Guelph & Ghibelline

Guelph (pronounced gwelf)

(1) In the politics of medieval Italian city states and in certain German states, a member of a political party or faction that supported the sovereignty of the papacy against the Holy Roman Emperor: politically opposed to the Ghibellines who supported the claims of the emperor.

(2) The beliefs of the Guelphs.

(2) A member of a secret society in early nineteenth century Italy that opposed foreign rulers and reactionary ideas.

(3) Any member of the German-Hanoverian Party (1867–1933), a conservative federalist political party in the German Empire (the so-called Second Reich 1871-1918) and the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) founded as a protest against the annexation in 1866 of the Kingdom of Hanover by the Kingdom of Prussia.

1570–1580: From the Italian Guelfo, from the Middle High German Welf (the family name of the founder of a princely German dynasty of Bavarian origin that became the ducal house of Brunswick (literally “whelp”, originally the name of the founder (Welf I).  The family are the ancestors of the present Windsor dynasty of Great Britain which until 17 July 1917 was the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the change effected by decree of George V (1865–1936; King of the United Kingdom & Emperor of India 1910-1936), responding to some understandable anti-German sentiment during the World War I (1914-1918).  One unintended consequence of the change was it elicited from Kaiser Wilhelm II (1859–1941; German Emperor & King of Prussia 1888-1918) the first of his two known jokes: Upon hearing of the change, he quipped he hoped soon to attend the next Berlin performance of William Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1602).  Historians cite the name as a war-cry used at the Battle of Weinsberg (1140) by forces loyal to Henry III (Henry the Lion, 1129-1195; Duke of Saxony (1142–1180) and of Bavaria (as Henry XII, 1156–1180) who at the time was aligned with Frederick Barbarossa (1122–1190; Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor 1155-1190).  The alternative spelling was Guelf.  Guelph & Guelphism are nouns and Guelphic & Guelfic are adjectives; the noun plural is guelphs.  During the “great controversy”, partisans of the pope were in Italy known as Guelfi.

Ghibelline (pronounced gib-uh-lin or gib-uh-leen)

A member of the aristocratic party in medieval Italy and Germany that supported the claims of the Holy Roman Emperors against the claims by the papacy of temporal power: politically opposed to the Guelphs who supported the claims of the pope.

1565-1575: From the Italian Ghibellino, from the German Waiblingen, from the Middle High German Wibellingen, the name of a castle in Swabia held by the Hohenstaufen dynasty (the township of Waiblingen in modern Germany), from Old High German Weibilinga & Weibelingen which may have been a suffixed form of the personal names Wabilo & Wahilo.  Ghibelline & Ghibellinism are nouns, guelphic is an adjective; the noun plural is Ghibellines.

Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor (circa 1843), oil on canvas by François-Édouard Picot (1786–1868).  Before Lindsay Lohan re-defined rangaism, Frederick Barbarossa was history's most famous redhead.

The Guelf and Ghibelline were members of two opposing factions in Italian and German politics during the Middle Ages, the Guelfs supporting the claims of the papacy to temporal power while the Ghibellines were aligned with the Holy Roman (German) Emperors.  A variant of one of the many types of “state vs church” conflicts which have played out over the last thousand-odd years, the disputes between the Guelfs and Ghibellines contributed to making the strife within northern Italian cities chronic in the thirteenth & fourteenth centuries.  It was the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick Barbarossa who in the twelfth century resorted to armed force in an attempt to reassert imperial authority over northern Italy, his military ventures opposed not only by the Lombard and Tuscan communes which wished to preserve their autonomy within the empire, but also by the newly elected pope (Alexander III, circa 1104-1181; pope 1159-1181).  Thus was the peninsula split between those who sought to increase their power-bases and political influence and those (with the pope in the vanguard) determined to resist renewed imperial interference.

Othone vien licentiato dal Pontefice, e dal doge perche vada a trattar la pace con l'Imperator suo padre, (Pope Alexander III and Doge Ziani sending Otto to negotiate peace with his father Emperor Frederick Barbarossa), etching (circa 1720) after the painting executed by Palma il Giovane (Iacopo Negretti, circa 1549-1628) for the Sala del Maggior Consiglio in the Palazzo Ducale, Venice, British Museum, London.  The painting depicts Otto kneeling before the pope on his elevated throne; the Doge stands beside him; the crowd to the left and right.  The Doge was the chief magistrate in the republics of Venice and Genoa, the word from the Venetian Doxe, from the Latin ducem, accusative of dux (leader, prince).   It was a doublet of duke and dux and the source of Duce (leader) made infamous by Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943).

Doge is now most often recognized (as Dogecoin) as a cryptocurrency which began as an “in-joke” but took on a life of its own and (as DOGE) the acronym for the US federal government’s Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting apparatus with the stated aim (ultimately) of reducing the national debt.  DOGE was created by one of the earliest executive orders of Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) second term and although its status within (or parallel with) the bureaucracy is unclear, it appears still to exist.  Analysis of its effects have been published with estimates of the outcome thus far ranging from savings in excess of US$200 billion to additional costs over US$20 billion.  Those doing the math to come up with these numbers don’t use the same methods of calculation and do their work with different motivations and so sprawling is the US government it may be it will never be known quite what DOGE will eventually achieve.  The DOGE acronym was amusing but following the Australian general election of 1980, the Liberal-National Country (now the latter since 1982 called the National Party) coalition government set up a cabinet committee with a remit to reduce government expenditure and although it seems never to have received an official name, it was soon dubbed “the Razor Gang”, a re-purposing of a term from the 1920s which alluded to Sydney’s criminals switching from revolvers to switchblade knives after concealed handguns were outlawed.  “Razor Gang” does seem more evocative than “DOGE”.

The conflicts between cities pre-dated the use of Guelf and Ghibelline, the deployment of which became a sort of descriptive codification of the factions as the inter & intra-city antagonisms intensified.  Although many of the potted histories of the era lend the impression the conflict was binary as forces coalesced around the Guelfs and Ghibellines, each side existed with what political scientists call “cross-cutting cleavages”: social, family, class, economic and even occupational alliances all at play.  Still, the characteristic depiction of Guelfs representing wealthy merchants, traders and bankers and Ghibellines (representing feudal aristocrats and the Italian equivalent of the landed gentry) was not inaccurate and especially ferocious in Florence, where the Guelfs were twice exiled.  Although as a piece of history the long-running conflict is understood as a political (and even theological although that does take some intellectual gymnastics) squabble, the series of wars fought between the mid-thirteenth and early fourteenth century, although on a smaller scale than many, were as brutal and bloody as any in the Middle Ages and were essentially between Guelf-controlled Florence and its allies (Montepulciano, Bologna & Orvieto) and its Ghibelline opponents (Pisa, Siena, Pistoia, and Arezzo).

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.

After the Hohenstaufen loss of southern Italy in 1266 and the extinction of their line two year later, the meanings of Guelf and Ghibelline morphed, Guelfism becoming a system of alliances among those who supported the Angevin presence in southern Italy (including the Angevin rulers of Sicily themselves, the popes, and Florence with its Tuscan allies) while within the many cities where the Guelfs had been victorious, the forces became a kind of blend of political party and pressure group acting on behalf of the conservative, property-owning class dedicated to maintaining the exile of the Ghibellines whose holdings had been confiscated.  Ghibellinism, although there were periodic attempts at revivals, became more an expression of nostalgia for empire although during the later part of the fourteenth century, the practical significance both declined: the popes for decades re-located to France and the emperors solved the problem of northern Italy by pretending it didn’t exist.  For another century the divisions between Guelfs and Ghibelline lived as names for local factions but the days of meeting on the battlefield were over.

A depiction of a fourteenth century street fight between militias of the Guelf and Ghibelline factions in the Italian commune of Bologna by an unknown artist, published in Le croniche di Luccha (The Chronicles of Lucca) by apothecary Giovanni Sercambi (1347–1424).  While there may have been some artistic licence in this work, it does show one aspect of the way fighting was done and as well as roving urban gangs, there were set-piece battlefield events with the use of infantry and cavalry as well as instances of what would now be called guerrilla tactics or terrorism.

However, Europe is a place of long memories (“ancient traditions” also invented as required) and the terms were in the nineteenth century revived during the emergence of the movement which in 1861 would secure the unification of Italy: the “Neo-Guelfs” urged the pope to lead a federation of Italian states while the “Neo-Ghibellines” viewed the pope as a medieval barrier to both modernization and the development of Italian unity.  By the mid-twentieth century popes no longer laid claim to temporal authority but, as the “vicar of Christ on Earth” his Holiness still, on behalf of God, asserted proprietorship over the souls of Catholics and this annoyed Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & Prime-Minister of Italy 1922-1943) whose view was Fascism was not to be seen as simply a political ideology but the primary dynamic of the Italian state and the guiding light of its people.  Authoritarian states are never comfortable if having to co-exist with what might be alternative sources of authority whether that be the Roman Catholic Church, the Falun Gong or the Freemasons (although they’re probably right to be worried about the latter) and Mussolini mentally divided the country in the fascist-supporting Ghibellines (good) and the priest-ridden Guelfs (bad).  Mussolini did think of himself as something of a Roman Emperor, if not one especially holy.  Count Galeazzo Ciano (1903–1944; Italian foreign minister 1936-1943 (and the son-in-law of Benito Mussolini who ordered his execution)) was one of the more readable diarists of the wartime years and a couple of his entries record the way the terms had lived on (and would survive into the atomic age):

2 January 1939: “A conversation with the Duce [Benito Mussolini] and Pignatti [Count Bonifacio Pignatti Morano di Custozza (1877-1957; Italian Ambassador to the Holy See 1935-1939)].  The Duce told the ambassador to tell the Vatican that he is dissatisfied with the policy of the Holy See, especially with reference to the Catholic Action Movement.  He spoke also of the opposition of the clergy to the policy of the Axis, as well as to racial legislation.  Let them not be under any illusion as to the possibility of keeping Italy under the tutelage of the Church.  The power of the clergy is imposing, but more imposing is the power of the state, especially a Fascist state.  We do not want a conflict, but we are ready to support the policy of the state, and in such a case we shall arouse all the dormant anti-clerical rancor; let the Pope remember that Italy is Ghibelline.  Pignatti acted in a satisfactory manner.  He said that the Vatican has made many mistakes, but that the Pope is a man of good faith, and that he is the one who, more than any other prelate, thinks in terms of Italianism.  I have given him instructions to act tactfully. Notwithstanding Starace [confessed Freemason Achille Starace (1889–1945; Secretary of the National Fascist Party 1931-1939 who (along with Mussolini, his mistress and four other fascists) was on 29 April 1945 executed by partisans and hung by his ankles above a gas (petrol) station forecourt in Piazzale Loreto, Milan)], I should like to avoid a clash with the Vatican, which I should consider very harmful.”

Mussolini, his mistress and Starace among the seven hung from the rafters of an Esso gas station’s forecourt, Piazzale Loreto, Milan, 29 April 1945.

On the site there now sits a bank building, the ground floor of which is occupied by a McDonalds “family restaurant”.  Once an autopsy had been performed (clinically, one of the less necessary in medical history), Mussolini’s corpse was buried in a “secret” unmarked grave, but this was Italy so fascists soon discovered the location and exhumed the body, spiriting it away.  That caused a scandal and when eventually the government tracked down the remains, such was the wish to avoid upsetting either the (anti-fascist) Guelphs or (pro-fascist) Ghibellines, an accommodating abbot was found who agreed to find a quiet corner in his monastery.  For over a decade, there it sat until in the late 1950s it was returned to Mussolini’s widow, the need at the time being to appease the Ghibellines (ie the Italian right wing).  The Duce's remains reside now in a crypt at Mussolini’s birthplace which has become a pilgrimage spot for neo-fascists from many countries and in Italy, it’s possible to buy items such as Mussolini postcards and coffee mugs.  Of course the Vatican's gift shops have much papal merchandise for sale and despite the dramatic set-piece at the Esso gas station, what happened in 1945 really wasn't a victory of the Guelphs over the Ghibellines; since then the two sides have managed (mostly) peacefully to co-exist.

June 3, 1942: “Optimism prevails at the Palazzo Venezia on the progress of operations in Libya. The Duce talks today about the imminent siege of Tobruk and about the possibility of carrying the action as far as Marsa Matruk.  If these are roses… they will bloom.  The Duce was very hostile to the Vatican because of an article appearing in the Osservatore Romano [the daily newspaper of Vatican City (owned by the Holy See but not an official publication)] over the signature of Falchetto [“Falchetto” (little falcon) was the ambassador’s pseudonym, used when publishing quasi-official or interpretative commentary on relations between the Holy See and the Italian state, diplomatic developments or political issues of mutual concern, without these writings being treated as formal government statements.  What this meant was the statements could be read as reflecting viewpoint of the Italian embassy to the Holy See (and, by extension, of the Italian government itself) yet still providing the essential layer of “plausible deniability”].  The article spoke about Greek philosophy, but the real purpose was evident.  Guariglia [career diplomat Raffaele Guariglia, Baron di Vituso (1889–1970)] will take the matter up with the Secretariat of State of the Vatican. ‘I hate priests in their cassocks,’ said Mussolini, ‘but I hate even more and loathe those without cassocks [Italians who follow the Vatican line], who are vile Guelfs, a breed to be wiped out.’”  The Duce did though remain a realist and whatever might have been his private fantasies, never suggested, as Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) did during one of the many dark moments of his table talk: “sending a squad into the Vatican and clearing out that whole rotten crew.”  Tacitly, both Duce and Führer knew that to exert his influence, the pope didn’t need any divisions at his command.

Spade & Splayd

Spade (pronounced speyd)

(1) A garden or farming tool for digging, having an iron blade adapted for pressing into the ground with the foot and a long handle commonly with a grip or crosspiece at the top, and with the blade usually narrower and flatter than that of a shovel.

(2) Some implement, piece, or part resembling this.

(3) A heavy metallic projection on the bottom of a gun trail, designed to dig into the earth to restrict backward movement of the carriage during recoil.

(4) To dig, cut, or remove with a spade.

(5) In four-suit card-games, a black figure shaped like an inverted heart and with a short stem at the cusp opposite the point; a card of the suit bearing such figures.

(6) In slang, a disparaging and offensive term for a person with black skin (based on the spade in packs of cards) (obsolete).

(7) In nautical use, a type of oar blade that is comparatively broad and short (as opposed to a spoon).

(8) A cutting tool for stripping the blubber from a whale or skin from a carcass.

(9) As “in spades”, a term synonymous with the idiomatic “laying it on with a trowel” to indicate something done to excess or in an emphatic way.

(10) As “to call a spade a spade”, to be candid; to speak plainly without resort to euphemisms.

(11) As “to do the spadework” to be thorough in preparation.

(12) A hart or stag three years old (rare).

(13) A castrated man or animal (archaic).

Pre-900: From the Middle English noun spade, from the Old English spada, spade & spadu.  It was cognate with the the Proto-Germanic spadǭ, spadô & spadō, the Dutch spade, the Old Frisian spada, the Old Saxon spado, the Old High German spato, the German Spaten, the Old Norse spathi (spade), the Hunsrik Spaad and the Ancient Greek spáthē (blade; broad, flat piece of wood).  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European spe-dh-, from which the Ancient Greek gained σπάθη (spáthē) (blade), Hittite išpatar (spear), Persian سپار‎ (sopār) (plow), Northern Luri ئەسپار‎ (aspār) (diging) and Central Kurdish ئەسپەر‎ (esper) & ئەسپەرە‎ (espere) (cross-piece on shaft of spade to take pressure of foot).  More recent descendants include the Scottish Gaelic spaid and the Fiji Hindi sipi.  Spade & spading are nouns & verbs, spader & spadeful are nouns, spaded is a verb and spadable & spadelike are adjectives; the noun plural is spades.

Pentagon-authorized playing cards, 2003.

The use on playing cards dates from 1590–1600, from the Italian, plural of spada the meaning of which was originally “sword”, from the Latin spatha, from the Greek spáthē.  Historically, the ace of spades was the highest card in the deck and, dating from the reign of James I (James Stuart, 1566–1625; James VI of Scotland 1567-1925 &  James I of England and Ireland 1603-1625), the law required the ace of spades to bear the insignia of the printing house.  This was to ensure the stamp duty was paid and the method to certify its payment on playing cards was a physical stamp on the highest card of the deck.  Beginning in the seventeenth century, card manufacturers started putting their identification marks on the ace of spades and it was soon an industry tradition, maintained even when the tax was no longer payable, the intricate designs now serving to protect them from illegal copying.  The ace of spades has a (somewhat dubiously gained) reputation as the death card but its become part of the folk lore attached to various organized crime operations and has been used by some militaries in psychological warfare, the US army ordering bulk supplies of ace of spades cards to scatter around although the belief the Viet Cong soldiers feared the card appears to have been untrue.

Lindsay Lohan's Royal Routine in spades in The Parent Trap (1998).

The Pentagon however still liked the imagery.  In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, thousands of packs of cards were issued, all decorated with pictures of the Iraqi regime's most wanted figures.  The dubious honor of being the ace of spades was of course granted to President Saddam Hussein (1937–2006; president of Iraq 1979-2003) but, unfortunately, the regime's final official spokesman, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (b 1940), despite his memorable war-time press conferences (as a result of which he was dubbed "Comical Ali" (a dark allusion to Ali Hassan al-Majid al-Tikriti (1941-2010, an Iraqi military officer who became notorious for his use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians) or "Baghdad Bob" by the press corps) which made him the country's second best known figure, didn't rate a card.  The Pentagon deemed him not worth even a two of clubs, an act of some ingratitude in the circumstances.

Dating from the 1520s, the spatula, now familiar as a kitchen tool used to scrape the contents of bowls, was derived from the early fifteenth century medical instrument, from the Latin spatula (broad piece), diminutive of spatha (broad, flat tool or weapon) from the Ancient Greek spathe (broad flat blade (used by weavers); the erroneous form spattular appeared circa 1600.

Mid-twentieth century silver-plated cake server by Viners of Sheffield (left) & early twentieth century Danish silver-plated cake spades (right).

The cake spade was a curious alternative to the cake (or pie) server, the latter a utensil styled to conform to the size and shape of the typical domestic slice of cake or pie.  Where the cake spade differed was in the use of a regular or irregular trapezoid shape which, although it would make it difficult to maneuver something cut in the traditional, elongated triangle used with circular cakes or pies, offered advantages in stability for anything served is a squarer form including desirable stuff like lasagna: horses for courses.

Drain spade with comfort step and D-grip with fibreglass handle; available at Walmart.

Although a proliferation of modern hybrid designs for home gardeners has a little blurred the distinction, traditionally, a spade differs from a two-handed shovel mostly in the form and thickness of the blade.  The phase “to call a spade a spade" (using blunt language, call things by right names and avoid euphemisms) dates from the 1540s and was a translation of a Greek proverb (which was known to the Greek satirist and rhetorician Lucian of Samosata (Λουκιανός ό Σαμοσατεύς; circa 125-Circa 185) ten skaphen skaphen legein (to call a bowl a bowl) but Dutch Catholic theologian Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (Erasmus of Rotterdam; 1466–1536) mis-translated, confusing the Greek skaphe (trough, bowl) for a derivative of the stem of skaptein (to dig) and the mistake has forever stuck, possibly because, at least in English, it better conveys the meaning.

Laying it on with a trowel

The trowel used by Queen Victoria when laying the foundation stone of the new buildings at the Victoria and Albert Museum, 17 May 1899, an act she managed to perform without leaving the comfort of her carriage.  A trowel is a kind of small hand-held spade, used in gardening and to apply the mortar in brick-laying.  The ornamental trowel was rendered in silver and enamel by the silversmith Nelson Dawson (1859-1941) and his wife Edith (1862-1928).

The phrase “in spades” (a suggestion of abundance) appeared first as recently as 1929 in a short story by US journalist and author Damon Runyon (1880-1946), a reference to the desirably of having many of the suit in bridge, spades the highest-ranking suit.  A similar phrase is that reported by the poet Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) and attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881; UK prime- minister 1868 & 1874-1880) who, when discussing the techniques he adopted during his audiences with Queen Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901), advised “everyone likes flattery and when you come to royalty, you should lay it on with a trowel”.

Although Disraeli joined the Church of England at the age of twelve, he was born Jewish and one who clearly understood the value of laying flattery on “with a trowel” was Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; Israeli prime minister 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) who, while doubtless noting the “No Kings” protest movement in the US, decided that for these purposes Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) should be treated like royalty.  Shortly after it was in June 2025 announced the US military had (with the now famous “bunker-buster” bombs) attacked Iranian nuclear processing facilities which the ayatollahs had concealed deep inside a convenient mountain, Mr Netanyahu appeared at the lectern, metaphorical trowel in hand:

Benjamin Netanyahu (left) & Donald Trump (right).

“Congratulations President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.  Israel has done truly amazing things. But in tonight's action against Iran's nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed.  It has done what no other country on earth could do. History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons.  His leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.  President Trump and I often say 'peace through strength'.  First comes strength, then comes peace.  And tonight President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.  President Trump, I thank you.  The people of Israel thank you.  The forces of civilization thank you.  God bless America.  God bless Israel and may God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith.”

Disraeli himself can scarcely ever have been as effusive in his praise of his Queen (although on occasion he was known to go on bended knee to kiss the hand) and were Mr Netanyahu able to grant Mr Trump an imperial title (as Disraeli in 1876 conferred on Victoria by making her “Empress of India”), surely he would.  In paying due tribute, the Israeli prime minister set the mark but in a post-operation press briefing conducted with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (US Air Force (USAF) General Dan Caine (b 1968)) Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US secretary of defense since 2025) rose to the occasion:

Donald Trump (left) & Pete Hegseth (right).

“For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated, for over 10 years, that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, full stop.  Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.  Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.  The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back.  When this President speaks, the world should listen and the U.S. Military, we can back it up.  The most powerful military the world has ever known.  No other country on planet Earth could have conducted the operation that the chairman is going to outline this morning.  Not even close.  Just like Soleimani found out in the first term Iran found out when POTUS says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation otherwise that nuclear program, that nuclear capability, will not exist.  He meant it.  This is not the previous administration.  President Trump said, no nukes. He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path.  He sent out a Truth last night, saying this: any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight, signed the President of the United States, Donald J Trump.  Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before, and he means it.  I want to give congratulations to our commander in chief. It was an honor to watch him lead last night and throughout and to our great American warriors on this successful operation. God bless our troops. God bless America, and we give glory to God for his providence and continue to ask for his protection.”

Donald Trump (left) and Mark Rutte.

Not wanting the White House to think NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) couldn’t handle a trowel as well as Tel Aviv and the Pentagon, Mark Rutte (b 1967; prime minister of the Netherlands 2010-2024, secretary general of NATO since 2024) took the opportunity presented by Mr Trump’s impending arrival at the 2025 NATO Summit Defence Industry Forum to send the president a message congratulating him on the apparent success of the USAF’s strikes on Iran:

“Mr President, dear Donald, congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.  You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening.  It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto 5 percent!  Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world.  You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.  Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.  Safe travels and see you at His Majesty’s dinner!”

Mike Huckabee (left) and Donald Trump (right).

One who had his own way of sending the message was Mike Huckabee (b 1955; Baptist preacher, Republican governor of Arkansas 1996-2007, US ambassador to Israel since 2025) who earlier had told Mr Trump that while doubtlessly he was hearing advice from many sources telling him what to do about Iran: “There is only one voice that matters, HIS voice.  I believe you will hear from heaven and that voice is far more important than mine or ANYONE else’s.”  The president clearly liked the thought of God as his advisor and re-posted the message on his Truth Social platform.  Despite his critics alleging he thinks himself above God, it’s probably more accurate to suggest Mr Trump regards Him as an equal.

Mr Netanyahu (left) & Mr Trump (right), the Knesset, Jerusalem, 13 October, 2025.

In his speech on 13 October 2525 welcoming Mr Trump, visiting to make a speech to the Knesset (parliament of Israel), Mr Netanyahu stopped short of acknowledging his guest as a living god but that may only be because his cabinet is packed with amateur scholars of the Torah and he may have anticipated theological objections although, beyond Judaism, there are precedents, the Emperors of Japan before the unpleasantness of 1945 being venerated as 現人神 (arahitogami; manifest kami; incarnation of a deity) and because of the wording the Imperial Palace’s courtiers concocted in the statement purporting to proclaim him as mere “human flesh & blood”, there are still factions which claim divinity was never renounced although there’s little to suggest modern Japanese citizens much dwell on this.  There was also Haile Selassie I (1892-1975; Emperor of Ethiopia 1930-1974), regarded by the Rastafari as their (and possibly everyone’s, opinions differ) Messiah.  Rastafari is an Abrahamic religion which in the 1930s emerged in Jamaica but it’s misleading to speak of it as simply a faith because it’s more a social movement and world view; in that sense it’s more like Islam though without the codified rules and an even looser structure of authority.  The matter came to international attention when in April 1966 the emperor visited Jamaica, a event celebrated as the most important Rastafari’s most holy day and called “Grounation Day” because, when walking between his aircraft and Vanden Plas Princess limousine, he declined to walk upon the red carpet laid according to diplomatic protocol because he wished his feet to “touch the ground”.  Intriguingly, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (with roots from the early days of Christianity) has never suggested the Rastafari renounce their belief in Haile Selassie's divine status.

Mr & Mrs Netanyahu.

So, although Mr Netanyahu stopped short of putting Mr Trump at least on the right-hand of God, he didn’t stop that far short and set a new mark in what is now something of an international diplomatic competition to see who can most flatter the POTUS.  Whether anyone will dare to try to top what was said in the Knesset remains to be seen but so adeptly did Mr Netanyahu wield the Disraelian trowel that it’ll demand quite a performance.  The event in Jerusalem was to mark return of the remaining hostages seized by the Hamas during the terrorist attack of 7 October 2023 so the occasion was understandably emotional and the prime-minister, as well as reiterating his country’s nomination of Mr Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize (which, in fairness, he deserves more than Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) who in 2009 received his for “not being George W Bush” (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009), indicated the president had been nominated to become the first non-Israeli recipient of the Israel Prize (Israel's highest award).  The malicious suggestion on Twitter that one of Mr Trump’s aides asked if was possible for him “to take the prize in cash instead” was wholly fake news but in the spirit of the moment, Mr Trump did later suggest Isaac Herzog (b 1960; president of Israel since 2021) should issue a pardon to Mr Netanyahu (and presumably his (third) wife Sara (b 1958)) to resolve the tiresome corruption charges both face.  Footage of the remarkable speech is available on-line as is a transcript but some fragments capture the moment:

“My friends, this is only a partial list.  But it's enough to affirm what I've said time and again, Donald Trump is the greatest friend that the state of Israel has ever had in the White House.  No American president has ever done more for Israel.  And as I said in Washington, none are even close.  It's really not a match. 

Israel, a man named Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States. And, ladies and gentlemen, overnight, overnight everything changed. Everything.  And I want to thank our negotiating team. I believe that the close cooperation between the two of us, between our two nations, combining Israel's military pressure and President Trump's unmatched global leadership.  I have to tell you, I've seen a lot of American presidents. I've seen them all in the time that I've been here.  And I've been here quite a lot of time.  I've never seen anyone move the world so quickly, so decisively, so resolutely as our friend, President Donald J Trump.

Mr. President, thank you for all you have done for us.  I have submitted your nomination to be the first non-Israeli recipient of the Israel Prize, Israel's highest award.  As to that other prize, just a question of time.  You'll get it.  But I want you to get the Israel Prize, our highest award, to our greatest friend.  When others were weak, you were strong. When others were fearful, you were bold. When others abandoned us, you stood by our side.  On behalf of the government and people of Israel, I thank you for your extraordinary friendship.  Thank you for helping bring our hostages home.  Thank you for supporting Israel's march to victory.  Thank you for paving a path to peace.

Mr. President, my friend Donald, welcome to Israel.  Welcome to Jerusalem. Welcome on this very special day.  Allowed us to live and brought us to this day.  May God bless you and your family, Mr. President.  May God bless America.  May God bless Israel.  And may God bless the covenant between our two promised lands.”

Splayd (pronounced splade)

An eating utensil combining the functions of spoon, knife and fork.

1943: A constructed brand name which was not a conventionally blended word but one with a pronunciation intended to remind the speaker of the devices functional elements (spoon & blade) with the hint of "splay" (to slant, slope or spread outwards) to allude to the shape of the tines.  While the shape of the splayd was at the time unusual, the idea of utensils which combined the knife, fork & spoon had been around for generations and during World War II (1939-1945), allied soldiers enviously would admire the "light-weight and brilliantly simple" one issued to the German army.  Splayd is a noun; the noun plural is splayds.

The splayd was created by William McArthur of Sydney, Australia, with production licensed to several manufacturers, the best known of which was Viners of Sheffield.  Although several variations of the spork (a utensil combining the functionality of spoon and fork) already existed, the splayd’s innovation was the refinement of two outer fork tines, each having a hard, flat edge, suitable for cutting through soft food and they tended to have a geometric rather than a rounded bowl (usually with two longitudinal folds in the metal).  Mrs McArthur used and sold splayds in her Martha Washington Café in Sydney's Martin Place between 1943-1967 and in 1960 sold the manufacturing rights to the Stokes company which instituted some minor changes to the design, making them more easily mass-produced.

Set of six splayds plated in 24 carat gold; most splayds were rendered in 18-8 stainless steel although, especially in England, silver plate items appeared in smaller volumes.

Among some of the middle class seeking to add a layer of something to their dinner parties, splades were often seen and during their heyday in the 1950s & 1960s.  They were also a popular wedding gift and one unintended benefit was their usefulness in aged care and medical rehabilitation facilities, their use recommended for those with feeding difficulties following or during treatment of the arm.  A range was manufactured with the Selectagrip system which featured customizable handles to assist people who had difficulties gripping or manipulating standard utensils.

Lectern

Lectern (pronounced lek-tern)

(1) A reading desk in a church on which is placed the Bible and from which lessons are read (as a lection) during a church service.

(2) A stand (usually with a slanted top), used to hold a book, papers, speech, manuscript, etc, sometimes adjustable in height to suit the stature of different speakers.

1400s: From the late Middle English lectryn, from the Middle English lectron, lectrone and the early fourteenth century lettorne & letron, from the Middle French letrun, from the Old French leitrun & lettrun, from the Medieval Latin lēctrīnum from the Late Latin lēctrum (lectern), from lectus (from which English gained lecture), the construct being the Classical Latin leg(ere) (to read) (or legō (I read, I gather)) + -trum (the instrumental suffix).  The Latin legere (to read (literally "to gather, choose") was from the primitive Indo-European root leg- (to collect, gather) which begat derivatives meaning "to speak” (in the sense of “to pick out words”).  In linguistics, the process by which in the fifteenth century the modern form evolved from the Middle English is called a partial re-Latinization.  The related noun lection was from the Old French lection, from the Latin lēctiōnem, a form of lēctiō, again from legō.  A long obsolete meaning was “the act of reading” but it endured in ecclesiastical use in the sense of (a reading of a religious text; a lesson to be read in church etc (ie the idea of something read aloud from a text “sitting on the lectern” as opposed to sermons and such, delivered from the pulpit).  It was a doublet of lesson.  The noun & vern lecture (something often delivered from a lectern comes from the same Latin source.  Lectern is a noun; the noun plural is lecterns.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (in pantsuits), on the podium, behind the lectern, during her acclaimed lecture tour “The significance of the wingspan in birds & airplane design”.

Some words are either confused with lectern or used interchangeably and in one case there may have been a meaning shift.  In English use, a lectern was originally a stand on which was placed an open Bible.  Made usually either from timber or brass (depending on the wealth or status of the church), they were fashioned at an angle which was comfortable for reading and included some sort of ledge or stays at the bottom to prevent the book sliding off.  A pulpit (inter alia "a raised platform in a church, usually partially enclosed to just above waist height)" was where the minister (priest, vicar, preacher etc) stood when delivering the sermon and in many cases, there were lecterns within pulpits.  Pulpit was from the Middle English pulpit, from the Old French pulpite and the Latin pulpitum (platform).  Podium (inter alia "a platform on which to stand; any low platform or dais") was a general term for any raised platform used by one or more persons.  A lectern might be placed upon a podium and in an architectural sense most pulpits appear on a permanent structure which is podium-like although the term is not part of the language of traditional church architecture.  Podium was from the Latin podium, from the Ancient Greek πόδιον (pódion) (base), from the diminutive of πούς (poús) (foot) and was an evolution of podion (foot of a vase).

Behind what is now the world’s best known lectern, Karoline Leavitt (b 1997; White House Press Secretary since 2025) responds to a question.

In formal settings, the US use often prefers podium and one of the world's more famous podiums is that used for the White House's press briefings, a place that has proved a launching pad for several subsequent, usually lucrative, careers in political commentary.  Some press secretaries have handled the role with aplomb and some have been less than successful including Donald Trump's (b 1946; US president 2016-2021 and since 2025) first appointee Sean Spicer (b 1971; White House Press Secretary & Communications Director 2017), whose brief, not always informative but often entertaining tenure was characterized as "weaponizing the podium", memorably parodied by the Saturday Night Live crew.  

Lindsay Lohan (during brunette phase) at a lectern some might call a rostrum, World Music Awards, 2006.

A dais (inter alia "a raised platform in a room for a high table, a seat of honor, a throne, or other dignified occupancy, such as ancestral statues or a similar platform supporting a lectern or pulpit") is for most practical purposes a podium and thus often effectively a synonym although dais probably tends to be used of structures thought more grand or associated with more important individuals (dead or alive).  There's also a literature detailing support of or objections to the various pronunciations (dey-is, dahy-is & deys-s), most of which are class or education-based.  Dais was from the Middle English deis, from the Anglo-Norman deis, from the Old French deis & dois (from which modern French gained dais), from the Latin discum, accusative singular of discus (discus, disc, quoit; dish) and the Late Latin discum (table), from the Ancient Greek δίσκος (dískos) (discus, disc; tray), from δικεῖν (dikeîn),(to cast, to throw; to strike).  It was cognate with the Italian desco and the Occitan des.

A rostrum (inter alia "a structure used by dignitaries, orchestral conductors etc") is really a lectern with a built in dais.  It's thus an elaborate lectern.  Rostrum was a learned borrowing from the Latin rōstrum (beak, snout), the construct being from rōd(ō) (gnaw) + -trum, from the primitive Indo-European rehd- + -trom.  The early uses were in zoology (beak, snout etc) and naval architecture (eg the prow of a warship), the use in sense of lecterns a back-formation from the name of the Roman Rōstra, the platforms in the Forum from which politicians delivered their speeches (the connection is that the Rōstra were decorated with (and named for) the beaks (prows) of ships famous for being victorious in sea battles.

The ups and downs of the greasy pole: 10 Downing Street's prime-ministerial lectern.  The brace of cast iron fittings on the doorstep were there so people could scrape the mud and muck from the soles of the boots before entering the house.  They were in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a common sight because, like most cities, London’s streets often were an agglomeration of dirt, mud, horse shit and worse.  These days marketing departments would conjure up enticing product names for the things but commerce used to be punchier and, unambiguously, they were advertised variously as “boot scrapers”, “door scrapers”, “shoe scrapers” or “scraper irons”.  Paved streets mean the fittings are now mostly redundant although Number 10 has seen many "boot lickers" (one or two rewarded with a life-peerage and seat in the House of Lords).  Unlike a few recent prime ministers, the boot scrapers have proved durable.

The Times of London published a hexaptych noting the evolution of the prime-ministerial lectern which has become a feature of recent British politics, especially since the increase in the churn-rate.  Whether any psychological meaning can be derived from the style of the cabinet maker’s craft is debatable although some did ponder the use of a dark stain for Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) and the twisted plinth of that made for Liz Truss (b 1975; UK prime-minister Sep-Oct 2022).  The Times did however note a few things including the modest origins of the concept in the lecterns used by Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007) and later by Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010).  Then, the lectern was a simple, off-the-shelf item on dually castors ("casters" in the US and "dually" means each having two wheels, the term borrowed from the US truck market where dual rear-wheels are used on vehicles above a certain load capacity rating although "the look" is popular and often appears on pick-ups rarely used to cart anything) familiar to anyone who has endured PowerPoint presentations and the cables trailing over Downing Street were a reminder of those (now almost forgotten) times when WiFi wasn’t sufficiently robust to be trusted even a few steps from a building.  Also commented upon was that unlike his most recent predecessors who enjoyed their own, custom-made lectern, Rishi Sunak (b 1980; UK prime-minister since 2022) had to use a item recycled from Downing Street stocks (not so bad because in Australia, sometimes prime-ministers are recycled).  Number 10 didn't have a chance to commission a new one because the premiership of Liz Truss was so short (a not quite Biblical "50 days & 49 nights") and her demise so sudden; in her photograph, the fallen autumnal leaves do seem poignant.

Weaponizing the podium: SNL's (NBC's Saturday Night Live) take on then White House Press Secretary & Communications Director Sean Spicer, 2017.

Hellacious

Hellacious (pronounced he-ley-shuhs)

(1) Horrible, awful, hellish, agonizing

(2) Nasty, repellent.

(3) Formidably difficult.

(4) In slang, remarkable, astonishing, unbelievable, unusual.

1930s: US campus slang, the construct being from hell + -acious.  Hell dates from pre 900 and was from the Middle English Hell, from the Old English hel & hell (nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death).  In the sense of “pour” it was cognate with the Old High German hella & hellia (source of the Modern German Hölle), the Icelandic hella (to pour), the Norwegian helle (to pour), the Swedish hälla (to pour), the Old Norse hel & hella and the Gothic halja.  It was related to the Old English helan (to cover, hide) and to hull.  The Old English gained hel & hell from the Proto-Germanic haljō (the underworld) & halija (one who covers up or hides something), the source also of the Old Frisian helle, the Old Saxon hellia, the Dutch hel, the Old Norse hel, the German Hölle & the Gothic halja (hell).  The meaning in the early Germanic languages was derived from the sense of a "concealed place", hence the Old Norse hellir meaning "cave or cavern", from the primitive Indo-European root kel (to cover, conceal, save).  In sacred art, Hell, whether frozen or afire, is often depicted as a cavernous place.  Hell is a noun & verb; hellman, hellcat, hellhound & hellfare are nouns and hellish, helllike, hellproof & helly are adjectives; the noun plural is hells.

In the sense of “the underworld”, it was cognate with the Saterland Frisian Hälle (hell), the West Frisian hel (hell), the Dutch hel (hell), the German Low German Hell (hell), the German Hölle (hell), the Norwegian helvete (hell) and the Icelandic hel (the abode of the dead, death). The English traditions of use were much influenced by Norse mythology and the Proto-Germanic forms.  In the Norse myths, Halija (one who covers up or hides something) was the name of the daughter of Loki who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (from nifl (mist)) and it was not uncommon for pagan concepts and traditions to be grafted onto Christian rituals and idiom.  Hell was used figuratively to describe a state of misery or bad experience (of which there must have been many in the Middle Ages) since the late fourteenth century and as an expression of disgust by the 1670s.  In eighteenth century England, there were a number of Hellfire Clubs, places where members of the elite could indulge their “immoral proclivities”.  The clubs were said to attract many politicians.

The suffix –acious suffix was used to form adjectives from nouns and verb stems and produced many familiar forms (audacious from audacity, sagacious from sage, fallacious from fallacy etc).  There were also formations which became rare or were restricted to specialized fields including fumacious ((1) smoky or (2) fond of smoking tobacco), lamentacious (characterized by lamentation (sorrow, distress or regret)), marlacious (containing large quantities of marl (in geology, a mixed earthy substance, consisting of carbonate of lime, clay, and possibly sand, in very variable proportions, and accordingly designated as calcareous, clayey, or sandy), and punacious (an individual prone to punning (making puns).  The suffix was attractive also when coining fanciful terms such as quizzacious (mocking or satirical (based on the verb quiz (in the sense of “to mock”) and bodacious.  Bodacious remains probably the best known in this genre and seems to have begun as US slang, south of the Mason-Dixon Line and was (as bodaciously) documented as early as 1837 but may previously have been part of the oral tradition.  Etymologists conclude it was either (1) a blend of bold and audacious or a back-formation from bodyaciously (bodily, totally, root and branch) which seems to have been most prevalent is South Carolina where it was used in the sense of “the process of totally wrecking something”.  In the US the word evolved to mean (1) audacious and unrestrained, (2) incorrigible and insolent and (3) impressively great in size, and enormous; extraordinary.  In the early twentieth century, apparently influenced by campus use (presumably male students in this linguistic vanguard) it was a synonym for “a sexy, attractive girl” and this may have influenced users in the internet age who seem to have assumed first element came directly from “body”.

Of being hungry in the heat: Fox News, July 2006.

According to linguistic trend-setters Fox News, “hellacious” is the best word to describe the state of being “hot & hungry” so it’s not a portmanteau like “hangry” (one who is “hungry & angry”, the construct being h(ungry) + angry) but Fox News says it’s the best word so it must be true.  Hellacious was likely from the tradition of audacious, sagacious, vivacious etc and came to be a word with intensive or augmentative force.  Because it can mean something negative (horrible, awful, hellish, agonizing, nasty, repellent etc), something challenging (formidably difficult) or (used as slang) something positive (remarkable, astonishing, unbelievable, unusual), the context in which it’s used can be important in determining quite the sense intended.  Even then, if there’s not enough to work with, an author’s meaning can be ambiguous.  Fort the fastidious the comparative is “more hellacious” and the superlative “most hellacious” and the (rare) alternative spellings are helatious & hellaceous.  Hellacious is an adjective, hellaciousness is a noun, hellaciously is an adverb.

Google ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure).

For technical reasons this should not be taken too seriously but Google’s ngram appears to suggest use of “hellacious” has spiked every time the US has elected as president the Republican Party nominee, sharp increases in use associated with the terms of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989), George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025).  Political junkies can make of this what the will.  Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

“Hellacious” appears in many lists of obscure words, often with an explanatory note with a parenthesized “rare” although nobody seem yet to classify it “archaic” and it’s certainly not “extinct”.  Improbably (or perhaps not), the word made a rare appearance when an E-mail from Sarah, Duchess of York (Sarah Ferguson; b 1959) to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019) was published in England by the tabloid press and what was of interest was (1) her choice of words, (2) the date on which those words were written and (3) her previously expressed views on the man.  What prompted her in 2011 to write the E-mail was Epstein’s reaction to the duchess having a few weeks earlier, in an interview with the Evening Standard, publicly distanced herself from the disgraced financier, apologizing, inter-alia, for having accepted his gift of Stg£15,000, declaring she would “have nothing ever to do with him” again, that her involvement with him had been a “gigantic error of judgment”, adding “I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children”.  She promised never again to make contact.  Just to ensure she got the message across, she concluded: “I cannot state more strongly that I know a terrible, terrible error of judgement was made, my having anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein.  What he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed.”  He had been handed a three year sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

The Duchess of York, who did not say the “P word”.

Despite that unambiguous statement, some weeks later she sent him an E-mail assuring the convicted paedophile she had not in the interview attached the label “paedophilia” to him: “As you know, I did not, absolutely not, say the 'P word' about you but understand it was reported that I did”, adding “I know you feel hellaciously let down by me.  You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family.”  As it transpired, “generous was a good choice of word.  Immediately details of the E-mail were published, the duchess’s office went into SOP (standard operating procedure) “damage control mode”, a spokesperson asserting the E-mail was written in an attempt to counter a threat Epstein had made to sue her for defamation, explaining: “The duchess spoke of her regret about her association with Epstein many years ago, and as they have always been, her first thoughts are with his victims.  Like many people, she was taken in by his lies.  As soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations against him, she not only cut off contact but condemned him publicly, to the extent that he then threatened to sue her for defamation for associating him with paedophilia.”

Some might think it strange one would fear being sued for defamation by a convicted paedophile on the basis of having said “what he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed” but a quirk of defamation law is one can succeed in every aspect of one’s defense yet still be left with a ruinously expensive bill so the spokesperson’s claim the “…E-mail was sent in the context of advice the Duchess was given to try to assuage Epstein and his threats” may be true.  Epstein died by suicide while in custody (despite the rumours he may have been one of the many victims of “Arkancide” and murdered on the orders of crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) there is no evidence to support this) and the duchess’s unfortunate communication was but one of the consequences of Epstein’s conduct, the ripples of which continue to disturb the lives of his many victims and, allegedly, the rich, famous and well-connected who may have been “supplied” with under-age sexual partners from Epstein’s “stock”.  Tellingly there appears to be much more interest in identities of the latter than concern for the former.

Peter Mandelson, 8 August 1988, cibachrome print by Steve Speller (b 1961), Photographs Collection, National Portrait Gallery, London.  In a coincidence, the duchess’s eldest daughter (Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi) was born on 8 August 1988 and in the weird world of the astrologers, the date 8/8/88 is “linked with abundance and is one of the most powerful dates for manifestation in the calendar”.  The date 8/8/88 is also a rather tawdry footnote in Australian political history.  Early in October 1987, the National Party's embattled Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (1911–2005; premier of Queensland 1968-1987) convened a press conference at which he announced he intended to retire on “the eighth of the eighth of eighty-eight”, the significance being that would mark 20 years to the day since he'd been sworn in as premier.  As things turned out, his support within the party collapsed as revelations continued to emerge from an on-going enquiry into corruption in the state and on 1 December 1987 he was compelled to resign, jumping while being pushed along the plank as it were.  Although he was in 1991 tried for perjury and corruption, the trial was abandoned after the jury was unable to agree on a verdict.  It soon emerged that while eleven jury members found the Crown's case as convincing as just about anyone else who heard the evidence, one did not and that was the jury foreman (Luke Shaw, b 1971) who was a member of the “Young Nats” (the National Party's youth wing).  In 1992, the special prosecutor announced the Crown would not seek a second trial on the grounds that, at 81, Sir Joh was “too old”.  Sometimes one gets lucky.

Claims the duchess's former husband (Prince Andrew, Duke of York, b 1960) sexually abused a woman he was introduced to by Epstein were settled out of court (with no admission of liability and the payment of an “undisclosed sum”) and recently, the UK government sacked its erstwhile Ambassador to the US (Lord Mandelson (one time New Labour luminary Peter Mandelson (b 1953)) after revelations emerged confirming his association with Epstein was rather different than what he’d previously disclosed (there has been no suggestion Epstein supplied Lord Mandelson with males younger than the statuary age of consent).  Quite what else will emerge from documents in the hands of a US congressional panel remains to be seen but there’s a groundswell of clamour for complete disclosure and the renitence of the authorities to do exactly that has led to much speculation about “who is being protected and by whom”.  Noting that, many of Epstein’s victims have been in contact with each other and are threatening to compile a list “naming names”; when that is leaked (or otherwise revealed), it will be among the more keenly anticipated documents of recent years.

Also intriguing is whether Lord Mandelson (who has a history of "comebacks from adversity" to rival that of the Duchess of York), might wash up in Gaza as some part of the "interim governing body" Sir Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007) has offered to lead.  Pencilled-in as Gaza's "supreme political and legal authority" for up to five years, reports suggest Sir Tony would preside over a seven person board and a secretariat of two-dozen odd so, given how highly he valued "Mandy's" presence while in Downing Street, he might find somewhere to "slot in" Lord Mandelson.  Of course his Lordship would not be an ideal "cultural fit" for Gaza but as he'd tell Sir Tony, fixing that is just a matter of "media management".  Middle East politics is one thing but what's of interest to the English tabloids and celebrity gossip magazines is whether the (latest) downfall of the Duchess of York is this time “final”.  It was Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, later First Earl of Beaconsfield; UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) who famously observed “finality is not the language of politics” and on countless occasions he’s been proved right but so frequent have been the duchess’s indiscretions the press is (again) asking whether this time there can be no comeback.  The extent of Epstein’s “generosity” was illustrated by uncontested revelations the duchess accepted from him not only the Stg£15,000 to which she admitted but also a further Stg£2 million ($A4 million), needed at the time to stave off bankruptcy.  Despite it all, it still can’t be certain this really is the end of her remarkably durable career as a public figure which has survived many scandals including:

(1) In 1992 (while still married), she was photographed having her toes sucked by a man (not her husband) while enjoying some topless sunbathing.  Interestingly, sex therapists do recommend toe sucking (and other “toe & foot” play) because (1a) the nerves in the feet are sensitive and (1b) toe sucking is likely to be a novel sexual experience, something rare for most jaded adults.  They do however caution the feet should be immaculately clean, prior to beginning any sucking.

(2) In 2010 she was filmed (with a hidden camera) while offering to sell “access” to the Duke of York (for a reputed US$1 million in 2010) before departing the room with a briefcase filled with cash.

Sister Princess Eugenie (Mrs Jack Brooksbank; b 1990, left) and father Prince Andrew (right) looking at Princess Beatrice's soon to be (in)famous Philip Treacy fascinator, Westminster Abbey, London, 29 April 2011.  Until she appeared wearing this construction, most photographs of Princess Beatrice had focused on her lovely sanpaku eyes.  Opinion in the celebrity gossip magazines was divided on whether Eugenie's glance suggested envy or scepticism.

(3) In 2011, she did not prevent her eldest daughter attending the wedding of Prince William (b 1982) and Catherine Middleton (b 1982) while wearing a “distinctive” fascinator by Irish society milliner Philip Treacy (b 1967).  It was derided as a “ridiculous wedding hat” which seems unfair because it was a playful design which wasn’t that discordant upon the head on which it sat and was the only memorable headgear seen on the day, added to which it was symmetrical which is these days is genuinely a rarity in fascinators.  It was later sold at a charity auction for US$131,560 (said to be a record for such creations) so there was that.  Interestingly, some two years after the princess's fascinator made such an impression, the milliner gave an interview to the UK's Sunday Times in which he proclaimed: “The fascinator is dead and I’m delighted.”  Asked why his view had changed, he explained: “The word fascinator sounds like a dodgy sex toy and what’s so fascinating about a fascinator?  Mass production means that they became so cheap to produce that now they are no more than headbands with a feather stuck on with a glue gun. We’re seeing a return to proper hats.”  Clearly, association with a "cheap" product worn by chavs was no place for a "society milliner" although the journalist did suggest the Mr Treacy's change of heart may have followed Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) in 2012 banning fascinators from the Royal Enclosure at the Royal Ascot, meaning the creations were not just passé but proscribed.  If thinking back to that day in Westminster Abbey, the journalist may have been tempted to suggest Mr Treacy write a book called: The Fascinator, My Part in its Downfall but any temptation was resisted.  Despite the obituary, the fascinator seems alive and well and the fashion magazines provide guidance to help race-goers and others pick "a good one" from "a chav one".

Since the 2011 E-mail’s publication, charities, some of which have, through thick & thin, for decades maintained their association, rushed to sever ties with the duchess.  Whether this time it really is the end of her “public life” remains to be seen but if the worst comes to the worst, can always resort to a nom de plume and write another book.  A prolific author, she has published more than two-dozen, mostly children’s titles or romances for Mills & Boon and, despite the snobby views of some, those two genres do require different literary techniques.

Gaza

Nobody seems to have used the word “hellacious” in relation to the state of armed conflict (most having abandoned that euphemism and just calling it a “war”) which has existed in Gaza since October 2023 but, used in the sense of “horrible, awful, hellish or agonizing”, few terms seem more appropriate.  Over the last quarter century odd, the word “Hell” has often appeared in discussions of the Middle East and the events in Gaza have made terms like “Hell on Earth”, “Hellscape” and “Hellish” oft-heard.  In a sense, the war in Gaza is just one more rung on the ladder down which the region has descended ever since many wise souls counseled George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) that were the US to invade Iraq, that would be “opening the gates of Hell”.  One can argue about just when it was since then those gates were opened but in Gaza it does appear they’ve not just been flung open but torn from the hinges and cast to the depths.  What has happened since October 2023 has provided a number of interesting case studies in politics, military strategy and diplomacy, notably the stance taken by the Gulf states but given the extent of the human suffering it does seem distastefully macabre to discuss such things in clinical terms.

What soon became apparent was that Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; prime-minister of Israel 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) had grasped what he regarded as a “once-in-a-lifetime” military and political environment created by the atrocities committed by the Hamas on 7 October 2023; were it not for the historical significance of the term, he’d likely have referred to his strategy as the “final solution to the Palestinian problem” (which at least some of his cabinet seem to equate with “the Palestinian presence”).  The basis of that strategy is the basis also for the dispute which has to varying extents existed since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948: There are two sides, each of which contains a faction which holds a “river to the sea” vision of national exclusivity which demands the exclusion of the other from the land.  Both factions are a minority but through one means or another they have long been the conflict’s political under-current and, on 7 October 2023, they became the central dynamic.  That dynamic’s respective world views are (1) the Palestinian people will not be free until the eradication of the state of Israel and (2) Jews and the state of Israel will not be safe until the removal of Palestinians from the land.  Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet expresses this as “the dismantling of the Hamas” but what they do is more significant than what they say.

Donald Trump (left) and Benjamin Netanyahu (right), the White House, Washington DC, March 25, 2019.

In Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet there is a spectrum of opinion but what appears now most prevalent is the most extreme: That the Palestinians wish to see the Jews eradicated (or exterminated or eliminated) from the land of Israel and as long as they are here the Jews cannot in their own land be safe so the Palestinians must go (somewhere else).  The gloss on the “somewhere else” long has been the mantra “there is already a Palestinian state; it is called Jordan and they should all go and live there” but in the region and beyond, that’s always been dismissed as chimerical.  The “somewhere else” paradigm though remains irresistible for the faction in Israel which, although once thought cast adrift from the moorings of political reality, finds itself not merely in cabinet but, in the Nacht und Nebel (night and fog) of war, able to pursue politics by other means in a way never before possible, the argument being the Hamas attack of 7 October meant the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) were fighting a “just war”, thus the Old Testament style tactics.

In political discourse, the usual advice, sensibly, is that any comparisons with the Third Reich (1933-1945) should be avoided because the Nazis were so bad (some prefer “evil”) that comparisons tend to be absurd.  Historians have however pointed out some chilling echoes from the past in the positions which exist (and publically have been stated by some) in the Israeli cabinet.  Much the same world view was captured in a typically tart Tagebücher (diary) entry by Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) on 27 March 1942:

“A judicial sentence is being carried out against the Jews which is certainly barbaric but which they have fully deserved.  In these matters, one cannot let sentimentally prevail.  If we do not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would exterminate us.  It is a life and dress struggle against the Jewish bacillus.  No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of this question.  Thank God the war affords us a series of opportunities which were denied us in peacetime.  We must make use of them.”

Mr Netanyahu and his cabinet understand what the Hamas did on 7 October created “a series of opportunities” they never thought they’d have and, as the civilian death toll in Gaza (reckoned by September 2025 to be in excess of 65,000) attests, the IDF has made muscular use of the night and fog of war.  Of course the “somewhere else” fantasy of some Israeli politicians remains very different to the mass-murder alluded to by Goebbels or explicitly described by Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) in his infamous speech at Posen in October 1943 but what Mr Netanyahu has called his “historic and spiritual mission” of “generations” is creating a poison which will last a century or more.  For what is happening in Gaza, there seems no better word than “hellacious”.