Jubilee Madness

I continue to be puzzled by this love affair with monarchy and with royalty generally. A year ago it was the royal wedding, now it is the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. Alessandra Stanley in the New York Times dealt with what she considered the folly of American coverage of the Jubilee: “There is nothing like a real celebration to bring out the royal pains of American television.{{more}} And the four-day extravaganza to celebrate the 60 year reign of Queen Elizabeth II was particularly rich in folly.” She went on to look at how hosts of American television stations got carried away and became almost childish, with coverage of the events marking the celebration. This is not surprising, for one thing the Americans miss is not having royalty. They have tried to make the Kennedys, Jack and Jacqueline into versions of royalty. Had Obama and Michelle not been black, they might also have filled that role. But what is it about royalty that captures the sentiments and imagination of people all over the world? Is it the pomp and pageantry? Is it simply the charm of Elizabeth and the warmth of the Duke of Edinburgh?

The British, or at least a large portion of them, went mad last week, with the Department of Culture estimating that the extra bank holiday could cost Britain £1.2 billion. There appears to be doubt about the cost of the celebrations and even more about who will be paying it. The Greater London Authority has already acknowledged that it contributed £600,000 toward the erecting of huge video screens in London and in policing the crowds. Britain is in a serious financial mess and has faced cutbacks on a number of basic services. The Queen gets an annual grant of £30 million. Taxpayers, although not meeting the full cost of the Jubilee celebrations, would have to put out significant sums for the celebrations, which are likely to cost in the hundreds of millions. The argument will of course be made that the royal family brings in significant sums of money through the visits of tourists annually and it has been pointed out that during the period £120 million in sales went to businesses in London. But this is as obnoxious as the billions which the American presidential candidates are forking out at a time when there are millions of persons who are unemployed.

Looking at some of the British newspapers, what struck me is that there was an effort to justify the importance of royalty and the benefits Britain gains from its presence. There are still those persons who cling to the worn out argument that royalty brings stability. In fact, one writer notes that despite the “economic and political stresses of the half century,” Britain has survived it without “damaging state instability”. The writer went on to say that today “it is all pomp and no power…and the House of Windsor has become even more adept at the flummery of monarchy,” but that it does no good “to dismiss the stability and affection in which the Queen is held as a simple display of false consciousness.” There were those days leading up to independence when the royal lovers here at home used to warn us that without the British monarchy we could be turned into banana republics. Having said all of that I ask again, is it about the queen, or about royalty generally? Would Charles command the same kind of affection and devotion as is given to his mother?

The British people have the right to maintain their monarchy and to love it as much as they want to, but for us it is a different question. To my mind October 27, 1979 has put an end to this for us, although there are some technicalities and legalities tied up in this, with former colonies deciding to retain membership of the Commonwealth and with the Queen continuing to gain affection as Head of the Commonwealth. Elizabeth might, as a person, be a lovely lady and, as a queen, has conducted herself quite differently from monarchs of the past; but this is to be expected because we live in a different era where the monarch has in reality little power and nothing to ‘pampaset’ about, except the hold which it has over our minds and imagination.

The existence of a monarchy and what it demands from the people over whom it reigns is really outdated. The existence of a monarchy is at odds with our pursuit of a democratic society, for built into it are issues of inequality and class. It continues a hereditary system for which really there should be no place today. The kind of morality and sense of rightness which we associate with the monarch that is really contrary to its history, have been virtually killed by Charles. (Remember the Camilla – Diana stories!). The issue of a person being our sovereign or monarch (whatever that means today) because they happen to have been born into a particular family and inheritance and survive, based to a large extent on what the taxpayers contribute, and property acquired over the years, is an abhorrence to me.

I am not sure how much has changed since the days when we were called on as schoolchildren to stand in the sun singing “Rule Britannia”. I cannot now remember the lyrics, but this stands out in my memory: “Britannia rules the waves, Britons, never, never shall be slaves.” We used to sing this, often influenced by the buns and ginger beer that they provided for us. At that time we had no say in the matter, for Britain ruled our waves. Today, the monarchy is probably ruling our minds.

Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian.