This has produced thundering headlines in the newspapers: Corbyn snubs the Queen, and so on.
Ah, but he hasn’t, say the Corbynites who took to Twitter (why must people always “take to Twitter” in media parlance?) to declare that it is just a diary clash. This is another row all got up by the newspapers, claimed the Corbynites. It took Cameron months to attend Privy Council when he became opposition leader in 2005.
So, there is no snub then? Corbyn is in the clear. No, not so fast. The chaotic Corbyn operation seems merely to have adopted a holding position while it works out what to do.
The problem with this is that the Corbyn pitch rests on him being a man of supposed great principle, a radical republican socialist who will not compromise his views. If that really is the case then surely he should shrug and say “yes, it’s a snub. I don’t believe in the monarchy” (which he doesn’t.) That’s what a man of solid principle would do, surely?
Or is the true position that he now realises being opposition leader involves a degree of ceremonial duty, and part of that is doing what is obliged of him by the monarch? Is he afraid to tell his supporters for fear of being accused of being a sell-out?
Which is it? Are the Corbynites content that he will bow in front of the Queen, eventually, or are they saying he will snub her to make a point?
Whatever the answer, hiding behind a diary clash and having to explain why you are too busy to see the most popular women in the country, makes him look less like Stalin and more like a great, big scaredy cat.
Indeed, it becomes ever more apparent, as Corbyn ties himself in knots, attempting to reconcile his agit-prop 1970s hard left principles with the demands of leadership, that the man is a complete twit.