I was surprised to see the Sunday Times referring this week to the Duchess of Cornwall as "Camilla Parker Bowles". Had Style's sub-editor's forgotten her rather well-publicised appointment at the altar in April 2005 with the Prince of Wales? The reference was made in an index page plug for Camilla's "Sixtysomething makeover". "Doesn't Camilla Parker Bowles look fabulous?", trilled the newspaper, to which many of its readers will probably have replied: "No." Others might possibly be rallying to the republican cause having learned that she spends an obscene £40,000 a year on her hair. This is rather more, I think, than even Cherie Blair squandered on her dishevelled barnet.

The 'Parker Bowles' business is, I suppose, another instance of the inaccuracy of so many newspapers these days in the matter of titles. There was a good (or rather bad) example of this a couple of weeks ago in the Daily Telegraph in its report on the inquest into the death of Lord Michael Pratt. After a first reference to him by his correct name, as above, he was repeatedly called thereafter "Lord Pratt". There is no excuse for this since the report made clear he was the son of a marquess and therefore permitted (as duke's offspring are) the Lord Christian name surname style. (Unfairly, as it's always seemed to me, the sons of earls must make do with being mere 'honourables', while their sisters get to be ladies.) The sub-editors would have got Lord Michael's name right, incidentally, if they had looked up his Telegraph obituary. They would also have found a good story about his Oxford days. Arriving at Balliol, he took exception to the state of his rooms and immediately went off to stay at the Randolph Hotel. He moved into the college only after his mother, the Marchioness, had busied herself with a bucket and mop to render his rooms habitable.