Glad the weather’s not treating you as badly as it threatened.  We had a little icesnow on the driveway this morning.  You know, the kind of snow that looks like powdery white snow, until you try to shovel it.  Then it reveals it’s true nature about 1/4 inch down.  Not having the time to do the driveway completely, as I was on my way to work, I just threw a bunch of salt down.  That seemed to get the job done. 

Mmmm… real maple syrup.  Enough said. 

Oh yes, mmmmmm, maple syrup. And Maple sugar candy. I love the hard lumps of maple sugar. Sometimes I can get little bags of misshapen lumps of maple sugar that came out of the candy molds all crooked, for half the price of the pretty leaf shaped candies. Let them melt on the tongue. They’re also good to drop into the hollowed out parts of an acorn squash while baking. With a pool of butter. Makes my mouth water just thinking about it!

I totally agree about Charles and Camilla.  But I do have to wonder what the difference is in being called the “royal mistress” and the “royal consort"--aren’t both words similar? Obviously yesterday had to be a slow news day or else people seriously believe we give a rat’s A**!!

As for Maple Syrup--my brother makes and sells it (in Ipswich) and has done for years.  Last year was dismal for him and of course, the price of what he had was insane--hopefully this year will be better.  I remember tapping trees when I was a kid and being determined to make maple syrup--and I did a few times--but it takes GALLONS and GALLONS to make a very small amount of syrup--lots of work, little rewards--but oh, sooooo good!!

Well, somewhere back in the dustbin of linguistic history, consort was a common word for married partner. Often it referred to royalty, but not always. Several years ago, in the process of photographing and writing down the histories of very old local family cemeteries, I came across a number of old headstones that referred to deceased wives as consorts. I’m pretty sure there wasn’t any royalty involved and I’m pretty sure they were married, given the number of children also buried in the plots. It just seemed to be a term commonly used. Evidently, the British monarchy is still attached to archaic language.

All we got were some snow flurries yesterday.  But I didn’t drive at all yesterday, so for all I know the roads were icy.  And it did mark the end of those warmer days.  It’s pretty cold again, and the wind was howling like in a spooky movie last night.

As for Charles & Camilla… I don’t get why anyone really cares.  That’s the problem I think, actually, that people care.  From what I see, their dysfunction was brought on by the dysfunction involved with “the royal family” trying to carry on with Old English ‘Society’ social traditions in modern times with modern lifestyles all around them.  Which I think is why I find the monarchy so horribly inappropriate.  As far as I’m concerned the royal family is the same as the people who go on those talk shows like Jenny Jones & Jerry Springer.  I think it’s a case where the phrase, “there are no victims, just volunteers” applies pretty well.  They could just say “no, we don’t want to carry on this farce anymore”, after all.  There are plenty of countries who get along just as well without a royal family or a defunct monarchy.

Getting along without maple syrup is another story entirely.  ;)

I’ve heard speculation that when QE dies, the whole King/Queen thing might go with her. But I wouldn’t count on it.

On the other hand, if the royal family could live like normal people without all those dumb rules of antiquated social tradition, they and everyone else would be happier. Charles should have married Camilla 30 years ago. No reason why he shouldn’t have except she wasn’t “good enough.” Now in the shadow of Charles and Diana, she looks like a pretty good deal. Maybe they’ve all learned something.

Or not.