Much to the chagrin of many of my friends, I will admit to
being something of a Royalist. Not completely I must add, though I'll get to
that momentarily.
Yes, it is archaic, and when one really thinks about it,
having an inherited Head of State is as completely ludicrous as it has always
been since the times of Ancient Rome, given that their personality, morals et
al are as unpredictable through birth as any such occurrence is.
However, I'm rather fond of our Queen. I can't deny that
some of that credit would have to go to Helen Mirren, much like Meryl Streep
gave a touch of genteel humanity to Thatcher
in the on-set of dementia, so one could argue that my warmth is inspired purely
by fiction as much as fact.
But I also like her for being such a constant. In this
ever-changing, seemingly ever-faster World, she is etched and stitched into the
fabric of all our years alive. As a child, to me and my family The Queen was as
much the 25th of December as Father Christmas himself was. My Grandmother 'knew'
her, thus so my Mother , and so in some small way I do too. There is, I believe,
something soothing in that continuity. For over half a century she has stood as
a through-line connecting every Prime Minister from Churchill to this day, a rarity
of which the relevance should not be dismissed.
It cannot be denied, whatever one's thoughts on the matter,
that she has undertaken her duty as Monarch with diligent dignity, grace and an
unwavering commitment that few could match or let alone surpass in a lesser
role. And though she has undoubtedly lived a life of immense privilege, one far
removed from that of the Common People, there are a countless many who have
been personally touched by but a moment of her personal focus and attention.
So for me, I'm quite patriotic in my thought of 'God Save
The Queen'.
On the flip-side, in the majority the rest of them I could
happily do without. I'm somewhat charmed by William and Harry I suppose, much
as I was beguiled by Diana, but then we live, more than ever, in an age that is
beholden to 'The Cult of Celebrity'. And there is Anne, who is truly a toff but
a hard-working one at best. But yes, the likes of Beatrice and Eugenie irk considerably,
and when we come to one such as the Princess Michael of Kent I swing closer to being
a gun-toting Revolutionary.
That particular rather loathsome jade is not, however, to be
confused with the more elegant and most 'ordinary' Katharine, Duchess of Kent,
who has in many ways forgone her 'Royal' status, including most secretly taking
up the decade-long role of a Primary School music teacher in Kingston upon Hull
known as plain Ms.Kent, along with her tireless charitable work with the likes
of UNICEF and The Samaritans; I like Katherine Kent very much.
Is it ridiculous that our taxes pay for The Queen? I won't try
to dispute that. But then the Queen herself favours a gradual shrinking of the
Civil List as she tries to trim the cost of the Royal family to satisfy public
opinion; and Charles too has long believed that the Royal Family has to be
leaner and more cost effective, although his own spending of around £15million
a year makes you wonder what he actually means by lean (the Queen is famously -
and relatively - thrifty in comparison).
Besides, our taxes also pay for every M.P. to have two homes
when most of us cannot afford one, our taxes have paid millions towards the
comfort of a hate preacher, our taxes are misused far more frequently and fundamentally
poorly than on dear old Elizabeth II, and that remains a discussion for another
day entirely. Furthermore, whilst it isn't happening fast enough (such things
rarely do) the current centuries old system of grants and Civil List funding is
being replaced by an all-in-one payment called the Sovereign Support Grant,
paid for entirely by the Crown Estate.
Yes. I'm vehemently against the aforementioned likes of toilet-lid-wearing
Beatrice and Eugenie being kept on the Civil List and similar funding, or even
having taxpayer-funded royalty protection officers, which apparently for the
most part (upon revelation it was costing us £500,000 a year) has now ceased.
So yes, things are gradually changing, with their no-doubt disgruntled playboy
dad Andrew now having to pay their rent of £30,000 a year. But for a
four-bedroom 'flat' in the area of St.James' Palace, I'd say that comes at a
snip.
Their cousins William and Harry may be required to have
protection, but then they also fulfil their military duties, whilst Peter and
Zara Phillips, though unquestionably gifted by the silver spoon, have both
built up impressive independent CVs and, significantly, neither of them have
police protection, or carry a title.
But here, today, this is where I'm cross as I catch this
evening's headline:
Duke
and Duchess of Cambridge’s refurbishments cost taxpayer £1m
This is the cost of converting the late party girl Princess
Margaret's 'Apartment 1A' at Kensington Palace ready for them and their new
born sometime in the Autumn, after the renovation and redecoration is complete. Oh, so after £1m it still isn't
finished yet? And the name 'Apartment 1A' is also a little misleading, seeing
as it consists of 57 rooms. Admittedly, it has been stated that all the
interior decorating costs are being paid for out of the Royal family’s private
income. So what has the £1m gone on then? Roof tiles, re-wiring and asbestos
clearance apparently.
Which makes me wonder, is the Royal Household that out of
touch, because they're being taken for one hell of a scam with that bill. It
smells like a dodgy contractor to me. Someone really needs to call Esther
Rantzen, Gloria Hunniford or Angela Rippon on their behalf, because clearly,
even The Crown is open to a clever con.