X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

The Wedding Dog That Barked

27 April 2011

12:40 AM

27 April 2011

12:40 AM

That, Watson, was the remarkable thing about the Royal Wedding: the dog barked and still no-one heard it. You can scarcely open a paper this week without encountering yet another thumbsucker on the future of the monarchy. Most of these, such as this New York Times effort from John Burns, suggest the old ship needs urgent repairs. Frequently this will be accompanied by yet another piece complaining that the press is devoting far too much attention to the whole anachronistic palaver. Someone, somewhere will complain this week that they’ve yet to meet anyone at all interested in Prince William’s marriage. This will echo Pauline Kael’s complaint that she’d never encountered a Nixon voter. 

You could be forgiven for thinking that, at best, the show is being put on for elderly wurzels, corn chandlers and backwoodsmen none of whom could be said to be much "in touch "with what modern Britain is supposed to stand for. The whole show, with all its pomp and excess, is ridiculous only when it isn’t busy being absurd. That’s the impression given by some of the coverage anyway. (Christpher Hitchens’ splendid blast is also, it might be observed, dripping with snobbery.)

And yet actually and quietly and gallingly for some, the people are interested in the wedding. A Guardian poll this week, published with some misgivings one likes to think, tries to spin this interest away but is forced to concede that 47% of the British population plan to watch at least some of the television coverage of the wedding on Friday. That is, by any measure, a strikingly large percentage of the population.

[Alt-Text]


In 1981 Charles and Diana’s wedding attracted a television audience of roughly half the UK population at the time. Their son’s wedding seems likely to do nearly as well and be by some distance the most-watched television event since Diana’s funeral. That’s quite something. Moreover, it means that as a "mass event" the wedding is only rivalled by general elections. Sure, voting requires more effort than watching a TV broadcast but, I repeat, there’s almost nothing or no other event that could command such an audience. Perhaps the only thing that could would be England playing in a World Cup final. Royal Weddings come along more often than that.

This being so, it’s daft to complain about too much coverage. The public is interested in this. To complain about the coverage is, in some sense, to make the case that journalism should only be concerned with matters that are in the public interest. But unless journalism also panders to – that is, serves – the things in which the public is actually interested there will be no "public interest" journalism at all.

In any case, the marriage of the future head of state satisfies both parts of the journalistic equation. Hitch cites Thomas Paine’s observation that a hereditary monarch is as absurd as a hereditary mathematician or a hereditary doctor. Nevermind that a) there are hereditary doctors (and hereditary plumbers too, now you mention it) and b) there’s all the difference in the world between a hereditary monarch will real political power and one in which that power has been diverted to parliament and the executive. Paine’s point has been ruined by history.

And by custom. Monarchy may not satisfy a keen rationalist but abandoning something that works simply because it doesn’t "make sense" doesn’t make much sense either. Nor, with the possible exception of Ireland, am I persuaded that any of the countries that have replaced monarchy have really come up with alternative arrangements that are vastly or obviously preferable. How could they when most often these arrangements are designed to offer the convenience of monarchy, only stripped of most of its advantages?

That seems to be a sentiment shared by many of their own people too. Sure, the American take on the wedding is, um, eccentric but it seems even the French are not immune to the fascination this whole show seems to command:

Since the engagement was announced in November, media coverage has been building. Point de Vue, a popular weekly magazine, has been focusing on little else. It normally sells 200,000 copies a week but its chief editor, Colombe Pringle, expects the wedding special this week to sell 750,000. Other rivals like Paris Match have also been publishing commemorative editions. Le Figaro, one of the most popular dailies, offered a 79-page special entitled: “So British.”
On French television, three major channels — TF1, France 2 and M6 — will show the ceremony live.
Olivier Debeugny, 37, who lives in the Paris region and works in insurance, said that his mother and aunt would be glued to their set at home in Lille on Friday. “I have no idea why,” he said, “and I’m not sure that they could tell you why, either.”

Quite. But they will and so will millions others. It’s a big world out there and there’s plenty of room for those who want no part of any of it and plenty of TV channels for them to watch too. But the suggestion, implicit in some of the commentary, that few people are interested in the wedding is not supported by the facts. On the contrary, few events are followed by as many people. That’s the real story and it’s a much stranger, more interesting, more human one than the idea that people aren’t or shouldn’t be interested in this.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close