foot wooden boat. No one knew that the IRA had fitted it with a radio controlled fifty-pound bomb which was detonated before the boat reached Donegal Bay. Take heed William. Death often stabs people in the back whilst they are facing their enemy.

An inquest has ruled that Princess Diana and her lover Dodi al-Fayed were unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of their chauffeur and paparazzi photographers pursuing them into a Paris road tunnel 10 years ago. Mr al Fayed has long believed that the Duke of Edinburgh and MI6 murdered the couple through a staged crash. It seems to me that everyone is to blame for Diana and Dodi’s death other than the happy couple themselves.

But could Diana and Dodi be partly to blame? If Diana had been wearing her seat-belt the injuries which she sustained in the crash may not have been fatal. And if Henri Paul was as drunk as the forensic tests and CCTV evidence suggests any reasonable person would not have got into the car with him. The passengers must have smelt the alcohol on his breath. Unbuckled seat-belts and the willingness to get into a car with a drunk driver will in a court of law be defined as contributory negligence. Diana could have taken some reasonable precautions towards her own safety in this matter. But how many times have we not fastened our seatbelts? How many times have we gotten into a car with a driver who has consumed alcohol? As I look back over the years that thought sends a shudder down my spine. Let’s take all reasonable precautions when we are out on the roads. It may save us from sharing the same fate as Dodi and Dianna.