So, in the run-up to the year's big event this spring, how are the two main parties faring? Labour still ahead of the Tories, do I hear you say?

Probably not. For you will have guessed that it is not the general election, still unannounced, that I have in mind. A more definite fixture, if not absolutely hard and fast until the very day, the Royal wedding is a more bloody battleground, ferociously fought over by the parties of Buck House and Clarence House.

According to The Sunday Telegraph, generally well up in these matters, Buck House, headed of course by the Queen, feels it has "out-manoeuvred'' Clarence House, HQ of Prince Charles.

The Queen's decision to boycott (sorry, not attend) her son's wedding stems, says the ST, from her conviction that Charles has "put his own gratification before duty''. Substitute "happiness'' for "gratification'' and you have a different thought altogether.

The Queen, it seems, has learned nothing from the past crises - the abdication of Edward VIII and the shattered romance of Princess Margaret - provoked by this same perceived split.

But where, precisely, does this split lie? How will Prince Charles's marriage to Camilla prevent him from serving dutifully? The split rests solely on the absurdity of the monarch's role as head of the Church of England, from which, in multi-faith Britain, the monarchy should now be divorced.

Meanwhile, Buck House is also said to have felt that the Queen's presence at a "town hall'' wedding, would "demean her status''. Ye gods. To most couples planning a civil wedding Windsor's Guildhall will look like the registry office of dreams.

Even now, the Queen would do herself a lot of good by deciding to attend the wedding, both to show support for her son and his future wife, as most mothers would, and to seize the opportunity - yes, it is an opportunity - to come down to her subjects' level a bit more meaningfully than having a cup of tea in a council house once or twice in a very long reign.

Unless rugby union has changed completely since I played and, later, toiled as a rugby correspondent, the key aim in the game is to ground the ball over the opposing side's goal line. So when, at international level, a team that fails to touch down once beats opponents that do by 18 points to ten, with all their points gained by static kicks, as Scotland's were against Italy last weekend, it surely reveals a fundamental flaw in the sport. Of course this flaw was dramatically exposed in England's World Cup "triumph" by Jonny Wilkinson's boot. Among rugby union fans, the over-dependence on place kicking in what is supposed to be primarily a handling game is the truth that dares not speak its name.

Sent out to do some shopping last Saturday, I spent 20 minutes sitting in the supermarket car park. Why? Because I couldn't tear myself away from a fascinating Radio 4 programme about Yes Minister. Broadly confirming the accuracy of the series, the programme was compiled and presented by William Hague.

Well done William. Top marks. But can you assure us you didn't bunk off from Parliamentary duties to make the programme? Pity Yes Minister never dealt with MPs' outside earnings.