It must be very aggravating. Just when you have locked the royal family back in the box labelled "repressed memory", up they pop again, more popular than ever. This year it has been the royal wedding, next year it will be the Queen's diamond jubilee and possibly – rising excitement here – a new royal baby. It will be hard to escape them, particularly if the newspapers have anything to do with the matter.
The royal family are on a roll, if anything so undignified can be conceived. Yet just short of 10 years ago, at the time of the Queen's golden jubilee, things were very different. There was continuing fallout from the death of Princess Diana in 1997, the rumours and conspiracy theories still unresolved. Prince Charles, glum and unmarried, was in a state of near-open warfare with the rest of the family, close to establishing a staff of rival courtiers, and royal butlers were about to go on trial accused – unjustly – of pilfering from their employers. It was the culmination of a decade of terrible publicity for the family firm. And then, on top of that, at the dawn of the year, the Queen's sister Princess Margaret died, followed a few weeks later by the Queen Mother at the age of 101.
A decade on, many of those clouds have rolled away: the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are still ploughing gamely on – she approaching 86, he coming up to 91 – though that may have to be reassessed in the light of the duke's pre-Christmas medical emergency. Charles is happily married and more at ease than for decades, marital discords banished across the family. And, best of all for the future of the monarchy, there's a young – well, youngish – prince and a beautiful bride who has risen, as Oscar Wilde might have put it, from the purple of commerce rather than the ranks of the aristocracy, albeit as the heiress to Party Pieces rather than Amazon or Google. Both William and his little brother are even in worthwhile jobs and not troubling the tabloids.
As the royals tramp round the Sandringham estate this Christmas, they will reflect on a year well spent, apart from the duke's health scare, as will their officials and advisers back at St James's and Buckingham palaces. Whenever a big royal event is planned there is always a frisson of anxiety that it might flop, that the streets will be empty or, worse, filled with morose or abusive subjects in the sort of fearful scenario that the Arab spring has illustrated all too clearly.
Instead, the wedding last April brought more than a million spectators into London with many millions more watching on television around the world, while republicans could muster only a couple of hundred diehards for their own street party a mile away.
When the young couple visited Canada and the US a couple of months later, the excitement was such that three-quarters of a million of God's frozen people thronged the streets of Ottawa to catch a glimpse while a week later Hollywood's finest turned out in force to attend a banquet with Wills'n'Kate in Los Angeles. Reassuringly, the young couple seem refreshingly unstuffy and approachable, direct and able to engage in conversation without being too stilted or patronising, unlike some other members of the family.
That's all good for the future, but there's been a spring in the Queen's step recently too. It's very noticeable that she has gone all smiley on royal visits. The old dour, glum expression, so often seen a decade ago, has been replaced with a slightly surprised delight that people still want to turn out to see her. That was particularly marked on her state visit to Ireland in May, the first royal trip to the south in 100 years and one fraught with historical resonances, which turned into an unalloyed triumph.
Even more so in Australia of all places in October, where again cheering crowds were out in force, as if stunned that a diminutive octogenarian grandmother, however sprightly, should come so far and perhaps moved by the fact that she might not pass that way again.
Perhaps there will be a tide of republicanism when she dies, but that could still be some way off – her mother lived to 101 – and the royals are certainly mounting a doughty rearguard action if so. Meanwhile, there will be next year's diamond jubilee hoopla over the first weekend in June, followed closely by the Olympics to attend.
Her Majesty may be slowing down – only one or two events a day now, separated by lie-downs in the afternoons – but she will still dutifully be doing a royal tour of the British Isles during the summer and the younger members of the family are being sent out to show themselves across most parts of the Commonwealth.
When the organisers advertised for 1,000 assorted boats to accompany the Queen by taking part in a flotilla down the Thames on 3 June, they were 10 times over-subscribed. A million people are confidently expected to line the river banks between Putney and Tower Bridge to watch the show go past. It may be bread and circuses, but the masses seem to like it.
None of this quite disguises the fact that this will probably be the last great celebration of the current reign. Impossible to believe that the Queen would undertake such occasions in another 10 years and there there is no disguising the fact that the royal family is ageing, its longevity a tribute to sturdiness and a miracle of modern medicine.
The Queen is already the oldest British monarch and in another three-and-a-half years, will become the longest reigning one as well – no one now under the age of 70 can really remember living under another head of state. Whenever he succeeds to the throne, Charles will be an elderly king. And Prince William, the family's great hope to continue the fairytale, will be 30 this summer. They do need to keep the magic going. Time for that royal baby ...
Comments
26 December 2011 8:23PM
And Charles busy interfering with our democratic process, whilst making every effort to hide his actions from public accountability - whilst the entire family extricates itself from Freedom of Information, ensuring that whilst we pay for them, we are not allowed to know what they are doing when it impacts us.
etc., etc.
26 December 2011 8:33PM
God's frozen people? Really, Mr. Bates, what a dismissive way to address Canadians, who are part of your Commonwealth. It makes you seem like a snobby older brother. FYI, their Royal Highnesses were in Ottawa on July 1st, and it was a sweltering hot day.
27 December 2011 12:59AM
off with their heads!
27 December 2011 1:16AM
Reduce the Civil List to the level of the state pension.
So-called royal OAPs to receive usual NHS treatment according to their post code.
Russian archers to be given incendiary-tipped arrows when practicing in Kensington Gardens (if their targets are in front of various grace and favour houses).
Russian archers to be blindfolded.
27 December 2011 4:14AM
Not a very good year to be a repubbly-wubbly, no - bravo for coming out and saying it in the Graun, where the denial of inconvenient facts is the default position on matters such as this.
It would also be nice to see any subsequent articles by jokers like Graham Smith edited to remove ludicrous claims referring to 40% of the population being republicans etc. Mind, I see he's now reduced to being quoted in reputable publications like Iran's PressTV, lol, ;-)
27 December 2011 5:16AM
No more messing about with dodgy bankers who would have been boiled alive in public ages ago. No more corrupt press barons who would be sitting in the tower awaiting their turn on the block. No more politicians full of spin and deceit and elections that change nothing. No more noise from rancid republicans - it's a bit difficult to communicate having had their tongues ripped out and hands chopped off.
The trouble with this country is that we have gone too soft. We need real leadership.
Absolute monarchy now.
27 December 2011 6:36AM
Changed the world? You're having a laugh.
27 December 2011 6:50AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
27 December 2011 6:52AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
27 December 2011 7:32AM
Unrepresentative, unelected and unelectable, parasitical anachronisms - they change nothing; they are a disgrace to Britain's democracy and yet the Guardian twitters on about them as if they were important or necessary.
27 December 2011 7:32AM
Blimey - I thought the Guardian 'we' was a sloppy device, now we have the Guardian 'You'.
27 December 2011 7:39AM
Enough of the Occupy protesters - what is your view on the Royals ? (btw you missed out grubby and smelly - Finsbury Square is a no-go area for soap users these days)
27 December 2011 7:40AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
27 December 2011 7:46AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
27 December 2011 8:00AM
The royal wedding changed the world about as much as my last bowel movement has.
27 December 2011 8:13AM
It is nearly 2012 and the Guardian insists on chucking out forelock-tugging nonsense like this?
I agree with Mr Bates that Queenie could go on for a long time but when she does go the show is over. She is the one person that keeps the whole circus going, so monarchists, you'd better make the most of it while you can before her self-loathing son comes along to turn you all off.
27 December 2011 8:18AM
2011 is just so much a repeat of 1981.
Rising unemployment.
Riots on the streets.
Royal wedding.
Despair and gloom for years to come.
So,how is having a Royal Family as unelected head of state going to make any of that better?
How is Princess Kate shaking a few hands and smiling going to reduce unemployment and sort out the mess the banks have got us into?
What are the Queen's views on the gross income inequality that seems to be getting worse?
And will Will's decide to take a pay cut?
I wish I could do something about it,but I can't,since I don't have a say so when it comes to the Royal family.
27 December 2011 8:26AM
I wish that were true. I hope that by the time the Queen goes we take the opportunity to do something about this anachronism .
However I fear that the next set up is being prepared with the marriage of Wills and Kate
Their subsequent offspring ( can't be long now ) and the constant media hype similar to the storm that followed the nuptials of Charles & Di will ensure that a docile population will lap it all up and move on unquestioningly.
Just give us bread and entertainment and we will comply.
27 December 2011 8:48AM
The Royal Family belong to the our Medieval Period in Histoty, No doubt they would be delighted if we all reverted back to being compliant peasants and serfs,
toffing our forelocks and throwing ourselves at their feet in acknowledgement of their Divine Right of Kings.
Prince Charles could endlessly enact his right to Droit de Signeur..and
those who were not sufficiently obedient to their Lord of the Manor could be instantly beheaded.
Fortunately we have fought hard for our civil liberties over the last 1000 years and I look forward to when this family of parasites can finally be removed from power..
27 December 2011 8:53AM
A royal wedding does not change the world: it entrenches its absurdity in sable. Sick and sad.
27 December 2011 9:07AM
This article is tagged as "an event that changed the world". Certainly the wedding changed it for Kate Middleton from commoner to royalty. But the event itself did nothing to stimulate the British economy if anything it stiffled it.
Nothing new there. We still have an hereditary system with as others have commented members involved in some weird behaviour when they are out supposedly representing the UK (the US Embassy Cables released by WikiLeaks has examples). Certain members get right of veto over legislation; and if not veto at least consultation in case their personal interests are affected.
Maybe the wedding and subsequent visit to Canada and then the speculation over a baby and Liz's jubilee next year may revive sentimental wishes over royalty but will they, do they change the world in any meaningful and positive way? No.
27 December 2011 9:13AM
I had the impression that Wills and Kate's wedding was hyped up (by Cameron in particular) as a re-run of Di and Charlie's, but turned out to be a damp squib in comparison. There was a sense that a couple who'd been together as a couple for years and were pressurised to get hitched as they approached their 30th birthdays wasn't much to get excited about. Loads of Royal Wedding tat remained unsold. The sun didn't shine. No, it wasn't going to be 1981 revisited. And we were wised up the reality of how the sunny optimism of that July day was utterly trashed with the reality of Diana's misery with Charles and her eventual death by tabloid.
Cameron - not the royals, who delegated the responsibility of arranging the wedding - made sure there that Blair and Brown were excluded from the guest list, which then made the royal family look partisan. It wouldn't surprise me if the Queen was thorough pissed off with Cameron for making her look as if she was taking sides, when she's gone to great lengths over the last 60 years to be above politics. Having Osborne blame the downturn in the economy on the wedding (when they'd been its chief cheerleaders) must have added insult to injury.
27 December 2011 9:14AM
Well that's a climbdown from the front page headline.
Things that changed the world now only boosted the monarchy, did they now?
Shame on you for downgrading this epic event that shook the cosmos to its very foundations as joy on a Big Bang scale reached every corner of the universe.
It's a journalistic downgrading to match the Spin Doctors' Yellowcake from Niger
27 December 2011 9:16AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
27 December 2011 9:18AM
Pressurised? Almost certainly. Because they approach their 30ths. Unlikely. More likely is the insistence that the line of succession is secured. That any child(ren) Kate gives birth to are legitmated by marriage. Perhaps the Royals could have changed the world (or at least Britain) by showing an example to the many (majority?) of couples who have not married and yet have established families.
27 December 2011 9:18AM
How on earth did the Royal Wedding change the world?
27 December 2011 9:19AM
Did anyone make the connection that the riots followed this Windsor extravaganza?
Did anyone vote for this elitist family?
Time for a grown up country which is a republic.
27 December 2011 9:27AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
27 December 2011 9:38AM
A minor marriage in an ever more defunct monarchy in an ever more irrelevant country changed the world? Dream on Little Englanders.
27 December 2011 9:39AM
If the Guardian considers that this was a world-changing event then we're in trouble!
27 December 2011 9:41AM
Events that changed the world? William marries Kate? Please don't feed me any of that sort of garbage, Guardian!
27 December 2011 9:44AM
How is this wedding a world changing event?
I would never have clicked on this link if there wasn't a massive picture on the front page for ages
The picture editors on newspaper have too much power
27 December 2011 9:48AM
When I clicked that massive picture the link took me to an "index" page of various events from 2011 that might have changed the world; the Arab Spring, for example, was in their so to the Euro crisis. To get to the Wills and Kate show (life changing for her admittedly) one deliberately has to click on a specific link.
But your initial question holds, just why is this private moment between two people considered a world changing event?
27 December 2011 9:54AM
Classic and predictable thread. Miserable, colourless, critical, cynical, humourless, self righteous, pompous and conceited Guardian readers. The majority of Brits actually love having a Royal family , to watch, read and moan about, and don't want a republic. And if the Royal Wedding can help create community and a sense of national belonging, then so be it. Am happy to pay my bit. Money well spent. Lighten up everyone.
27 December 2011 9:58AM
Continuity = Change. Orwell himself couldn't make up newspeak like that
27 December 2011 9:59AM
Pardon me!? What world did this wedding change??
This, to me, is pure provincialism...
Funny thing about this growing "disease" is that Mr Bates would most likely receive with sarcasm any similar claim from any other journalist... in any other country.... about any other royal wedding around the world....
27 December 2011 10:00AM
The wedding might well have boosted the image of the royal family - but why on earth is this filed under "Events that changed the world in 2011"??
27 December 2011 10:01AM
Events that changed the world? Oh FFS.
27 December 2011 10:09AM
Yawn
27 December 2011 10:16AM
The wedding changed the world in 2011?
ahaha
ehehe
ihihihi
Yes for worse, the Royal Family costs millions for the country
OK, anyway England is doing well, isn't it?
27 December 2011 10:19AM
Events that changed the world? You really do yourselves no favours.
27 December 2011 10:35AM
...change the world, ehm... how exactly?
27 December 2011 10:35AM
changed the world?????
are you insane?
all a royal wedding does is keep the world exactly as it has always been!!
unchanged in any way.... apart from the level of my irritation of course.
27 December 2011 10:35AM
Hhhhmmmm...
Change the world maybe not .....
Change England yes ... Just shows how the aristocracy have started to rise and put us mere mortals back in our place ......
The tory's and ruling elite are doing a great job of stealing everything under the guise of deficit cuts ..... Massive tax cuts for the rich or unemployment for the rest who won't play by there rules .....
All hail the glory of a enforced bank holiday for the rich to marry ....
All despise those who dare strike to fight for there rights....
27 December 2011 10:42AM
Bet that felt good. I consider myself to be quite a happy well-balanced person and if I want enterntainment I'll watch Benny Hill or something but if you gain pleasure out of waving flags at people you will never even meet that is up to you. The monarchy should have been privatised years ago so how about this; next time they want a big shindig in London, seal the whole place off and charge anyone who wants to go and see it to cover all the costs.
27 December 2011 10:43AM
That'd be the same majority that voted Camer-con into power I guess. We don't know whether the majority love the Royals or not. We do know that some people (me included) want a different world, a world changed for the better. And the marriage of any two people might make an incremental change in that direction but the marriage of two specific people does not warrant being considered a vital world changing event.
27 December 2011 10:44AM
guardian reporters have to put something negative about the monarchy even if they don't believe it so it doesn't scare the readers away. Nothing is going to change in this country ever, Charles and Camillas polls have increased sharply and they are national treasures. Monarchy is the best form of government known to man and I'd much rather have a monarch then a president Nixon or Blair. Also equality doesn't matter in my opinion I find it comforting known theirs someone at the top who is better then everyone else. Monarchy is never going to change because there's no point what so ever in going through the process and no politicians would ever do it, end of story.
27 December 2011 10:52AM
Better put them in a royalty theme park and charge that entrance fee. If you seal off areas of London just for them then local trade suffers. The policiing costs go up (and we all end up paying.) The disruption to normal life puts the costs up too; how many schools, offices, factories, nurseries, etc were forced to close for the day of this world-changing wedding.
27 December 2011 10:53AM
The English have abandoned their tradition of rebellion.
The Guardian does its bit for the state with this nonsense.
I volunteer myself for executioner.
27 December 2011 10:57AM
Those are highly subjective comments. We do not know that monarchy is the best form of government or that those at the top are better than anyone else. Neither do we know that a republic would be better. My own highly subjective belief is it would be better than the anachronistic system based on happenstance of birth that we have now.