Watching the Royal Wedding unfold, I must confess to being in a state of flux. The day has been tremendous, a really special date for Britain and, at a human level, watching people that you think you know celebrating a momentous day can only be enjoyable unless you have the hardest of hearts.
However, from a theoretical standpoint, I just can’t shake the notion that the very idea of a ‘Royal Family’ is wrong, the concept of people working hard to make ends meet and paying taxes to have a family live amidst such pomp and ceremony is, well, bonkers, surely?
So how can we square the circle? How can we keep the history, the tradition, the lineage and the good parts of the Royal Family while consigning the outdated and thoroughly unmodern aspects of royalty to the history books? Well, there might be a way.
We could turn the Royal Family into a publicly listed company, float it on the London Stock Exchange and ensure that the finance it requires to sustain itself is raised privately rather than through the taxpayer. A controlling 51% stake could remain with the British state but 49% of shares in the Royal Family could be put out on the open market where Brits, Americans, Aussies, Europeans and whoever would lap them up. Instead of dividends, shareholders could receive invites to state functions, private dinners or even high tea with specific individulas in the Family. If anyone wanted to use the Royal Family then they could pay a recharge, the entity itself would be up for hire as it were and, if today is anything to go by (global audience of 2bn) demand would always exceed supply.
Britain could move into the modern world by ending the notion of being born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth and the Royal Family would be seen to be earning its keep. British ‘subjects’ could rejoice in their representatives with renewed fervour and for those that are really taken by the Royal Family, they can literally buy into the institution.
Anyway, just an idea, but back to Wills and Catherine in their open topped carriage now. A great day for a great couple and a great Great Britain.
#1 by holyroodpatter on April 29, 2011 - 12:19 pm
With or without the monarchy, buck palace would make a fortune as a five star 300 room hotel
#2 by Grant Thoms on April 29, 2011 - 12:22 pm
how very capitalist of you to privatise the Royal Family plc. Is that a new green/socialist take on ‘republicanism’?
#3 by Jeff on April 29, 2011 - 12:27 pm
Well, why not let the invisible hand decide whether the supposedly outdated institution should stand or fall in the 21st century.
On a separate note, is the idea of Scottish independence taking a pounding today? I suspect it is.
#4 by Richard on April 29, 2011 - 12:45 pm
I don’t really believe it is, but it’s amazing how people can get caught up in the media-induced frenzy. Switch of the TV and take a cold shower!
#5 by Doug Daniel on April 29, 2011 - 1:03 pm
Independence doesn’t necessarily have to remove the Queen as head of state – Australia is independent, Canada is independent etc. If people really want the Royal Fmaily, then that doesn’t have to deter them for voting for independence. It’s not even SNP policy – note that Nicola Sturgeon is leading proceedings for the SNP today because Big Eck is at the wedding. Might be a different matter if Roseanna Cunningham was leader…
However, it would be a bit ridiculous for people to vote for independence – thereby taking Scotland’s powers back – but continue to be subservient to a bunch of people who history dictates are better than the rest of us, for no discernable reason other than who their ancestors are? You have to wonder – how many of these people who have queued up for days to get a good spot to see the happy couple have ever asked themselves what they love about the royal family? DO they really have such low opinions of themselves that they think they are lesser people than the royal family?
Just think about it. How ridiculous is it that Kate will now be bowed to by millions of people, just because she married someone? Yesterday, she was the same as everyone else – today, she’s a whole different species, a supreme being. Is she, though?
No ill meant towards the happy couple – it’s nice to see anyone finding happiness in their lives – but when I watch bits of the wedding today, all I can see is millions of people effectively walking about with signs on their heads saying “I AM A SUB-HUMAN BEING.”
#6 by Allan on April 29, 2011 - 3:05 pm
Here here!!!!
#7 by Jeff on April 30, 2011 - 1:42 pm
Well, who is more “sub-human”, people who use the wedding as an opportunity for a day out in London/street party in the community or those who are going berserk at two people getting and the ceremony/analysis being on tv.
And given Kate changed her vows from “obey” to “keep” I don’t think ‘her Highness’ will be expecting anyone to bow anytime soon.
Royal Families are part of our history and present whether we like it or not so there’s no point railing against that. It doesn’t have to be part of our future and it’s fair game to campaign accordingly. Funny though, for all this supposed Scottish outrage, I can’t recall any parties standin at election calling for the Royal Family to be scrapped.
There does need to be a change but days lime yesterday do remind me that I care much less about it than I sometimes think I do.
#8 by Doug Daniel on May 1, 2011 - 8:38 am
Neither is more sub-human, which is exactly my point. We’re all human beings, and that includes the royal family who are no further along the evolution chain than any of the people who lined the streets to cheer them. Yet the way these people spoke about them, you would think the royal family were a super-race. Kate Middleton is no different to any other upper middle class, slightly posh, attractive-in-a-bland-way woman, yet she will now have people bowing to her as if she is a more complete human being than the rest of us. It doesn’t really matter what Kate’s vows were, or even if she asks people not to bow in front of her – the fact is these people will bow in front of her, because the simple act of marrying a royal elevates her to super-human status.
The sycophancy of people when presented with a member of the royal family just really turns my stomach, and it makes me feel so embarrassed for these people. They’re almost as bad as Nicholas Witchell – a man whose job is to witter on about what “quaint” things the royals do (“oh look, they’re playing football, they’re just like us!”) like a good little peasant, despite having been slagged off on camera a few years ago by prince Chuck. Someone needs to tell that guy to get some cojones.
Incidentally, I think the main reason no one campaigns on an anti-royal ticket is because they are largely irrelevant, particularly as they seem like more of an English thing, which is probably helped by foreigners calling them “Queen of England” or “future King of England” and the likes. With the exception of Crown estates, Scotland’s progress isn’t really hindered by the royal famly, certainly not to the extent of the Union. It’s better to fight one battle at a time – after all, we can have independence without republicanism, but we can’t have republicanism without independence. Well, unless England decided to make the UK a republic (United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?)
#9 by Jeff on May 1, 2011 - 1:32 pm
But people clearly love it and, if so, what’s the problem? I have heard the stories that Prince Charles has 8 eggs cooked in a morning, a range of runniness from firm to soft, and he picks the one he wants. Who knows if it is true or not but I don’t doubt there’s some serious issues with the Royal Family that I will always struggle to get onboard with but… it draws in tourists, most people in the UK are in favour of it and it makes for entertaining copy and great tv every now and again. Where’s the harm in a majority playing along and kowtowing to a Royal Family that, everyone knows, is no better or worse than the rest of us.
So yes, I do get what you’re saying and we even seem to agree that they are pretty irrelevant into the bargain.
#10 by Doug Daniel on May 1, 2011 - 3:11 pm
Well, my answer to the tourism argument would of course be that while it brings in tourists to London, this would mean nothing to an independent Scotland. Much as I don’t care how England generates energy, stores nuclear weapons or elects governments, it doesn’t bother me how they attract tourists. Tourists would still come to see Buck Palace and the likes though, because I would argue that like most tourist attractions, it’s the history that people come for, not the present.
If people genuinely are just playing along then I suppose there’s no harm in that; but camping on the street to get a good spot for a glimpse of someone portrays something more than a bit of harmless fun, as far as I’m concerned. I associate that with the behaviour of the people who follow my favourite band around the country, making sure they get to the front row at each gig because they worship the band members so much. Now, I’m not even saying that is a bad thing in itself, but it implies absolute devotion, whereas if it’s a band you just quite like a few tunes by and want to have a good time, you walk up ten minutes before they go onstage.
I’m going off on a tangent now. But the fact is they’re a pretty expensive irrelevance, and I feel people should have more self-respect than to place a posh family on such high a pedestal that they bow to them like servants.
#11 by Aidan Skinner on April 29, 2011 - 1:12 pm
I thought the official SNP plan involved retaining the monarchy? I’m normally a arguments-too-much-trouble-to-be-had republican but the royal wedding chat’s got my hackles up…
#12 by Jeff on April 29, 2011 - 1:30 pm
Oh yes, the SNP’s line is to keep the monarchy but if today is a particularly British day then Its not too outlandish to suggest that it is the least British party that will suffer, if anyone does, from a wedding impact on #sp11.
#13 by John Ruddy on April 29, 2011 - 7:41 pm
I dont think there will be much of an effect. However, if Kate was a Scottish lassie, then this visible union (in all senses of the word) might have had an effect.
#14 by Keith Roberts on April 29, 2011 - 1:05 pm
………and how many times have you heard the phrase ‘future King of England’ mentioned since this day was announced. Glad I managed a longer than usual cycle, despite the wind, this morning. Wonder why all the BBC blogs are permitting neither login nor comment?
#15 by Ezio on April 29, 2011 - 1:11 pm
So all that we need for people to feel British is for two spoiled rich kids to get married at great expense to the public, at a time we’re cutting public spending on just about everything?
#16 by cynicalHighlander on April 29, 2011 - 1:21 pm
Since the British state continually spout that they are a viable industry I suggest they go into the circus industry the one drawback would be that it would have too many clowns.
#17 by An Duine Gruamach on April 29, 2011 - 2:39 pm
Might just be my SNP hat getting so heavy it’s impairing my judgement, but I actually see the wedding doing more damage to Labour’s election hopes than the SNP’s. The (tedious) swamping of the media with the wedding has lost Labour a valuable day (at least) for getting their relaunched message, whatever it is, across. It’s time they can ill afford to lose.
#18 by NoOffenceAlan on April 29, 2011 - 2:42 pm
I have noticed how companies who are so against unnecessary expense and ‘red tape’ are quite happy to go to the trouble of having those intricate ‘by appointment to Her Majesty … ‘ symbols on their vehicles and merchandise.
Maybe they should be charged, err, Royalties, for the privilege?
#19 by Allan Rennie on April 29, 2011 - 5:15 pm
Jeff i’m surprised, I had you down as a staunch Republican.
Can’t believe the propoganda and news coverage that this ‘event’ has created. Monarchies are a stain on democracy, as soon as we rid the country of these parasites the better.
#20 by Ezio on April 29, 2011 - 6:32 pm
Agreed.
Down with these benefit cheats!
#21 by Jeff on April 29, 2011 - 11:08 pm
I’m not really a staunch anything. Royal Families in theory are bizarre and noone in their right minds would try to create one from scratch but Britain is where it is and turfing the Windsors out on their ears is hardly a likely option. Furthermore, they are good people who have dedicated their lives to the UK. That has to count for something.
I think “parasites” is way off the mark and really quite disrespectful actually. Having been born into the family, through no choice of their own, what would you have Wills an Harry etc do?
#22 by Allan Rennie on April 29, 2011 - 6:32 pm
Incidently where does the 2 billion viewers figure come from? I find that almost impossible to believe.
#23 by Jeff on April 29, 2011 - 7:42 pm
Strictly from the BBC that figure. I have my suspicions too.
#24 by cynicalHighlander on April 29, 2011 - 10:42 pm
Since the Beeb have swamped all of there output on both visual and listening media at license payers expense they are trying to justify themselves to us. Didn’t watch or listen to this propaganda.
Scottish national feel like an anthropologist day
#25 by JPJ2 on April 29, 2011 - 11:38 pm
Fortunately I doubt if it will have much effect on the vote next week-after all Salmond is invited and attending but not (obviously) Iain Gray or even Blair or Brown.
However I do think the timing so close to the election is disrespectul to Scots-there is no way that a major royal wedding would be allowed so close to a UK General Election.
As it turns out, it looks as if it has simply lost Labour some campaigning press attention-serves them right.
#26 by Jeff on April 30, 2011 - 1:20 pm
Good shout JPJ2. If Salmond got some good press at the wedding looking First Ministerial (I didn’t see any) and Labour missed the chance to knock doors they needed to then any negative impact on the SNP may well be evened out.
#27 by Chris on April 30, 2011 - 8:56 am
Ultimately I would like them abolished along with the hereditary peers.
But the main problem is their undemocratic position in the British constitution. I think the simplest move would be to retain their titles and properties but to disestablish them. So we don’t alienate those who like Bread and Circuses but still fix our democracy.
I imagine that an outbreak of Britishness will not be great for the SNP, but ir is not as if this election has anything much to do with Independence.
#28 by Davie Park on April 30, 2011 - 10:37 am
Certainly no outbreak of Britishness here in deepest Ayrshire. The planned party in my village was cancelled due to lack of interest. I saw 1 union jack in Ayr. At work there was a profound sense of disinterest.
As in so many other aspects of life in Britain, the view from London distorts the reality.
“Furthermore, they are good people who have dedicated their lives to the UK.”
Eh?
‘Good people’, Jeff? Have you lost it?
(I now have a mental picture of you sitting on your sofa wearing a pair of walking boots, a tutu and a union jack ‘boob tube’. Atop this ensemble your crystal tiara is sparkling in the sunlight.)
Without getting in too deeply to individual examples of how they are very often far from being ‘good people’ (Her Maj’s appalling behaviour at the death of Diana, Andrew’s ‘ambassadorial’efforts, Phil and Queen mum’s racism etc etc ad nauseum), what kind of ‘good people’ are happy to benefit financially from resources that, quite properly, do not belong to them?
There is also more than a whiff of schadenfreude in your suggestion that this propoganda might affect people’s political views in the run up to the Scottish elections.
#29 by The Burd on April 30, 2011 - 12:33 pm
Jeff never knowingly loses it, thank you. Think caught up in the spirit of occasion captures it – or at least I hope it does. But wouldn’t life be boring if we all thought alike on everything?!
And on your last point Davie, I blogged about this in more detail at A Burdz Eye View. I do think the Britishness factor will kick in, especially amongst some Lib Dem and Tory voters who, until this weekend, were contemplating switching to the SNP. Yesterday’s shenanigans will have reminded them of some core beliefs they do not share with the SNP and which had been masked by other issues up until now. I think we may see some of the promised or probable tactical or switch votes just stay at home and that won’t help the SNP if Labour can get its core vote out. All very interesting though!
#30 by Jeff on April 30, 2011 - 1:15 pm
“Jeff never knowingly loses it, thank you. Think caught up in the spirit of occasion captures it”
Well, how delightfully patronising. There seems to be a disrespectful, fascist republicanism on show in Scotland. I am getting caught up in the moment of the wedding, I’m a sucker for hype after all, but I reject the suggestion that it’s some sort of failing.
The country would be boring but it’s unseemly to suggest that someone is an idiot for enjoying royal wedding celebrations. We Scots enjoy telling those down South to lighten up, on this occasion that instruction should be the other way around.
#31 by Jeff on April 30, 2011 - 1:08 pm
I’ll have to disagree on the schadenfreude point. Infact I find it a bizarre suggestion to make as it’s pretty clear I want an SNP/Green coalition. Why would I enjoy a drop in support for the Nats off the back of the wedding?
I didn’t expect my casual description of the Royal Family as ‘good people’ would be all that remarkable. Given the press tend to only report bad news, I think the Windsors have done very well to only be caught up in the few stories that you mention.
#32 by Davie Park on April 30, 2011 - 10:49 am
here’s a lance to all this lavish bufoonery;
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/speakers-corner/2283-scottish-national-feel-like-an-anthropologist-day.html
#33 by Davie Park on April 30, 2011 - 1:53 pm
Jeff, the press reporting bad news about the Royal family is very much an exception rather than a rule (at least at the time it happens). We know this because of the many things that, eventually, see the light of day.
Oh, my schadenfreude comment was more to do with your comment,
” is the idea of Scottish independence taking a pounding today? I suspect it is.”
In the run up to the election, when Labour are attempting to scare the electorate by showing how the SNP are going to force them into independence (by asking them whether they want it), this publicly paid for propoganda is a bit too much for me.
#34 by Jeff on April 30, 2011 - 3:10 pm
Fair enough Davie, that makes a bit more sense re: schadenfruede but I really am quite blasé about it all. If anything I think Scotland needs to consider it once and for all, vote on it and then move on together, in whatever direction that happens to be. Election after election with unionist parties aiming lazy kicks the SNP and the Nats suggesting they are in favour of independence but not ‘really’
going for it isn’t really helping anybody.
No schadenfreude though if the Royal Wedding does give independence a doing. The opposite, if anything.
#35 by Davie Park on April 30, 2011 - 6:16 pm
Then I apologise for the inference Jeff.
#36 by Jeff on April 30, 2011 - 7:08 pm
Oh that’s ok, it’s my fault if that is how i come across.