Something to consider on the subject of this big old wedding
As you will have gathered, I was pretty tired when I wrote yesterday’s barely-counts-as-a-blog, and I mean pretty tired in the same way that Richard Branson is pretty well-off or Ribena is pretty dependent on blackcurrants. (I know there is a strawberry flavour and so on, but let’s not pretend that stuff is real Ribena.) In my haste to get something down on virtual paper, I muttered that the Royal Wedding was quite important, whether you were ‘into’ it or not. A couple of people really disagreed with this, one of them a poster called Captain Autumn who tends to write very interesting things. He went so far as to remark controversially that he ‘could scarcely think of anything less important’. The same person had reacted with dismay when I listed Kate and William as a review subject in the Very Late Review. He’s not the only one to feel like this by a long way. You’ll find similar views all over Twitter and Facebook and so on.
I am no royalist and I’m not convinced I shall be paying much attention to proceedings from Westminster because I got up at 4.30am this morning to fly to Auckland, will shortly perform a high-pressure spot in the New Zealand Comedy Festival Gala, and hence plan to be either drunk or asleep by the time our future king says ‘I will’. However, I do think it is naïve to dismiss the importance of today’s events. Here’s why.
Firstly – this is not the main point, see it as a starter – as one commenter yesterday remarked, whether we like it or not, most of us reading this are British, and even if we utterly dismiss the validity of the notion of a god-appointed monarch reigning over us (which most of us probably do), it is a fact nonetheless that the country where we live has been shaped by this very assumption forever. OK, the Windsors don’t do a lot these days, and half of them probably only got into this bloodline by illegitimate unions and incestuous or specious marriages and god-knows-what-else. And yes, probably we shouldn’t be spending a penny of our taxes to sustain this peculiar situation (although I would point out that our taxes are wasted in worse ways elsewhere). And yes, it does make Britain look like some weird twee theme-park when we break out the Union flags to salute two rich people getting wed, and yes there is something a bit fucked-up about such a wedding being celebrated by much much poorer folks who could do with that cash to get a house and stuff. BUT BUT BUT all this aside, if you watch or read any history of Britain you choose, a lot of it will be ‘Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, Charles I got executed, Victoria was awfully stern after her old man died’ and so on, all the way up to ‘the British people strangely got into the monarchy again after Diana died’. You might think it’s pretty stupid that our nation WAS formed from the doings of these various weird monarchs-gone-by, but it was. As Beau Brummel wrote, it might be bullshit, but it’s British bullshit. It’s part of us. And so when a new chapter is written like this, it seems sensible for even a rock-solid republican to take notice. Yeah, you might say, Henry VIII was important all right, but these days they have no power. Don’t they, though? There’ll be a million people in the streets of London today and another million celebrating because two people walked in a straight line down a church. If that’s not power, what is?
Which brings me to my main point. For me, the importance of events isn’t intrinsic, but should be measured by their influence. You might think football is pointless (I personally don’t, but I won’t argue with you about it again), but if half a billion people watch the World Cup Final, then something massive has happened whether you like it or not. I don’t watch ‘Top Gear’, but since several million people do, I can’t really dismiss it as unimportant even if I don’t give a toss which car is faster than which other car. The swine flu epidemic turned out to be nowhere as virulent as people predicted, but because millions of people were persuaded that it WAS going to be deadly, it exerted almost the same influence on the world’s imagination as if it HAD been.
In other words, in my opinion, the scale of importance of events is a bit like the one used to judge the importance of a piece of art. You and I would not pay half a million quid for a picture of a one-eyed woman even we had such money. But if someone will, as someone did at an auction in London recently, then it automatically becomes ‘worth’ half a million quid whether it’s bollocks or not. This ‘it’s worth whatever you will pay for it’ principle is well known in the world of, say, painting. It also applies to the actual world. The Royal Wedding is worth the attention we collectively pay to it. And – again, whether you like it or not – that is a massive amount.
You might think the one billion (one FUCKING BILLION!) people watching across the world are nuts. Especially the ones who’ve come halfway across the world just to watch it, even though they’ll get barely any nearer the royals than if they’d watched it at home on TV. As I’ve said, I would tend to agree with you, and I could well end up not being one of that billion myself. But my suspicion is that I’ll at least tune in for a bit, because I think that events that command the eyes of the globe are quite dangerous to underestimate. In fifty years they’ll be showing clips of it in ‘what happened in the 2010s’ documentaries, long after anything I have ever done is forgotten. That might be a regrettable fact, but it is futile to resist the tide of history.
I’ll change my mind when, and only when, we overthrow the monarchy. Until we can do that, I think we should be wary of claiming it means nothing when more than ten percent of the whole world watches two of them get hitched.
Tomorrow I will try to list ten things I believe are less important than the Royal Wedding, in the interests of taking on Andrew (whose opinion I respect). We’ll start off with two: moss and Sunny Delight (the formerly popular bright orange drink). Do add your own suggestions. And enjoy today whether you’re planning to watch all the hysterics, get caned and sing Sex Pistols songs, or both at the same time. Good luck!
Posted by Misha on May 2, 2011
Catch up comment #1: I spent most of Friday in a car driving up to Machynlleth, consequently all I saw of the royal wedding was about 40 seconds of Kate walking up the aisle as I paid for petrol somewhere in Monmouth.
And yet it caught my eye. If they’re showing it in a petrol station, I think it’s somewhat important.
Posted by MusicalLottie on May 1, 2011
@Andrew To be fair, one of the points raised by the newspapers at least (I haven’t seen any of the TV coverage) was that because of the divorces in Prince William’s immediate family, there’s a lot more pressure on him to be sure to make it work – especially as he seems more likely to succeed the Queen than Prince Charles.
Posted by Alex on May 1, 2011
Just having a scroll through the comments. I very much enjoy the fact that someone describes themselves as the ‘more lurky Alex’.
Posted by Andrew on May 1, 2011
Naive, he calls me. Naive? I am choosing to take it as a compliment
I think there are two issues raised here which, stuck at work at 10 o’clock on a Sunday morning, I am alas too tired to fully tackle. One is how we define the notion of importance, which I suspect is ultimately a philosophical rather than semantic point. You (more or less, forgive me for over-simplifying) say that if something is popular, by extension it is important. I think (I’m not sure, but I think) I disagree with this. I think if something is popular it is just popular. If we say that loads of people caring about something makes it important, doesn’t that mean there is a sliding scale of importance which just runs alongside popularity? Is (off the top of my head) Big Brother more important than We Need Answers? I beg to differ. (Dirty trick that one, I’ll grant you.)
It’s a complicated one, and I’ll happily retract the too tired excuse and concede that I’m actually too stupid to tackle it.
The second (much less significant) point is that my dismissal of the wedding as unimportant related specifically to the wedding, rather than the monarchy, to which it seems to have been expanded. Marriage as an institution in the 21st century is an institution in flux, and being invited to celebrate as wonderfully romantic the union of a man who counts three divorces in his immediate family seems to be asking of the country a mass act of disingenuousness. In which, to be fair, most seem happy to participate.
Posted by Helen on April 30, 2011
Yeah, the comment Josh made about not wanting to be too cynical to party pretty much sums up my views.
For things less important than the wedding, I would like to nominate:
1. The small wooden cat that sits in front of our television.
Nobody in our family likes cats. This cat holds no sentimental value to anyone. It just makes it more difficult to change channel because it’s tail blocks out part of the sensor for the remote. I have no idea why it is there.
2. Yellow coloured straws
I’m sticking my neck out here but I just don’t think they’d be missed.
Posted by Rachael on April 30, 2011
Good points there Mr Watson. I thought that since there was no point moaning about it I might as well embrace it with the rest of the world, and I had a pretty good time. It was also a welcome excuse for a day off from writing assignments.
Posted by alex (the other, more lurky one) :) on April 30, 2011
Haere mai, by the way
Posted by Alex on April 30, 2011
I’m far from a monarchist, but as I said in the VLR, William and Kate actually seem very nice and I’m glad it went well for them. I personally have had a great day. If you can’t beat them join them, so we used the excuse to start drinking at ten in the morning. As for all the angry ‘I PAID FOR THIS!’ types… Well, yeah, and I’m not entirely ok with that, but you can’t do anything about that, so at least try and enjoy it.
Posted by Alex on April 30, 2011
I’m far from a monarchist, but as I said in the VLR, William and Kate actually seem very nice and I’m glad it went well for them. I personally have had a great day. If you can’t beat them join them, so we used the excuse to start drinking at ten ib
Posted by alot of rachels on April 29, 2011
I wasn’t overly fussed about them getting married or the royals but I do love the atmosphere it caused and I like it when a very big mass of people are brought together by something and so I got caught up in all of that. I’d much rather we are all brought together by England winning the world cup tough.
Posted by Ingrid on April 29, 2011
I guess your right that its important, but i’m just not sure if it should be.
Yes of course it’s a symbol of ‘Britishness’ , but is this really the symbol we want to give out? There are of course all the points that you said, about giving them our taxes when other people could put them to much better use, but also are these the people we want to represent us? Because after all thats all the royals really are now isn’t it? Just a symbol. So if we get someone to symbolize us, surely we should get to choose. If we chose, the queen might still be voted top, but it would also be a much fairer way of deciding in my opinion.
The problem is, if we dont like the royals its hard to suggest what should be done. It’s all very well to suggest we take away all their money and just stop funding them, but in practice that can never really work. What would happen to them? Were would they go? And why are we taking everything away from a little old lady? Its not their fault they were born into this. Too many complications.
So we can’t do that. And what can we do?
Nothing really. Even if we want to.
I guess its just a problem. Its not anyones fault in particular, and there is little we can do about it… So im not sure what my point is. But that pretty much all i have on the matter.
Oh, and also i think it’s fair to say poncho’s are less important than the royal wedding. They went out a while ago. Just a thought…
Posted by Matthew Evans on April 29, 2011
The Royal Wedding was blessed relief from all this talk about super-injunctions. Now those stories are less important for certain. Who cares who’s been knocking off Imogen from Big Brother?
I’d argue about moss though and if Sunny D is as harmful as its critics say it is then it could be very important for all the wrong reasons.
Posted by Rachel/Pandora on April 29, 2011
Deliberately not being happy for other people when they’re clearly very happy seems like a bit of a spiteful thing to do, really. You don’t need to bouncing up and down with joy in front of the telly if you don’t want to be, but you if you’re not interested than just shrug your shoulders and be indifferent. It’ll take a lot less time then hating things left, right and centre.
I ended up watching it all, and quite liked it. There were excellent hats, fanfares and they seem to properly love each other. S’cute, no?
Posted by Lydia on April 29, 2011
I did end up watching part of it in the end because my day turned into a bit of a nightmare, and judging by the texts I was getting from my best friend, I thought it might be a bit of a distraction.
A lot of people have argued “why would I be happy for them?” But I kind of think it’s good, and perhaps depressingly different, to be happy about something for once. Especially if, for whatever reason, you don’t really feel like you can with your own life. For example I found their whole wedding quite comforting since I knew I would soon be going see my granddad in hospital, and old people’s wards and probably dying soon are sad. Knowing there was something good going on somewhere, and that it was so kind of… tangible, I guess, was comforting. Plus it’s nice to think “the world isn’t all bad” (I can be quite melodramatic about things) instead of “there are people who are dealing with stuff way worse than this”, which, while providing much needed perspective isn’t exactly a cheering thought.
Posted by Linesman on April 29, 2011
I am currently teaching English out here in Mexico, and with very few exceptions every single Mexican I have conversed with in the last couple of months has asked me what I was planning on doing to celebrate the happy occasion.
I have mixed views.
On the one hand, I have the automatic ‘Devil’s Advocate’ reaction – lots of people are going into a frenzy, and I don’t want to be no part of no frenzy. Certainly an ingrained sense of superiority, but there you have it. I also like to decide for myself how important an event is; I don’t like being told it’s important by the media, and then having it rammed down my throat from beginning to end. When things get shoved down my throat, I get a gag reflex.
If I do take a passing interest in an event, I don’t want every single detail. I can cope with the historical significance of the union; I don’t need ring sizes and dress cuts. I’m not too fussed about knowing the precise time and movements of the army’s dress rehearsal.
All that said, I am a monarchist. Not an ardent one by any means, but I’m happy they’re there. They bring in the tourists. That is important not merely from a financial point of view, but for Britain’s position in the world. The more (positive) interest foreigners take in Britain, the better for us.
Owing to the immediate proximity of the US, most of what Mexicans know about English-speakers comes pretty much from our lost cousins. Anything which promotes Britishness should be seen as ‘important’. I don’t watch football, but I recognise the value of the Premier League out here (slowly trying to indoctrinate them with the values of rugby union and cricket). I’m no fan of the Harry Potter films, but again, it’s very well known out here. Mexicans are fascinated by the prospect of seeing Mr Bean and Dr House in a comedy series together.
These people, who otherwise have no connection with dear old Blighty, are taking an interest. Who knows what effect this’ll have in the long run, but all around the world people are actively talking positively about us. That can only be a good thing.
So whilst I personally didn’t get up at silly o’clock to follow it (time difference and personal apathy), it most surely should be considered an ‘important’ event.
Doesn’t mean I have to take an active interest in it, and I’ll be glad to see a more news-orientated BBC News page.
Posted by Anji on April 29, 2011
No matter what for a very long time people will remember what they were doing the day Kate and Wills got married. Whether you warned it or not. There’s just some days that happen with. And it all boils down tonthe same, there just ain’t no pleasing some people.
Personally I wish them the best. Considering how much pressure they must be under I thought it was a lovely service and so clear to see the feelings they share. Who doesn’t wish they could have the happily ever after and such a fairytale day.
Posted by h2osarah on April 29, 2011
I was asleep when it happened. If nothing else, the anniversary each year will remind me of the day that I submitted my thesis and officially completed my M.Sc. Which, maybe not in world events, but certainly in my life, is a far more important day.
Posted by lisan66 on April 29, 2011
Oh, only problem I have with it is that live streaming is eating my battery and I’ve no charger with me
Posted by lisan66 on April 29, 2011
I’m Irish, and even though I’m pretty sure that half the people in this country disagree with me, I really do like the royal family. I think it’s more of the cultural thing about them than thinking they’re actually nice people. I’m in college right now, and there’s loads of people watching it on laptops, and everyone’s talking about it in lectures and over coffee. I’m watching it right now. I’m not insane enough (no offence intended) to go to London to try and see over ten people’s heads to see the back of Kate Middleton but I do think it’s interesting. I also think it’s really interesting that sometihng like this has such a hold over the entire world! For everyone who turns around and says they hate the royal family I think there’s about five people who are watching right now.
There are loads of people in Ireland though that just keep cursing it. But I think they are the people that are still a bit sore over the whole Britain ruling Ireland for several hundred years, but it’s hardly as if it’s Prince William who done that, so really, I don’t see why Irish people should have a problem with him.
I think I may have gone slightly off point there, but that’s my opinion
Posted by Alice on April 29, 2011
Nicely put mr Watson, I like coming here to read calm debates. I’m working today so that means I don’t have to make a decision. As a waitress this is my second whole bank holiday weekend in a row, so I’m just getting my head down and waiting for my next day off.
To stick my oar in I would rather do without the royals but if nothing else this wedding is promoting growth in commemorative merchandise and promoting tourism if your international viewing figures are anything to go by so I’m inclined to acknowledge that now is not the time to scale down. Good luck to ‘em, hopefully the kids will look like her (if nothing else she should spell the end to all that male pattern baldness).
Posted by Edward on April 29, 2011
@Josh Re: Hitler as reason for unelected monarchy. Is this a joke? There are many flaws in your argument but like you I will consider only one here. You say that an unelected head of state would save us from the tyranny of an unfit democratically elected Prime Minster. That the royal families love of country would guide them to do what’s truely in the best interests of the nation, even when the electorate have foolishly chosen poorly. You site as an example of poor democratic choice Hitler and warn of it’s relevance by siting Nick Griffin as gangsters we’d (rightly) rather not win elected power. But your belief is based on the notion that the monarch would share the same political taste as yourself. Firstly if the monarch was Edward VIII then he would support Hitler. Secondly how would you feel if they failed to recognise the government that you had voted for?
Posted by Josh (the magnificent one) on April 29, 2011
I think it comes down to this: do we really want to go down in history as the generation that thought they were too clever for a party?
Secondly, and I deeply apologise for posting this link AGAIN, I wrote a thing the other day about the monarchy, and why we should under no account get rid of it.
http://hardwatertown.tumblr.com/post/4956821973/for-queen-and-country
So, yes, I will watch the wedding, because I don’t want people too look back at us and see a cynical, bitter people who couldn’t have a good time merely because they didn’t think it was cool enough for them.
(Also, this wedding is costing us negative millions of pounds, so you can all stop your whining about that)
Posted by knellr on April 29, 2011
I wouldn’t class the World cup as important myself, but it is fantastic fun and I love to lose myself in it every four years. The effects on infrastructure, the economy, and the happiness of the people watching means that while the event itself is not important, it has an important effect on people’s lives.
The Royal Wedding is in the same category for me, though I don’t share in the enthusiasm myself.
Richard Feynman used to talk about epaulets. Dress events up in ceremony and their participants in epaulets, and I get irritated. These people, these events, they are not in themselves important. I find myself desperate to strip away the ceremony and the epaulets and show things as they really are. Hopefully, today, that means a couple in love, and people that are happy for them.
Posted by sarahthemonkey2 on April 29, 2011
I was offered the day off for the royal wedding but a) it would of used one of my bank holidays days and these can go towards concerts and comedy shows.
b) I wasn’t that interested at the time of being asked however in hindsight, had everywhere been closed today I would have been out filming which has come about in the last few days. If I had not been filming, theoritcally I could of watched the whole of the BBC coverage before going to work anyway. Plus it will be in the papers tomorrow.
So I guess each to their own!
Posted by Matt Harvey on April 29, 2011
Suggestions for less important things:
Madonna’s old thoughts
Curling equipment (the ice sport, not the hair accessory)
bad cheese
Posted by Dan Walsh on April 29, 2011
I whole-heartedly agree.
I used to be a staunch republican until I worked in London for a retailer for 18 months. It was then that I realised that the monarchy has a commercial value to Britain in the sheer volume of people it brings to London.
So whilst it still irks me that these people are born into such ridiculous privilege, I am happy that in a broad economic sense, the monarchy pays for itself and agree that we piss tax payers money up the wall to a far greater extent elsewhere.