Royal Babies are Worth the Money

So, even in Olomouc I hear a baby is born to some rather charming people in the UK. Except they are not really people, they are royal celebs –about as far removed from everyday reality as the dreams of the crackiest crack head. After all, his mum is a bit rich and powerful and unless some sort of revolution takes place they will never have to be evicted from their home for non-payment of rent or have to take the kids to McDonalds because it's the cheapest shit they'll eat. Let's face it, they've got a right good cushy little number...

But then that's the point of royalty, isn't it? For one reason or another that family has got to the top perch on the tree. There's not much royalty in being like everyone else. A royal family is supposed to be the most splendid in the country – the sort that doesn't have to put up with the typical nonsense the rest of us deal with on a daily basis. They are, in fact, our ideal.

When royals succeed (in grandeur, procession and achievement) we are fascinated. They are seen as the exemplars of a delicious but unobtainable lifestyle. Of course there are plenty of richer people out there, much richer than the Windsor clan, but we are not quite so fascinated by them because, well, they're just not royal enough! When the royals fail (in divorce, malfunctioning work or misdirection) we laugh and point and the old republicans in us sharpens the blade of the guillotine. And then time passes and our prior fascination is rekindled by a new hat, an exciting opening of an impressive bridge or a baby prince moment.

Of course there are died-in-the-wool republicans who would cheer us on into a new era of elected presidents and responsible government. Like Auguste Comte, they would see realised the fantasy of a Franklin-esque rise from pauper to leader as the epitome of statesmanhood – he's one of us! They are irritated beyond despair by the royal family's very public marriages, births and overbearing state occasions and consistently seek a more direct form of blue sky popular representation by the honest proletarians. Away with this archaic nonsense – let us freely elect our leaders!

But in knocking the admittedly easy target of royalty they miss the point: it's quite a scary thing to imagine the UK without royalty. It has been done before in 1649-60 and, after cutting the king's head off, the country lasted a turbulent 11 years before the people begged to have his son Charles II back to be their king.

Many of the 29.2 million visitors to the UK in 2011 come to witness the pomp and ceremony, the time-honoured traditions that surround the unelected head of the British state and marvel and cheer at what they see. They spend their US$17.2 billion visiting places like the Tower of London and not the birthplace of Arthur Scargill. Many of these visitors' countries have freely elected leaders that support proud multicoloured sashes across their abdomens and happily appear on presidential balconies to receive the roaring approval of their people. Many of them will have stolen, murdered and fornicated their way to the top – just like the British royals of yesteryear I hear you squirt – and, if their political capital runs out, they may of course face trial and imprisonment – unlike the British royals of today you may think. The UK royal family, however, is not alive and kicking in 2013 because they can wield a particularly fierce mace or have a regiment of crack indoctrinaires ready to enforce unflinching loyalty. Neither are they supported because their democratic politics are the flavour of the month. No, they exist because the country, nay the world, wants them there – they have sufficient good will. They may not be the most powerful, the richest or the most interesting of families, but if the press coverage is anything to go by then the world is fascinated with them and likes them to be in their place in a Buckingham Palace or a Windsor Castle and wants to follow their every movement.

Any family can be ridiculed, the richer and more powerful ones e'en more so. The royal family are seen, rightly or wrongly, as an embodiment of human values. In simple Jungian terminology, they are universal archetypes for us all; the King embodies the stately and stable fatherly notions we crave, the mother is self-explanatory and the child is embodiment of future hopes we all cherish. If republican fantasies are permitted full reign, we merely replace that archaic royal-friendly archetypal trilogy with newer and less prestigious ones (but essentially the same ones none-the-less). Maybe the president's babies would be just as interesting...

The people of the UK love to moan: taxes are too high, the weather's too hot/cold/wet/dry and the unelected royals get too much publicity. All of these points may be true and justifiable, but the alternatives are unattractive at best and terrifying at worst. The continental royals in touch with the public ride around on bicycles. There have also been plenty of unsavoury republics out there – the Romans, Saddam Hussain and even Ayatollah Khomeini had their republics. But as any American can tell you, even a truly representative republic with electable political animals at the helm can be a slippery business – many politicians are caught with their hands in the till/electoral register/transsexual boyfriend's pants. Like Brits, Americans also love a good moan about their politicians, so to merely be rid of a lucky royal family's presence is no guarantee of clean and successful political administration.

When important political leaders arrive in the UK they are often shown the courtesy of a big song and dance dinner with the royals. This is, by far and away, one of their biggest perks and even the fiercest republican would agree is something the royal family does really well. The UK tax payer generously provides for these sumptuous banquets and guards of honour in order that the foreign dignitaries get a dignified reception and signs the profitable trade deal for UK plc. I suppose they could be hosted at T.G.I.Fridays, but where's the honour in that? Where's the social exclusivity, the glamorous excitement and the sheer uniqueness of a quick trip to a restaurant? Who'd bother coming to rainy old London for anything other than the royal standard? The royal family does what it says on the tin and they do it good and proper with trumpets and beefeaters at events like royal weddings, jubilees and state openings of parliament.

The royals are the UK's £202.4 million per year luxury. It could be argued that the UK's nuclear missiles are unnecessary (maintenance alone comes to £280m each year) and that hospitals have peeling paint, but the royals are the international emblems of Britain's prestige. Yes, they've got money and property and all that, but that's no argument that they shouldn't have title as well. The Queen of the United Kingdom has been the figurehead of its politics and power, industry and commerce, arts and entertainment. And because nuclear missiles don't make very good patrons of charities and trusts, they are, perhaps, the most obvious way in which the firm of United Kingdom plc is gloriously different from the rest.

Although Brits thankfully don't vote for royals, rightly of wrongly they usually get the government they deserve. It could be argued that the UK didn't get a Mao or a Hitler partly because of the skillful political manouverings of the royal family. Under one name the royal family has managed to keep Britain united throughout a turbulent latter 20th century and actually continues to bring in the reddies at a time of recession – perhaps if the Greeks had kept theirs the country wouldn't be in the state it's in!

After all, royal babies are only irritating if you happen to be watching the same ridiculous news footage time and again.

Comments

[Paul]

Loving your progressive conservatism! Even the Scottish Nationalists say, 'You English are imperialist tossers robbing us blind ... but can we keep your monarch please?'

[Paul]

Or is it your liberal conservatism?