Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sam Parker

GET UPDATES FROM Sam Parker
 

How I Became a Royalist

Posted: 28/03/2012 00:00

I can't pinpoint exactly when it happened.

Perhaps it was Harry buffooning his way around the Bahamas that sealed the deal, or Kate charming her away around her arts charities.

Perhaps it was during the Royal Wedding last year, when for one day London felt the way people who lived through the 50s say it used to be all the time - with my five-year-old niece padding fearlessly around her neighbour's knees and us adults cheering through a drunken tug-of-war.

But somewhere, somehow, though I can scarcely believe I am saying it, I've become a Royalist.

It wasn't always this way. Like most teenagers riding the giddy donkey of a blossoming social consciousness, I once sought to cast the world in a morality play - whilst 'playing' as immorally as possible, of course.

"Hark at their gratuitous wealth and privilege!" I'd say, "What sort of meritocracy is this when the head of state is nominated by birthright?! They are symbols of centuries of oppression! Haul them out of the palace and turn it into a hospital!" Etc. Etc.

But I've discovered that, as with so many things, morality as you get older is about learning to pick your battles. Though obscene privilege still offends me, it is far more repulsive, for example, to reflect on the fact that the most of the important decisions facing modern, multicultural Britain are being taken by rich, white, privately educated men with enormous personal wealth.

If we were to dismantle the class system brick by brick, the top table of the Royals, even with all their pomp and ceremony, would be the last one I'd touch. Through years of trudging around all the country to sprinkle magic dust on ordinary lives, I'd venture most of them are more in touch with 'real people' than many sat in the Westminster bubble.

But my conversion is about more than just mellowing with age. More and more in modern society, the Royal family are coming to epitomise qualities that, as a nation, we seem in danger of losing altogether.

Where once self-reserve was the highest principle of British social life, the cult of celebrity has lead us to make an astonishing u-turn. Now, self-exposure is king, from teenage girls affecting sexiness on Facebook to middle class intellectuals peppering Twitter with their ennui to TV shows, that now come with an 'open-wound moment' as standard, even if it's something as daft as a cookery competition.

The defining image of Diana's funeral wasn't the thousands of wreaths or the strangers wailing in the crowd but her two brave young sons, somehow managing to keep their head while the country were losing theirs. Despite unrelenting public interest in every facet of their private lives, the royal family, putting aside the odd juvenile or senile gaffe, have managed to uphold that example of decorum, politeness and reserve ever since.

In Kate, we now have an ideal role model for young girls, an anti-Katie Price. Beautiful, yes, but also poised, warm and smart. It is early days, but assuming she decides a life of charity work and public appearances is for her, we can look forward to seeing her set a different example for years. We despair reading that most little girls just want to be 'famous' when they grow up. Thank god we have Kate when they all want - and will always want - to be Princesses, too.

Which brings us next to perhaps the oldest debate surrounding the royal family. Are they value for money? Couldn't the readies be better spent elsewhere?

Well, in the purest sense: yes, of course it could. But then in purest sense, none of the government purse should be spent on encouraging the arts either - because ultimately, the NHS is more important.

But the Royals are Britain's signature around the world. Even if someone did the sum of how much their palaces and servants cost vs the amount they pull in in tourists pounds and found they came up short, I would still see them as value for money.

Travelling in America last year with an English Kate, I know firsthand that even that coincidence was enough to make people squeal with admiration for the Royals. I'd rather the rest of the world think we're all high tea drinking aristocrats with over the top manners than the obnoxious, bleary-eyed reality of the average British high street.

Lastly, I now no longer resent the royals because of their ancestry. Yes, they're great, great, great (etc.) grandparents were a cruel lot, responsible for some extremely bleak periods in British history, but then beyond my grandparents, I have no idea how better my ancestors bear up. For all I know they were religious zealots, mass murderers or the type of people who accept a round when they know they're only staying out for one - but if you tried to judge me on it, I'd feel a little hard done by.

As it is, under the guidance of her Madge - for whom they all express genuine love and respect, another worthwhile example to us all - Will, Harry and Kate are leading the royal family into a new era of public duty that is defined as much by empathy and warmth as it is by the tradition stiff upper lip.

Call it jubilee hysteria, but disliking them has never felt harder.

 

Follow Sam Parker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/samparkercouk

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
I can't pinpoint exactly when it happened. Perhaps it was Harry buffooning his way around the Bahamas that sealed the deal, or Kate charming her away around her arts charities. Perhaps it was du...
I can't pinpoint exactly when it happened. Perhaps it was Harry buffooning his way around the Bahamas that sealed the deal, or Kate charming her away around her arts charities. Perhaps it was du...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:38 PM on 03/28/2012
Let's go the whole hog - abolish the Constitutional Monarchy and have an Absolute Monarchy instead.
11:05 PM on 03/28/2012
The oligarchy requires a symbolic focus for the masses.
04:33 PM on 03/28/2012
I was a republican once.


Then I graduated high school.
02:28 PM on 03/28/2012
Republican notions that the British Monarchy, is an antiquated and irrelevant fashion accessary misses the mark by a very great margin. Although royal power is but a distant memory, royal authority underpins much of the political, legal, military and economic fuctions of the state.
Complaints that it is a drag on progress, overlook the reality that one mans progress is all too often a nightmare for the rest. Robspierre's terror, Stalins purges, Mao's cultural revolution, Year Zero, etc, etc. It was not so long ago that Spanish facists attepted a right wing coup. It was the King that led the fight to protect democracy and the rights of the people.
No system of government is perfect, changes of policy are often a very good idea, but changes in the constitution, are fraught with peril.
Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.
03:03 PM on 03/28/2012
I think you mean Royal prerogative, ie the excuse for a Government to declare war and other nefarious acts without consultation in the name of the crown. No changes in Constitution because the UK does not have a written constitution. The Monarchy is the remains of the feudal system, complete with honours and hangers on, Buck House might do an excellent PR job but at the core it is all about keeping the wealth in the hands of the select few.
12:14 PM on 03/28/2012
Unfortunately love them or loathe them, any real reform needs the disestablishment of church and state, then land reform of the vast feudal estates gifted centuries ago. Royalty no longer head of the armed forces is a more difficult matter as it has served as a true stabilising force. Bishops have no place in an unelected upper house. The end of funding for faith schools.
I consider myself a Republican but realise that one size does not fit all and this country would never adopt this model again ( Cromwell during the Interregnum ). The class system is taught with the mothers milk so everybody is indoctrinated into believing that they should respect and defer to a group of people who actually rely on them to create wealth for them to exploit.
02:07 PM on 03/28/2012
It's not as simple as that though. A lot of huge estates were actually bought, not gifted. The Duke of Westminster's estates, apart from one modest manor in Cheshire, have all been purchased.

If you check over the Domesday book, while it's true that the early Norman barons were awarded lots of land, it's also true that this was nearly always in small parcels scattered about - a manor here, and a manor there.

No-one has any place in an unelected upper house, so Bishops and other clergy have as much or as little place in it as anyone else. And at least they do actually represent a constituency of sorts, namely the million or so regular worshippers.

In fact, when you look at it like that, Bishops have more business being there than any rejected politician.
11:40 PM on 03/28/2012
If fat Prescott can sit in the Lords, any Tom, Dick or Harry can. What a bloated windbag - and a conceited opponent of the Lords!
11:03 AM on 03/28/2012
I'm a republican but I'm not antiroyalist. As long as they stay out of political affairs (thats a warning directed at you Charles), then I'm happy to let them get on so long as they don't cost us more than a couple of quid a year.
09:30 AM on 03/28/2012
I'd give anything to swap my country's representatives with the Royal Family. We should really stop complaining about the few positive role models that are still part of modern society.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Drg40
Representative Democracy is all we have.
08:13 AM on 03/28/2012
I'll give you a thought. I do not believe that the monarchy will survive the loss of another female member to dietary disorders and the sort of seismic downturn in both national and international regard that followed upon the events which surrounded Diana's eating disorders. If I were the Queen I would have at the top of my priority tasks for today an investigation into who or what is persuading the duchess of Cambridge to become so thin and ensure that that advice was replaced with sense forthwith. Thought: The scrawny runts that strut up and down the catwalks of the fashion industry are mostly objects of derision.
02:09 PM on 03/28/2012
"One didn't get where one is today without eating one's pies, Kate, my dear."
06:00 AM on 03/28/2012
I am often bemused by the republican logic of the expensive monarchy. They groan over tortuous analysis of what the Queen and those others on the civil list cost. Yet there is never a hint of speculation about the cost of a presidency. Can we seriously expect that some worn out political hack and this is not a fairy story, despite the occasional beautiful princess, it would be an ex minister, or above, would travel by tube, dress in rags and recoil in horror at the ex royal palaces, along with the ex royal bling ? No, president for life, Blair, Brown, Salmond, or who ever, would know to the last ten million what would be required to maintain the dignity of their office and how to make us, yes thats you and me dear tax payers, pay and pay and pay !!!
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
12:07 AM on 03/28/2012
It's probably most the lingering concern that someone like Tony Blair might be elected president.
02:09 PM on 03/28/2012
I'd rather have Lionel Blair.
11:43 PM on 03/28/2012
ThinkCreeps, you're right - "Blair for President" is the stuff of nightmares.

I do have one even worse than that, though: "Prescott for President!"

(Note to the semi-literate: "Prescott for President!" is a phrase not to be taken literally.)
11:54 PM on 03/27/2012
The Royal Family is supported from the British coffers currently in the amount of GBP39 million per anum. That amounts to 69pence per head. Personally, I wouldn't balk at ten times that - half the cost of a magazine subscription. Their work and just the fact of being, brings in revenue that far surpasses the cost "of keeping them".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jacksdad41
Quant Je Puis
01:46 AM on 03/28/2012
Actually @sue - its better than that - "we" only pay for the queen from the civil list. Last year she was paid £7.9M which was for the upkeep of the royal palaces etc. The Crown Estates which is a company in itself paid income tav of £230M last year alone. HM the Queen also pays council tax on her none state properties and voluntarily pays income tax although she is not compelled. Our Queen puts way more into the coffers than she takes out and dony let anyone tell you different ;-)
03:17 AM on 03/28/2012
Thanks Jacksdad. I'm and expat living in northern California, and often a source of Anglophile curiosity, both from the well informed and the baffled.
You've furthered my homework, as it were, and my continuing duty to put impressions right in this plot of the planet!
I stand and raise my (imaginary) G&T to the Queen and to you :-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EMDGP
Someday!
11:07 PM on 03/27/2012
Spot on!