I'm super excited that there is a royal wedding while I'm actually living here, and it seems the whole nation has been thrown into a frenzy of preparing for the big day. The wedding, combined with the warm weather, has given York a very festive feel of late. Every shop window has something Harry and Meaghan related - I've included pictures throughout!
I have always adored everything related to the British monarchy. For a while my most-loved library book was What If You Were Royal?. It chronicles the history of the monarchy and describes the current royal family's lives (for children). The obsession never faded as I got older, even when I learned less attractive and more salacious details about this famous family (Squidygate, eurgh).
When Kate and William got married, I bought not one but two of the People Magazine collector editions. I got rid of one when I was cleaning my room before I moved here...but I kept the other copy.
A few months ago I embarked on a personal research project. I wanted to understand the modern-day British perspective on the monarchy. I began to ask people in conversation to tell me about their opinions of the royals. It did not come out of nowhere - I'd already started to be treated to church members' opinions about the monarchy, whether I wanted to hear it or not, so I decided to ask others in my growing circle of acquaintances and friends what they thought.
Below is my thesis derived from this data.
Should They Stay or Should They Go?
An Informal Review of British Attitudes Towards Their Nation's Crown
The study has taken place over the course of about three months. My participants include young, middle-aged, and old mostly white British people of relative means. My methodology included informal qualitative interviews consisting of about two or three framing questions and open-ended discussion. Disclaimer: This is not a peer-reviewed or scientifically validated.
I was able to sort my results into several groups and code the data accordingly. Based on my approximations, about 50% of my subjects consider themselves republicans. Spelled thusly with a lowercase "r", this means that they do not wish to have a monarchy in Britain any longer. Most republicans followed up with comments that affect that the monarchy is a waste of precious taxpayer dollars and hearkens back to a time when Britain was more overtly classist than it is now.
The subjects who consider themselves republicans are of all ages or gender lines. Women and men both adhered to this belief. My piano teacher, Helen, who recently turned 70, told me that the French have invented two good things: good cheese and the guillotine. The guillotine, she says, is the most effective tool for ridding a country of its royalty, and should be used forthwith on our current regents.
Shantonu's cousin, Apu, who is an American living in Britain for some thirty years, believes that the monarchy represents a detrimental societal structure and continues to promulgate class barriers. While I heard these types of beliefs expressed from both men and women in my study, it seemed to be more men than women who consider themselves republicans.
Royalists, however, feel that the monarchy is good value for its money. The tourism in this country is abetted strongly by the presence of a living and still-active Queen, and they argue that certain studies have shown that the monarchy brings in more money than it costs taxpayers. Also, the royal family provides a certain cohesiveness to the country. Some said things like, "I could not imagine life without them," and even, "I don't know where we'd be without them."
Derek, my supervisor, who considers himself a republican (and indeed taught me the phrase), said that while he does not like the premise, many great nations have a ruling leader and then a further figurehead for more ceremonial duties. In the United States, we've gone one better, and elected a former star of his own reality television program to represent us to other nations around the globe.
To that end, being a royalist or republican reminds me of voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in this last election. Families were quite divided, and sometimes along marital lines. In some cases, it's also a conversation best left off the dinner table.
One very interesting and, if I may add, touching piece of my study: Almost to a one, each participant said that they respected and admired the Queen for her sixty-plus years of service that started at the the tender age of 25. (This includes my guillotine-loving piano teacher.) They say she has served and represented her country well, and has been through many hard times. She is a strong emblem of British culture and many said, even republicans, that she inspires them.
However, similarly interestingly and much more dire: Most people I spoke with (dare I say all? It seemed like that) do not like Prince Charles and Camilla. They said that they were very worried about his ascension to the throne. The most mild thing said about Prince Charles by my participants was that they "weren't sure" about him. Let me translate for you: In British-speak, "not sure of" is American for, "I really don't like him and this probably won't end well." Some people even expressed, rather morosely, that Princes Charles becoming king will signal the end of the monarchy.
Most wished that it could skip him over and jump to William and Kate, who are widely popular. Even republicans seemed to have high opinions of the young royals, and said that they felt that they were heralding a new era.
As for me? Well, I don't really know anymore. The monarchy was nice when I didn't live here, and I still love the history attached to it. But when I'm serving breakfast to people who have spent consecutive months sleeping in doorways around the city centre of York, I can't help but think it's a colossal waste of money and resources. I do see the appeal of something that feels community-oriented, however, and I love the feeling of all being in together on something, like we were for Royal Baby Watch 2018 and now for the Royal Wedding.
If I had my way, I probably would not change much, except to cut down the vast expense incurred by their bopping around all over the place and security details and fancy sideways hats. Meghan Markle does seem like she will bring a lot to the royal family. Just the other day I saw her as being quoted saying, "I'm American and I hug!" Thank ya Jesus, a woman who can really stand up for our American values among all these cold, uptight British fish...er, citizens.
Supposedly Ms. Markle represents a vast departure from the old days, when the royalty would never have married someone who is half-Black. I applaud and celebrate this. And, given all I have learned about British class, division of labor, and socioeconomic troubles, I think it will be even more exciting when a royal marries someone who isn't already a multi-millionaire.
So, will I be watching the Royal Wedding tomorrow? Well, as the Minnesotans would say, you betcha! Fancy, full of fanfare, and a waste of taxpayer dollars - how could I not?! Even caught as I am between being a die-hard Royalist and a newly moral republican, this American isn't willing to give up the chance to get excited in the British event of the season, featuring overpaid and under-worked celebrities that did nothing to merit their status. After all, I am from the colonies that invented reality-TV - it takes me back to my roots.
No comments:
Post a Comment