Sunday, November 21, 2010
Oh Lor! It's Another Royal Wedding for the Media to Obsess About
Suppose I'm not that moved by the royal engagement but it's clear that many are. The Economist thinks Kate Middleton strikes the right balance between glamour and stability. It reckons Diana was too much on the former and too little on the latter but Kate is just about on the money(excuse the possible pun). Her middle class origins are held to be a 'plus' despite the snobby sneers of many monarchists that a 'trolley dolly' Mum and parents in 'trade' to boot is not quite up to snuff for a future queen. The journal concludes Kate's 'ordinary' background in a three children nuclear family is all to the good. I thought it wise to consult a newspaper I don't really respect on this topic too- you guessed, the Daily Mail- and, to my surprise, found it extremely interesting. Its Harris poll(see above) on the forthcoming event revealed some fascinating things about public attitudes.
1. Majorities think William wil make a good king and that the event will 'cheer the nation'.
2. A majority think the royals should pay for the wedding themselves and that it should be 'modest'- so far so unremarkable.
3. On the subject of whether Charles should 'step aside' to allow his son to become the next monarchy (an oft bruited idea in the tabloids) 48% think 'yes' but a substantial 32% 'no'.
4. 56% oppose the idea that the country would be 'better off' without a monarchy.
5. 49% think it a 'good thing' Kate is a 'commoner' but 48% 'don't know or don't care'
6 If Charles became king should Camilla be queen? Only 14% said 'yes' and a surprising 52% 'no'. Oddly the Economist asserted that 'the public had accepted Camilla, Prince Charle's former mistress'- only up to a point, Lord Copper.
7 Finally a majorities thought the marriage would 'strengthen the monarchy' and that the wedding day should be a bank holiday.
On the basis of these attitudes the wedding should serve to be excellent PR for the of tarnished royals and, even, just a little, a distractioon for the nation from the austerity which characterises the present time. We can be sure the media will do its bit to ensure that both things are likely to happen.
Comments:
<< Home
I share your indifference to this wedding. I'd simply add that it should be paid for by the Royal Family because they can well afford it and further, on a slightly snide point, as the previous weddings we've stumped up for have not worked out to be permanent, it's more than about time they picked up the tab themselves anyway.
Unlikely. The Royals may make some contribution to the events surrounding the ceremony, but the vast majority of the cost(ie. security) will be met by the taxpayer. It is right that the taxpayer should pay this. After all, we don't expect our political class to pay for their bodyguards. Maybe the dull republicans would prefer that royals employed their own lictors?
I am happy for the taxpayer to pay this cost. I have paid enormous taxes in the UK for several years, and got nothing out of the system(healthcare that was too bad to use, and schools I wouldn't send my children to in a million years etc etc). There are many like me. I suspect most of them will be pleased that a small proportion of our taxes will be used to stage an event that might give a beleaguered country a measure of national pride, when so much of our money has been used to destroy the country.
I am happy for the taxpayer to pay this cost. I have paid enormous taxes in the UK for several years, and got nothing out of the system(healthcare that was too bad to use, and schools I wouldn't send my children to in a million years etc etc). There are many like me. I suspect most of them will be pleased that a small proportion of our taxes will be used to stage an event that might give a beleaguered country a measure of national pride, when so much of our money has been used to destroy the country.
# posted by 
: 2:18 pm
: 2:18 pm
Unlikely. The Royals may make some contribution to the events surrounding the ceremony, but the vast majority of the cost(ie. security) will be met by the taxpayer. It is right that the taxpayer should pay this. After all, we don't expect our political class to pay for their bodyguards. Maybe the dull republicans would prefer that royals employed their own lictors?
I am happy for the taxpayer to pay this cost. I have paid enormous taxes in the UK for several years, and got nothing out of the system(healthcare that was too bad to use, and schools I wouldn't send my children to in a million years etc etc). There are many like me. I suspect most of them will be pleased that a small proportion of our taxes will be used to stage an event that might give a beleaguered country a measure of national pride, when so much of our money has been used to destroy the country.
Post a Comment
I am happy for the taxpayer to pay this cost. I have paid enormous taxes in the UK for several years, and got nothing out of the system(healthcare that was too bad to use, and schools I wouldn't send my children to in a million years etc etc). There are many like me. I suspect most of them will be pleased that a small proportion of our taxes will be used to stage an event that might give a beleaguered country a measure of national pride, when so much of our money has been used to destroy the country.
# posted by : 2:19 pm
: 2:19 pm << Home
