Monarchy

Enough is enough. It toils me to empty my two cents’ worth on the media compost heap surrounding the impending life sentence of celebrity servitude to a well-groomed young man and his bride to be, but the sheer squabble by all and sundry for this Soggy-Sao of a story defies common sense and good taste. This young man is charming, has fantastic people-skills and is the personification of a new generation of British Monarchy – but the future William V will remain our Head of State and we will remain his subjects.

For the sake of disclosure, this is not a protest about Australians not receiving a day off today on account of the royal wedding – although as a member of the empire, a public holiday seems the least we could receive in exchange for watching another inbred German’s three chins gradually develop on our coinage over the next fifty years. Nor is this a reaction to our national broadcaster’s pitiful cowardice regarding the gagging of the Chaser’s satirical coverage of the big day.*

What belies this observation is the stark contrast between the English Kings and Queens of old and the tabloid obsession into which they have morphed. Our monarchy has a truly torrid history; containing enough sordid titbits and hot-pokers of intrigue to hold anybody’s attention. Even your author has to admit a certain sense of royal nostalgia and Shakespearian wonderment: be it the chivalrous victory of Henry V over the French at Agincourt or the way the despotic Henry VIII changed an entire nation’s religion just to get his privileged royal end in.

"I say, I don't think I've been in this room before?"

People eventually got fed up with absolute monarchy and started cutting off heads. Granted, England didn’t last long as a republic, but the Glorious Revolution of 1688 saw William of Orange (a Dutchman) become king – on the proviso that drastic reductions were made in the power of the monarch in favour of parliament. Once the German, George I, became king in 1714, further reforms left little power for the monarch at all. His grandson, George III, saw the American Revolution and the French Revolution not long after that – which made all monarchs glad to still have their heads let alone their silk stockings.

For once, I daresay, the Americans got it right. Thomas Paine, the great pamphleteer and revolutionary, asserted in Rights of Man that being the son of a mathematician did not make you a great mathematician, so why would a prince be fit to rule simply because his father did? Considering the monarchy lost its power in Britain, the only reason for its existence was to remain a figurehead in times of war and to throw a good coronation or wedding every now and then. Little has changed in the last two hundred years – except the empire is no more and the fairytale is all that remains.

Perhaps people like a fairytale though? A projected audience of two billion for the wedding tonight would suggest so. Consider the fact that if each one of those viewers paid $2.50 to watch the wedding, the dent in Britain’s economy would still not be paid for – then there is the ongoing cost of palaces, horse guards, carriages, processions, dresses, suits, planes and security. There is, of course, the tourism; the only foreseeable reason for maintaining this charade of privilege and royal supremacy. Let us hope that one day Australia can choose its own representative, instead of trembling at the knees before a well rehearsed smile or dainty handshake because we took Disney movies too seriously as children.

Ask yourself one question: Would you call Kate Middleton ‘Your Highness’ tomorrow if you saw her on the street?

* Thankfully, the BBC has given a green light to ‘light-hearted’ coverage from cultural icons, Wanko and Jizzmop on Network Ten.