Coffee House

It’s a boy! Advice for the royal baby from James Delingpole

22 July 2013

9:54 PM

22 July 2013

9:54 PM

Congratulations, Baby Windsor. You have just been born a subject of Her Britannic Majesty (as it used to say on the passports) and have therefore won life’s lottery.  Actually, given the state of the nation and the economy, maybe ‘won life’s dog-eared scratchcard’ is more the phrase juste. Still, you’ve done amazingly well. Thanks to the freakiest odds imaginable you have, merely by the accident of being conceived by the right couple, leapfrogged to the covetable position of third in line to the British throne.

So that’s the good news. The bad news is that it comes with a certain amount of baggage. Problem one: you’re a constititutional monarch. This means that when eventually your dad pops his clogs, you won’t be able to do nearly so much of the cool stuff as you might have done had you been born to the same position 500 years earlier. You won’t be able to have people’s heads chopped off on a whim, nor expand your territory by force, nor up the tax rate whenever you’re feeling skint. All those big decisions are taken by the government of the day. (Well, by the EU, actually, but don’t worry about that detail: it will have ceased to exist long before you inherit the throne.) And no matter how stupid and useless it is — as it will be — you’ll have to go through the motions of pretending when you read out its crap policy plans at the beginning of each parliament that they’re, like, a really great idea and exactly what you would have done had you been in charge. (Which, sadly, sorry to rub this one in, you’re not.)

Then there’s the money and property thing. At first it might strike you as impressive: the big house in London (a bit grim and heavy inside but within walking distance of the Caprice, the Wolseley and Harvey Nicks), the holiday homes in Norfolk and the New Republic of Windfarmia, plus, of course, all the other dosh and assets accumulated by your ancestors. Problem is, it’s not technically yours. Thanks to some ghastly lefty stitch-up long before your time, the government gets to rifle through your laundry bills and decide how much you can reasonably live on. And it gets worse: even though the nation you serve gets by far the better end of this financial arrangement, still you’ll be perpetually berated by ignorant chipsters as a scrounger.


Imagine: interminable dancing displays; rictus grins and ludicrous headgear in bakeries, building sites and factories; your weekly ordeal with a dork of a prime minister; endless tedious state banquets where you can’t ever get drunk, pick your nose or let slip a crafty silent one. And yet you’re expected to feel, like, grateful for your privilege…


This is an extract from James Delingpole’s Spectator column. Click here to read the full piece.

Offer of the summer: Three months FULL access to The Spectator (iPad, iPhone, web, Kindle Fire and print) for just £12. Click here.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Alexander James Messi

    Delingpole acts all royalist and blameful of the Left for instituting policies that control the Monarch’s spending “allowances”: although probably right on this last point, he onces again attempts to display his toffishness with unconvincing jabs at the left political spectrum. may I remind you, my dear James D, that you are not part of the nobility, you grow up in Worcestershire, and if it weren’t for some of those tedious lefty decisions earlier on in the century, you’d probably be still living on a grimmy diet of state education and spag-bol. Be proud of you “little government” principles, but please stop harassing the left on everything. It’s non-constructive and pathetic

  • Noa
  • Daniel Maris

    I am a rational supporter of monarchy. As long as it does the job, that’s OK. As a kind of neutral, inactive conduit for supreme power, it certainly has its uses. As a unifying focal point for the nation, it has its uses .

    But is monarchy just being used now to hide the extent of the cultural changes that are happening in the UK (because let’s face it the House of Windsor is not an equal opportunity employer and when it comes to friends of William and Harry for instance, only whites need apply)?

    More pertinently, is the next in line to the throne – who wants to be the defender of faith, embracing Islam as a positive force in our society – going to be working for the country or against it?

    I fear the media monarchy – a blinding blaze of flash bulbs – is being deployed to dispel the gathering darkness. But if the fundamentals are changing, then it is just becoming a meaningless sideshow.

  • M. Wenzl

    The EU controls our tax rate? I never knew. Does it control foreign, defence and welfare policies as well?

    • Noa

      Increasingly, yes.

      • Alexander James Messi

        increasingly? But of courseeeeee, yessss, every day they take decisions, in dark and grimmy backrooms, to cut off bigger proportions of our sovereignty. How ill-informed you are about the goings-on of the EU? They have NO control over our tax rate, barely control our welfare policies and certainly don’t decide peanuts about our military and defence policy.

        If you are going to be eurosceptic, that’s fine: but get your arguments clear first// a bit of research might be in order.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    I’ve not seen M0hamm3d, Trayvon or Ecgfrith mentioned as names yet.

    • ArchiePonsonby

      Neither Darren nor Duwayne! But congrats to Kate and Wills all the same!

  • Robert Taggart

    Damn that restoration job – 1660 style !

  • HookesLaw

    A pretty poor article not half of clever as the author thinks. And of course has precipitated the usual crass comments.

    People seem to miss the obvious point about the baby … genes. His birth marks the influx of a totally out of the box set of genes from a totally non royal family with something of a can-do history. The monarchy progresses onward towards the 22nd century.

  • stanedeid

    How about calling the wee boy Saxe-Coburg Gotha?

    • David Lindsay

      Certainly not. His name is neither that, nor Windsor, nor Cambridge, nor Wales. He is the legitimate son of the legitimate son of Prince Philip. Therefore, his name is Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

  • Naresh Krishnamoorti

    Third in line? Poppycock. Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein is third in line to the British throne.

    • David Lindsay

      No, he is third in line to the Thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland.

      • Noa

        Not that, as a Jacobite, he’d ever be allowed to cross the finishing line.

    • Sam Davidson

      Thank you.

    • ArchiePonsonby

      Never heard of him!

  • Noa

    “…And it gets worse: even though the nation you serve gets by far the
    better end of this financial arrangement, still you’ll be perpetually
    berated by ignorant chipsters as a scrounger…”
    Oh well, he can always abdicate and go on Welfare, both now firmy British inter-generational family traditions.
    And congratulations to the proud Mother and Father.

  • David Lindsay

    I am trying to guess the exact difference in age between Audrey Roberts and our future king, both of whom were born on 22nd July, although not in the same year. Of course, she is his step-grandmother.

    Naturally, I shall have to be godfather. I am owed it after young William, when I was passed over in favour of Laurens van der Post in order to placate that ghastly, jumped-up Thatcher woman.

    • dalai guevara

      Hahaha! Think again, why would you possibly desire to be a godparent to what James wants to make us believe is yet just another government funded PR wage slave.

      • David Lindsay

        Republicanism, as it calls itself, has always been the logic of Thatcherism.

        There are at least two Conservative MPs in their thirties who are known to be so minded in the strongest possible terms. One of them is tipped for the Cabinet in the near future.

        I bet that there are plenty more, with a large proportion of the admittedly small 2015 intake from that party also very highly likely to be of that view.

        • dalai guevara

          Baudouin passed the crown jewels to a very troubled successor indeed. A deja vu, perhaps?

        • ArchiePonsonby

          HM supposedly couldn’t stand Thatcher and the word is that it was entirely reciprocal!

          • David Lindsay

            Oh, it was. Both personally and politically, they loathed each other.

            • ArchiePonsonby

              In fact, I seem to recall a brief film clip – very grainy and resembling in quality the kind that used to be smuggled out of Soviet Russia – of HM and Thatcher in a crowd at some official-looking function, with Thatcher appearing to scurry off in high dudgeon after a brief word!