In an article in today’s Mail on Sunday, Katie Nicholl reports that friends of Prince William and Kate Middleton believe that an engagement announcement is planned for “just before or just after Christmas,” and that a wedding could be in May or June.

If an earlier story is true that Kate will not be at Sandringham until Boxing Day (December 26), it will clearly be just after, which seems like perfect timing to catch the world’s headlines.

The article, however, maintains the Mail’s new policy of acknowledging the Kate-hating crowd of spitting and cursing opponents of her match with the world’s most eligible batchelor. A section of the piece reprints some of the vituperative comments from the paper’s website.

A careful reading of the article reveals it’s in two parts. The first reflecting opinions of some Buckingham Palace courtiers, while the second part concentrates on the view from Clarence House.

These two courts have been at loggerheads with each other since the days of Diana, Princess of Wales. It seems the dogs of war have been unleashed again on the subject of the entirely innocent and inexperienced figure of Kate Middleton.

As Royal Anecdotes reported some months ago, there appears to be a growing faction of “courtiers” at the Palace who oppose the wedding of the two young people. They freely quote the Queen as insisting Kate should get a job and that “she’s not proactive enough.”

I believe there may be some noises of disquiet, particularly from Prince Philip, at the lack of a firm decision on this match. One can imagine him stating that Kate really should be doing something else while she waits. The aim, though, may be to prompt William into “marrying the girl, or letting her go” — a statement attributed to Prince Philip two years ago.

The anti-Kate faction in the Palace has picked up on this theme and translated it as the Queen’s wish that Kate “got a job.” This then becomes “work for a charity.” Have they forgotten that Kate was involved with a charity cross-Channel dragon-boat race last year but was asked to pull out for safety reasons by Clarence House? A dig at Prince Charles’s press team, perhaps?

The article ends with extensive quotes from the Clarence House viewpoint which show the truth at the heart of this story:

Despite this reluctance to co-operate with the Press, Kate’s friends say she has access to Press officers and senior aides at Clarence House, where she is free to come and go at her leisure.

“Kate has a hotline to Clarence House and she listens to everything the Royal aides tell her to do,” said a friend. “When they advised her to pull out of the cross-Channel dragon boat race last summer, she did it immediately. Kate is approached about doing lots of things but the Clarence House staff are often against her taking part because they think it’s too high-profile and they want to keep Kate out of the limelight. She’s in a bit of a Catch 22 situation.”

Royal Anecdotes believes that what is happening to Kate Middleton is very close to persecution. The wave of teenage angst she has had to face from many downmarket websites, including the Mail’s (which is moderated), is almost beyond belief since very few of the trolls will ever have met her. To quote the Kate-haters as proof of anything rational is tantamount to giving up on moderate and accurate journalism.

We’ve long stated that only a quick resolution by Prince William will spare his long-time girlfriend this avalanche of mindless criticism.

We are delighted that an announcement looks possible from Sandringham at Christmas.

The jury in the Diana, Princess of Wales inquest today returned a verdict of unlawful killing through negligent driving by Henri Paul in the Mercedes and the vehicles of the paparazzi.

They singled out Henri Paul’s drink driving as a contributory factor for the crash in the Alma Tunnel in Paris in which she and Dodi Fayed were killed on August 31, 1997.

They were being followed by paparazzi after leaving the Ritz Hotel, and a large amount of evidence centred on how closely they had followed the Mercedes in the minutes before the crash.

At last the focus of the blame is being turned from the outrageously improbable conspiracy theories to the real culprits : the Ritz Hotel’s security arrangements and the chasing pack of photographers who appear to have had Henri Paul in their pockets.

All this has been clear since the French magistrate’s meticulous report many years ago.

An interesting point arising is that the verdict clashes with that of the Paget Report by Scotland Yard, which concluded it was “a tragic accident”. The jury has defined culpability here and that has not pleased Mohamed Fayed whose representatives still maintain his blame-deflecting case.

This verdict leaves him open to private prosecutions for what the jury calls “gross negligence”.

Lord Justice Scott Baker has started his summing up of the Diana Inquest in London. He began by stating that “there is not a shred of evidence of any conspiracy” to murder Diana by any person or government agency. It seems even Mohamed al Fayed’s lawyers are no longer making that claim.

Prince Philip, maliciously accused of a conspiracy to murder Diana

However, the judge has left the way open for an Unlawful Killing verdict by either Henri Paul, who drove the car while under the influence of alcohol, or the paparazzi, who chased the vehicle into the Alma tunnel that night.

The evidence also points to Henri Paul having tipped off the paparazzi that Diana would be leaving by the rear entrance of The Ritz Hotel in Paris. He appears to have received a cash payment for this transaction.

A verdict of Accidental Death seems more likely, but if Unlawful Killing due to Henri Paul’s actions is handed down by the jury, probably next week, it leaves the way open for massive damages claims against Mohamed al Fayed by all who have been traduced and falsely accused by him over the past decade.

It is unlikely that the most persistently accused, the Duke of Edinburgh, will take any action now.

Lord Justice Scott Baker is totally vindicated in his controversial decision to widen the scope of the Inquest to cover every aspect of the wilder conspiracy claims. There can be no doubt that what happened that night was a tragic accident, caused by a catalogue of events involving alcohol, drugs, bad decisions and minor betrayals, but above all, an almost total lack of security cover at The Ritz Hotel in Paris.

Why did Diana only have one bodyguard to protect her? And why did she make that fateful journey with no backup vehicle following behind?

With daughter-in-law Sophie — the Countess of Wessex and wife of Prince Edward — absent on baby production duties over Christmas, the Queen will miss her company over the holiday season, we’re told.

Sophie is a favourite companion of the Monarch, providing welcome female chatter amid the male talk of the rest of the family. She also remains with the Queen when the men embark on their traditional Boxing Day shoot at Sandringham.

Sophie will be admitted to Frimley Park Hospital on December 21 for a planned Caesarean, hoping to take the new baby home to Bagshot Park on Christmas Eve.

——————————————————-

Prince Charles and Camilla will spend only a short time at Sandringham this Christmas. Arriving late on Christmas Eve, they will depart for Balmoral after the Boxing Day shoot.

With Princes William and Harry also anxious to get back to London and their friends, it will be a short and unusually quiet holiday season this year in Royal Norfolk.

——————————————————-

When Earl Peel, the Lord Chamberlain, announced at a reception at Buckingham Palace last week that the Queen would not be retiring any time soon, he is said to have received a rousing cheer.

The thought of the Queen retiring is enough to ruin many people’s Christmas spirit, but has not been an issue since her 80th birthday passed without carpet bags at dawn. I wonder why it was necessary for Peel to reiterate this now?

——————————————————-

With the interminable Diana Inquest appearing to be hurtling towards an inevitable Accidental Death verdict, the “Dearest Pa” letters between a clearly affectionate Prince Philip and an appreciative Princess Diana have garnered a lot of coverage and comment in the press.

Attempts to blacken the name of the bluff war hero have diverted attention from his sterling qualities as head of the Royal Family. While Philip can be outspoken at times, his heart has always been in the right place — in support of the Queen.

——————————————————-

As 2007 draws to a close how will the Queen assess it?

Royal Anecdotes imagines her delighted at the arrival of a new grandchild; glad that a succession of major anniversaries are finally over; and looking forward to the first of what could be many Royal Weddings in the spring — that of Peter Philips and Autumn Kelly at Windsor in May.

Despite all the minor problems the flesh is heir to, that’s not a bad haul of good news to concentrate on.

Merry Christmas.