They say women do things differently. That is amply proved by the blossoming relationships between the Queen, Sarah Brown, and Michelle Obama, wife of the US President.

By contrast, Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have often seemed icily distant.

Andrew Alderson is reporting that the Queen agreed to a request from Mrs Obama for a rare guided tour of Buckingham Palace during a visit to London last week with her two daughters, Malia, and Sasha.

They were shown around the Palace and its 40 acres of gardens on Wednesday, their final day of a sightseeing trip to the capital.

The Obamas were also shown around 10 Downing Street, historic home/office of British Prime Ministers by the PM’s wife, Sarah Brown. Michelle is said to have established a close friendship with both Sarah and Her Majesty during the G20 summit held in London in April.

The tour of the Palace was believed to be a birthday treat for Sasha Obama, whose eighth birthday it was. Reports say they were warmly greeted by the Queen at the end of their hour-long visit.

“According to insiders, the Queen and Mrs Obama have become confidantes after finding they share a number of interests, including a fondness for the countryside, gardening and clothes. The Queen and Mrs Obama hit it off when President Barack Obama and his wife were on an official visit to Britain for the G20 summit.”

Apparently, the two women affectionately hugged each other during a photo call.

“Such intimacy from the Queen towards a foreign dignitary is believed to be unprecedented. … Before saying their goodbyes in early April, the Queen was overheard telling America’s First Lady: ‘Now we have met, would you please keep in touch?’ ”

Reports say the Queen and Michelle have exchanged letters and spoken by phone.

“… informed sources are convinced that the friendship will be lasting, despite the significant age difference between the two women, the Queen is 83 and Mrs Obama is 45, and their very different levels of experience and backgrounds.”

Despite the view that the Obama Presidency would be distinctly anti-British, it’s actually turning out to be very different. We excuse the President’s natural distaste for Gordon Brown, of course.

The Queen has acted promptly to head off a constitutional crisis following Gordon Brown’s inept attempt to win over a few Catholic votes in Scotland by threatening to butcher the 1701 Act of Settlement.

The Act of Settlement 1701

Buckingham Palace has indicated that the Queen will not even consider consenting to any carve up of the constitution until all Dominion Parliaments have agreed to it. That could take years, by which time Brown will just be an unpleasant memory in recent history.

Brown’s party politicking with the Monarchy reveals the depths of this man’s chicanery. Set to be comprehensively bundled out of office by the electorate, any device is now fair game to him. He is a dangerous, out-of-control head of government who could do even more damage to the country before he is sacked by the people.

Some months ago I called for him to be impeached. Today, Simon Heffer in the Telegraph makes the same demand.

The Queen can no longer cry, “Off with his head!”, but a constutional equivalent is available to her. Such is the state of the country’s finances, with even the Governor of the Bank of England making the short journey to the Palace to confer with her last week, it should not be difficult for Brown to be sacked, or for Parliament to be dissolved pending a swift General Election.

A republican constitution is the last thing the public wishes for. As historian Andrew Roberts puts it: “… the Act of Settlement is not the bigoted, irrelevant and obsolete law that Downing Street presents it as – it is one of the key pieces of legislation that has defined what Britain was and still is. … Britain is a Protestant country today largely because of the Act of Settlement. It secured the Hanoverian succession 13 years after the Glorious Revolution replaced the Catholic King James II with the Protestant William III (of Orange) and Mary II.” — Link to article.

Any politician who thinks that the Constitution can be made a political football should be dismissed from his post, no matter how lofty it is.

Once again we enter familiar territory: will they, won’t they?

I refer, of course, to that pair of star-tossed lovers, Prince William and Kate Middleton.

They have spent some time together up in arctic Birkhall on the Balmoral Estate in Scotland, causing the usual flurry of anticipation and speculation in the British press and more distant publications around the globe.

I have held off writing about this because I have been here before. Many times before. Too many times before to want to go through the rigmarole again.

However, since events are coming to a head on Friday — Kate’s 27th birthday — and next week, when William begins up to seven years’ service with the RAF, Royal Anecdotes has to say something about the situation.

Firstly, I suspect William joined Charles and Camilla up in Birkhall because of the Queen’s wish not to have the second-in-line to the Throne following the playboy circuit abroad at a time of grave economic stress for her subjects.

The apparent invitation to Kate’s parents, Carole and Michael, may have been out of simple politeness. After all, their daughter has been left dangling for seven years. A Royal expression of favour would make a lot of difference to an ordinary family in extraordinary circumstances.

At the very least Kate’s loyalty deserves a word or two about their future prospects, if only to discourage that dismissive nickname, Waity Katie.

Of course, the elaborate build-up now may be just be a nice way of acknowledging her steadfast friendship without damaging her reputation. As the years of service go by, William would then feel free to find someone else. Kate would more than likely do the same. This feels more like a fanfare and send-off for a Prince about to dedicate a fair portion of his life to dangerous public service.

We won’t know until William is safely tucked up in his new training school. If it hasn’t happened then, it probably never will.

I have to say, there’s very little obvious activity suggesting a Royal engagement right now. But a low-key announcement can’t be entirely ruled out.

Leading us into the year 2009 is an intriguing new book on the British Monarchy by an avowed Irish republican.

You might think that it’s bound to be critical, even abusive. However, this particular Irish republican just happens to be Mary Kenny, an excellent journalist and author with an always sensitive but nevertheless robust view of the world.

She writes admiringly about the Monarchy through the times of Irish unrest and heaps praise on our present Queen. It’s an interesting point of view from an unusual perspective.

Mary Kenny has written a pre-publication article about her book in the Daily Telegraph. Here’s an excerpt:

Perhaps it takes someone with a genuinely republican background to appreciate the value of the British monarchy. I was brought up in Dublin as an Irish nationalist, and I retain that stamp of Irish patriotism. I am proud of the constitution of the Irish Republic, a pioneering document in 1937. … I came to my appreciation of the British monarchy sideways, through examining the historical archives of the role played by the British monarch in Anglo-Irish relations over the 20th century.

I don’t know about you but I shall get my order in early at Amazon.

Finally, a very happy, peaceful and prosperous New Year to all our Readers.

Crown and Shamrock: ­Love and Hate between Ireland and the British Monarchy will be published in spring 2009.

Read the article here.