"RULE Britannia, Britannia rules the waves." That sentiment, albeit in irreverent form must have echoed merrily in quite a few Tory offices this week, as the good ship Portillo headed once more for the iceberg.
The Defence Secretary had been making a good stab at his political rehabilitation, after 1995's disastrous party conference speech in which he tried to appropriate the SAS as the symbol of the Tory right. But he has landed the government - and himself - in a royal mess over the decision to replace the famous yacht at a cost to the taxpayer of £60 million.
The decision itself, the method of arriving at it and its subsequent announcement have embroiled Queen Elizabeth in a party political row, and again cast serious doubts over Mr Portillo's suitability to succeed to the Conservative leadership.
For Mr Portillo (and, it must be said, for Mr John Major) it appeared a terribly smart move. A persuasive paper from the Cabinet Secretary overcame the doubts of the Chancellor, Mr Kenneth Clarke, on the detail and timing of an announcement that Britannia would be replaced.
The new model could provide an important national symbol, serve the needs of a modern monarchy and enhance the government's commercial activities overseas. In keeping with the dignity of the monarchy, it would of course need to be funded publicly. And the amount involved, after all, was relatively small beer.
The hastily taken decision was still more hastily announced. Ministers prepared to bask in the glow of public approbation(really). The queen let it be known that she was pleased an important national asset was to be preserved. And then the whole project turned sour.
In what at first seemed a highly risky strategy, Labour's Gordon Brown advised the Palace that a Labour government would not honour this commitment. Prince Charles let it be known he had doubts about the use of public funds and was miffed not to have been consulted.
More importantly, it emerged that Labour had not been consulted either. Then, amazingly, Mr Portillo gave the game away - telling Sir David Frost that Labour had been "wrong footed" and shown it simply didn't understand the monarchy.
Everybody understood well enough. And Monday's headlines exploded - in the government's face: "Queen drawn into row over royal yacht"; "Queen wins the yachtery." The monarch, no longer a happy bunny, was variously described as "dismayed" and "incandescent" to find herself caught in political crossfire just weeks before a general election.
Sir Edward Heath - never one to miss an opportunity to denounce Mr Portillo - savaged the government, accusing it of conduct which was "not honourable". Ministers had made themselves appear profligate with public funds and "up to trickery" in the run up to the election. The decision should have been postponed until after polling day and "an unnecessary mess" avoided.
The London Times agreed: "The decision to replace Britannia was a good one. But the manner in which it was taken betrayed the desperation of a wounded government and the thoughtlessness of a party bent on securing maximum advantage.
Fervent monarchists were affronted. Downing Street insisted this was a proper decision for government to take. Political wisdom says the Opposition should have been consulted - and that, given consultation, they would almost certainly have agreed. The Tories could still have claimed whatever credit was on offer. As it is, the whole affair has rebounded on them turning perceived advantage to disadvantage for the government as a whole, and for Mr Portillo in particular.
On the Tory right his handling of the issue is taken as further evidence that Mrs Thatcher's anointed is not leadership material.
He had already been trailing behind. People inevitably recalled his indecision during the 1995 leadership contest, when "friends" established a headquarters in readiness for his second ballot effort to succeed Mr Major. For many committed right wingers he falls short of the mark when compared with Mr John Redwood. Mr Redwood resigned, launched his leadership effort and has been on the Tory party's "rubber chicken circuit" ever since.
Even within the constraints of collective cabinet responsibility, Mr Michael Howard has been a more conspicuous and consistent champion of Euro scepticism. And some Tory sources say the Home Secretary is now the front runner to succeed, should Mr Major lose the election, because Mr William Hague, at 34, is too young.
As one former Portillo fan put it yesterday: "He claimed Labour didn't understand the monarchy. But actually he's shown that he doesn't understand it very well. He is undoubtedly very clever but there's a part of him that hasn't grown up. He doesn't seem able to see politics in any other context than scoring points against the Labour Party."
And then the wounding afterthought: "And it's probably a bit rich for the British public getting all this patriotic fervour from Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo."
Ouch! A rough old trade is politics, as Mr Portillo and Mr Major have discovered anew. For even as the Prime Minister prepares to launch his election campaign, the party appears consumed by the question of who will come after him. Mr Clarke the other night warned cabinet colleagues to be ultra careful in their pronouncements given the media's obsession with the matter of the succession.
Oh yes, and then there was something in the papers yesterday confirming that the Chancellor too would like to be prime minister. What a bunch!