Republicans beware! Royal happiness ahead?
Republicans might well be furious. Without wishing to jinx anything it seems almost impossible now that the Royal Wedding is going to be anything other than a success. Not that Republicans wish marital misery on anyone. It is just what comes with the collective happiness that will worry them.
To most people the couple seem likeable enough, with few of the oddities and aloofness of previous generations. The crowds might not be as feverish and in love with Kate Middleton as they were with Diana thirty years ago, but there is going to be a feel-good factor to Friday. The new princess has beauty, elegance and apparent modesty. She is clearly intelligent and will be the first Queen to have a degree. Her own background has gone from being portrayed as nouveau and slightly vulgar to self-made, middle class, aspirational. She is already the new superstar of the House of Windsor and unlike Diana is onside with the rest of the family, for now at least.
So has the Royal family pulled off the great turnaround of modern times? Well opinion polls would suggest so. They all say a vast majority think the country is better off with the monarchy than without it. There is no great appetite for elected Heads of State. The apparent contradictions of our leading politicians wanting social mobility, meritocracy and House of Lords reform while being apparently content to stick with a Queen or King don’t seem to trouble too many people.
Through the divorce soap-operas and the handling of Diana’s death the Queen has regained her place in the nation’s hearts. The deaths of the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and the successful Golden Jubilee combined with a real sense of marvel that a woman her age keeps on at the rate she does have meant a renewed affection towards the Queen in many households. So now William and Kate are coming along with such ease it’s a slam dunk for another hundred years of this right? Well maybe. Maybe not.
More from Channel 4 News: Royal wedding fanfare to bolster UK economy
Although there is nothing explicit to say Prince William and Kate are ultra-modernisers the hints are there. William’s insistence on living “ordinarily” in Wales, his pride at going to the shops himself, getting takeaways and videos, of being one of the lads and his ease with modern culture are striking. His choice of a girl from a self-made family with working class roots speaks volumes. His respect for her as an equal, in contrast to the way Charles sometimes appeared towards Diana in those early interviews is obvious, and new.
But before the pair are allowed to get their down to earth, “we’re just like you really” grip on the way the monarchy functions Charles and Camilla are going to have their go. And for all the talk of Charles being a great potential moderniser the older he gets the harder it could be to pull off. His understandable dislike of the media is increasingly obvious, while William’s is increasingly hidden. And although those who have met her tend to say Camilla is a huge and likeable asset Charles could be forgiven for being over-protective, defensive even about her. Even his great love of architecture and organic living could start to seem old-fashioned if he does not move to obviously modernise.
Channel 4 News special report: Royal Wedding – Prince William & Princess Catherine
In short the King could find himself struggling to keep up with the expectations of change set by his son and daughter in law. His great risk is that he appears out of touch, not just with the United Kingdom, but with his own family. The demand for William to take over before his father’s death might once again surface just as, it is said, Diana wanted.
So Republicans need not drown their sorrows just yet. The popularity of William and Kate might pose serious problems for their cause in the short term, but it might equally have the unintended consequence of destabilising a future King Charles. British public opinion can swing violently and quickly. Who knows which side should be more concerned for their futures?!
You can follow Krishnan Guru-Murthy on Twitter @krishgm
There are 16 comments on this post
This whole succession planning issue has become a bit of a problem. With life expectancy increasing and absent the traditional accession accelerators (death in battle, plague, abdication, regicide etc), the nation is looking forward to a series of successions by octogenarians.
Unless this is addressed, it will be the fate of successive monarchs to be upstaged by their better generationally adapted issue.
It would appear the monarchy is so insecure that it couldn’t withstand a few republican placards along the mall on Friday.
We are bombing Libya and arguing in the UN for people’s right to protest but police are ready to jump on anyone who might suggest this country would be better off without a very expensive hereditary system for our head of state during a wedding for which we are picking up the tab whether we want to or not.
Here’s an idea, the state pays for the wedding and William can repay it once we allot him more than £21k a year. If it’s good enough for students, it must be good enough for one of the richest families in the land.
“The apparent contradictions of our leading politicians wanting social mobility, meritocracy and House of Lords reform while being apparently content to stick with a Queen or King don’t seem to trouble too many people.”
Well, it does me. I am one of those non monarchists out there and consequently, I am dreading the next few days/weeks/months… As I’m not more interested in this wedding than I am of say… Brian & Brenda’s in Chipping Sodbury (or whatever) – I feel like hiding in a wardrobe already.
The same applies to my home country of course – Sweden. No difference there. Princess Victoria’s new hubby ‘from the people’ now expects tax payers to pay for his ‘adapt-to-the-royal-family’ education. Social mobility starts here, I think!
And – would the bride-to-be get half as much interest had she been a Vicky Pollard type? Is Westminster Abbey the new catwalk?
Whilst pondering on these questions – I’m off to find a wardrobe…
I honestly don’t see the appeal of either Wills or Harry?
They have no noticeable talents, neither are great orators, their so called military careers and charity work seem little more than window dressing by their PR people.
They seem cosseted, overprotected and I might add get a shameful easy ride by the press.
Surely even in a world made tiresome by Celebrity adoration they only should rank as a C list?
Even next to Jedwood wills & Harry seem decidedly lacklustre.
I don’t want an elected head of state either. One only needs to look to America to look at the hype and razamataz to understand how ill fitting the UK and Brits would feel. The higher up corruption in the USA makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable, you know what I mean, the talk of the mafia and such.
The Queen , although rather cold on the exterior is self controlled, gracious, very aware of her private / public persona and hasn’t done anything to attract scandal.She is the perfect role model. Whilst one of the recent Royal commentators said that the Windsors disregard people and they become expendable it may be a case of the devil you know.
Charles, I used to fancy as a teenager and had a picture up in my bedroom which I tore out from the fabulous magazine. I could never understand why he was so special though as a person , but still he has played his part, badly at times and sometimes he comes over as a spoilt man who has not grown up , but what a lot of suffering he has had to endure.
The very Diana influenced William is better for that influence , but I am sure he loves his father and gran as we all do our families.
Social mobility within the Royal house is not a new concept, as David Starkey will tell you. Past Kings have married commoners for centuries.
I think every one should enjoy the joyous occassion. I for one would love a marriage to a loving partner .. this is rare.
I don’t mind the Queen – she has worked for the country for over 50 years. The monarchy should be scrapped when she goes and we should have a Republic. If people don’t fancy an elected President we could keep the Windsors but without their present powers and funding.
Perhaps the ‘third way’ to manage the succession is that, on the (hopefully distant) death of the current sovereign, we should then have a public ballot to decide which of her offspring should succeed to the Throne.
That way, we would get a choice between Charles, Anne, Andrew or Edward. If Charles were to win that vote, then after him we would all get to choose between William or Harry, and so on. (The likelihood of Charles producing any further offspring with Camilla seems reasonably remote).
That system would take away the absolute primogeniture issue, add a little apparent democracy, yet would keep the Head of State position remote from the seedier world of politics and the frightening risk of a ‘President Blair’.
It could also have a significant effect on the behaviour of a whole generation of the ‘sponsored royals’ – if they all thought they were in with a chance of copping the Top Job, they may be a tad more careful with their behaviour and image ahead of the vote, which could happen at any time.
Worth a try ? And would it be under AV ?
What exactly has the queen done? Cut a few ribbons, made speeches, waved a bit raised one of the most dysfunctional families in Britain. We live in the 21st century and it’s time the country grew up and was prepared to let go of nannies hand. A republic need not be like America and as for corruption we no little about the royals because they even managed to exempt themselves fro the Freedom of Information Act recently. Why? What have they got to hide. They are paid handsomely by the public purse and we should be able to question their actions. An elected head of state can be removed if need be, queen and co can’t.
The military top brass are complaining about cuts and we are told that service personel are so stretched in Afghanistan etc that the SAS can’t get recruits.
Yet on the news tonight we find that hundreds of soldiers, including five bands, have been practising for a month for the wedding.
I thought government was supposed to be about identifying priorities yet royal bunfights get priority over serious military work.
And it’s not a lone example. Money is found for nuclear weapons that are meaningless except to brag that we have them, but cuts are imposed on the welfare of children and old people.
We live in an Alice in Wonderland world.
I have said this for decades . One only needs to remember Stephen Fry and Rowan Atkinson in their top hats to be reminded of a mad hatters party and as far as I am concerned disrespectful(however that is subjective).
The Diana “Queen of Hearts ” gesture was also a royal snub although where it derived from is anybodys guess. It was belittling her ROYAL HRH status and I found that offensive. Although the saccharine title was well meant, I felt hurt for her memory.
I must admit Sam I do like to be part of British tradition for it is my heritage and I was brought up in a very British way, to respect C/E and State standards. For me it is my anchor, however I know what you mean. It is this living tension between what we know should happen and our desire for stability and pleasure SO “They are changing guards at Buckingham Palace .. SAID ALICE “
For what it is worth, I think Liz and Phil have done a good job overall, during their reign to date, encountering more change in the world around them than surely any other Monarch and Consort in history…?
Personally, I think Charles and Camilla will also do a very good job, when their time comes.
And I’ve every confidence in William & Kate too. I think they’ll be a marvellous King and Queen one day.
So I don’t see any need, or justification, for the UK to ditch the monarchy and become a republic.
If we need change in this country, it is in institutions like the Houses of Parliament, the legal profession, the City of London…
Those are the places where the real problems lie…
Its the Bankers we need to send to Madame la Guillotine, not our heads of state…
When my grandfather died lizzie windsor wrote to my grandmother stating that as my grandad died without leaving a WILL she would like any left over money!!
My grandmother wrote back saying, he only left debts and YOU can pay them if you want.
Nothing further was heard from lizzie windsor.
I’ve decided David Cameron has a point – there is too much money being spent in parts of the public sector and we simply can’t afford it.
Exhibit One: the royal family.
And before you royalist start to scream about what it does for tourism etc, when did any of you last see a member of the royal family in the flesh. I’m 65 and the nearest I’ve got is seeing the Queen’s hat above the crowd at the 25 anniversary firework display.
The tourists would still come to look at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace – and better still, they could be allowed to go in and see all those wonderful things that we paid for but never get sight of.
I agree Sam – if I said that I was good for tourism you would want to know how much tourism from where and what is the estimated spend – its not good enough for monarchists to keep on robotically saying this without evidence.
Might I express these views of the vast non-republican down-to-earth (& not sycophantic) majority:
We wish the young couple well, and hope that the wedding day goes without any unpleasantness.
I hope I don’t spoil the positivity by noting that the commemorative pottery will presumably be marked “WC”. Bit of a pity that, can’t be helped.
Those who complain about “paying for” this and other aspects on the monarchy are, of course, just plain wrong. They should go study the true facts, the Crown Estate Act & its history, the published accounts.
The wedding costs are, of course, to be met by the families themselves. ‘We’ do not own that money.
The policing and defence we do pay for, but that is to keep the louts at bay. It amounts only to pennies per person, which I for one do not begrudge.
margaret, I was interested in your statement as to why you like having a non-elected head of state (actually, as an outsider looking in, the whole discussion on whether to keep or not keep the monarchy is interesting. It’s none of my affair, as an outsider looking in, so I have no opinions myself – “WHAT? AN AMERICAN WITHOUT AN OPINION?!” you shout out incredulously.
Yeah, every now and again, we really can stay out of other people’s business 
To the point to your comparison to America – We almost had a king. Someone tried to confer the title on George Washington when he was elected our first president. He was so popular that most Americans would have gone along with it. However, he was refused. When he easily could have run for a 3rd term of 4 years he did not do so. We didn’t have the 2-term limitation on the presidency then. Thank goodness we do now! I wish we had the limitation on all our politicians. Because I am at the point of following the advice from a bumper sticker I once saw – “Elect Nobody”. It will be interesting to see how the monarchy plays out as history unfolds – whether it stays or goes. I have British friends on both side of the fence. Best of luck whichever 
.