The Earl and Countess of Wessex have named their daughter Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten-Windsor.

The latest addition to the Royal Family, born less than three weeks ago, will be known as Lady Louise Windsor, said a Palace spokeswoman.

Edward and Sophie, the Earl and Countess, have decided, with the Queen’s consent, not to style their daughter “Her Royal Highness”.

Instead, she will use the title of a daughter of an earl.

Although her full surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, she will only use Windsor.

… a brand new look for the coming year. I think I have settled on this for a while. The past designs of the site this year have been an interim since the Golden Jubilee theme.

Now, I have come to the conclusion that this is the best look. I hope you like it.

Yahoo! News:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who only just finished entertaining his last American guest, plays the animated host to Homer Simpson in the hit US cartoon “The Simpsons.”

Blair recorded three lines of dialogue for the show in April.

The episode, titled “The Regina Monoligues,” shows an animated version of the British leader giving tourism tips to Homer and his family.

The episode also features the voice of Harry Potter author JK Rowling and actor Sir Ian McKellan.

He is the first British leader to appear in Fox television’s long-running show, although former US presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Jimmy Carter have lent their voices to the series.

I’ve just seen live coverage of the State Banquet, with Her Majesty and President Bush speaking. They toasted each other and the national anthems for the US and UK were played.

It was a splendid moment, and the Queen looked beautiful. I thank her so much for inviting our President to England.

It also pleases me to no end that our head of state is related (albeit distantly) to the Queen. :-) Our nations are inextricably linked… God Bless the USA, and God Save the Queen!

Donald “Ducky” Reardon – We will miss you.

Love from us all.

I am suspicious of these latest rumors on Charles, and with good reason. Here is a theory of mine based on the facts thus far…

A member of Prince Charles’s personal staff – Michael Fawcett – had supposedly raped another member of staff. Diana supposedly recorded the allegations from the alleged ‘victim’.

The man who charges that he was raped happens to be well-known as unstable. Police investigated previous claims and there was no evidence to prove them true. So Diana recording these allegations sounds like potential blackmail to me. It was too good an opportunity to embarrass Charles. Never mind if the guy has been disproven. That brings us to:

The date that the allegations first surfaced – 1996, the year of the divorce. It has been said that Diana never wanted a divorce. Of course not! Why would she want to lose her prestige and power? She wouldn’t want to lose her connections to the establishment who gave her everything she had. So the sudden appearance of these tapes, made in 1989 when the rape supposedly happened, would now come in handy. If that got everyone riled up, then there certainly would be no time to discuss divorce. Or, if the divorce were to still happen, Diana could feel justified in grabbing everything she possibly could in terms of more money, the title, etc. because Charles would look like the bad guy. Or at least the wierdo.

The point is, I get the feeling that this latest barrage is something else to try and deflect confidence in Charles. Burrell claiming he had these tapes would do just that. Then pile on the fact that Charles is having secret ‘gay trysts’. Heap that on top of the divorce, and it would surely drag HRH into the muck.

Speaking of the divorce, that, and one other item is a point of contention with me.

Think of Princess Margaret in a case like this. The public thought it would be alright for her to marry her true love, Peter Townsend, even though he was divorced. However, when she said that she would stick to her duty instead, people were rather annoyed that Margaret seemed to be pushed into that decision. No Peter Townsend, simply because he was a divorced man? That didn’t seem right, they thought.

Now, along comes Charles all this time later, and when he and Diana need to get a divorce, everyone freaks out and acts like the Prince is some insane, cruel husband. But when you think about it, didn’t he just want a divorce so that Diana could be free to be happy with someone else, and he could be happy with Camilla? Camilla, his true love. Why do people accept Margaret’s love for someone, divorced though he may be, but when Charles wants to get divorced for the sake of his and his wife’s sanity, he’s ‘horrible’ and ‘unfit’ to be king? Margaret was not going to be queen officially, but remember that in the beginning of her controversy, she was 3rd in line for the throne and would act as regent if the Queen became incapacitated. You see what I am getting at?

And remember all the hoopla surrounding HM’s speech about never abdicating? The media decided that meant a vote of no confidence in Charles. That Her Majesty would reveal that in her speech didn’t show her duty to the nation, but her ‘lack of confidence’ in her heir.

I beg your pardon, but the fact that the Queen said she’ll never bow out of her position reflects the rule: you reign until death. Except in the extreme case of the Duke of Windsor, that’s how it goes. Otherwise, what is the point of hereditary monarchy? The media knows this is the rule, it has always been the rule. The fact that they ignore it shows that they are careless at best, conniving at worst.

I have a feeling that it’s all a plan to deflect confidence in Charles, as I mentioned previously. And who better to do that than the media? Charles isn’t their style in terms of selling papers, so if they can somehow persuade the nation into dismissing him as the next king, they can move right on to William – tall, blond, and handsome – hoping he’ll be another glamourous mess like Diana who will cry to the papers over every aspect of royal life.

God give me strength.