And more from our Liz: Doodling for charity … Elizabeth Hurley’s separation … William and Kate’s new titles
“We seek him here…we seek him there. Those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven or in hell? That damned elusive Pimpernel,” wrote Baroness Ortzy.
Of course, in this case, it’s not the Frenchies who seeking him, but the Swedes and Americans. I’m speaking of the cyberleaker Julian Assange.
And I’m wondering how much longer the world will be coping with this website bad boy and we’ll all be writing about him. Will he become as famous and go down in history as the French Revolution’s fictional Scarlet Pimpernel?
* * *
The managing director of the St. Francis Food Pantries & Shelters in New York, one Joseph Sano, thanked me for the doodle I drew for his worthy charity. He tells me that my last drawing, of a donkey and elephant improbably drinking together as good friends, fetched up $500 when properly matted and framed.
He also sent me Sarah Palin’s doodle for his association, which feeds the hungry. This doodle went for $1000 for charity. When the next set of Doodles is offered for sale, I suggest you call Mr. Sano at 212–279-6171 and try to get yourself a celebrity doodle and make a charitable contribution.
Many famous artists have doodled for Mr. Sano. As for Sarah, well, she outdrew me by half. What she concocted was a rainbow over a shining sun. (I don’t think Sarah’s rainbow had anything to do with gay rights!)
* * *
I SPENT quite a bit of time recently with my friend Elizabeth Hurley, who was in the U.S. pushing the pink ribbon fight against breast cancer as a spokesperson for Estee Lauder cosmetics. Elizabeth, naturally, didn’t say a word to me about how her three-year marriage to Indian businessman Arun Nayar was already unraveling in spite of a wedding that took place largely in public on two continents. She acted as if everything were hunky dory, including their mutually owned 400-acre farm in Cirencester Gloues, where they raise organic food and fetching lambs, piglets and the like.
Elizabeth herself Twittered this week: “It was not a great day. For the record, my husband Arun & I separated a few months ago. Our close family and friends were aware of this.” (Guess I wasn’t close enough!)
The glamorous model and actress was then reported hanging with international cricket star Shane Warne, who is divorced but has three children in Australia. (Some of the press believes this was all a Hurley P.R. stunt, but I can’t figure out who would benefit from such press.)
Her three-year wedlock where the bride sobbed throughout the wedding ceremony, caused havoc among the paparazzi? Was it worth it for Elizabeth and Arun to marry? The more I read about the brief tenure of celebrity marriages, the more I wonder why anybody bothers. I wonder especially when they have valuable community property involved.
* * *
I WAS vastly amused watching Lawrence O’Donnell, my new passion on the MSNBC scene, while he recently railed against the British royals. He kept asking his BBC expert in London why the English want to bother with a Queen, a King or the children of royal blood?
I know Lawrence likes to provoke an argument on his “The Last Word” show — but really…! “Royalty” is big business in Great Britain, and ever has been, even when it had to do with something called “ruling.” The fact that Buckingham Palace isn’t just a museum but actually has famous well-known royals living within its walls is money in the bank for Great Britain. Tourists love it all!
The British press can’t quite make up its mind whether it approves of the current crop of “royals” or not. Queen Elizabeth herself, on the throne since the end of World War II, seems to be above it all, but everyone else in the family – dead or alive – is fair game for a rowdy press. And the world watches with interest. Do I have to cite the goings-on that ensued over the death of Diana, the Princess of Wales? (For that was her real title, after she divorced Prince Charles. She was never actually known properly as “Princess Diana.”)
My friend Mandrake has now supplied us with a new dilemma for the Queen. And it is this: what to do about a title for Prince William and his commoner bride-to-be, Kate Middleton?
The Prince has let it be known that he’d prefer to go on being called Prince William. He would not like changing his title, as custom demands, to become either the Duke of Cambridge or the Duke of Suffolk. If he became a Duke, then Kate could easily be the Duchess. But as royal princesses are born that way, Kate could not really become “Princess Catherine” while William remains “Prince William.”
This presents a thorny question for the Queen. She might make an exception to protocol. When Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester died, the Queen gave the Duchess of Gloucester a new title as Princess Alice to reward her for years of royal service. But William is under pressure not to change the system, since everyone knows that the much-disliked Princess Michael of Kent would insist that she then become Princess Marie-Christine.
Here’s a funny P.S.: Prince Harry, William’s younger brother, was once going to accept the title the Duke of Cambridge. But he went to see “Shakespeare in Love,” which featured a character named the Earl of Wessex. Harry liked that so much, it is said, that he has asked his grandmother the Queen to eventually give that title to him.