ANOTHER VOICE
The row over the royal yacht illustrates nothing more than the ignorance of the British public
PETRONELLA WYATT
What a yacht of fuss! What a yacht of discord! According to the newspapers, everyone in the country is lining up on opposite sides. One the one hand we have the royal yachtsmen and yachtswomen. On the other . . . on the other hand what do we have? The Labour landlubbers? The royal yacht scoffers?
The Sun conducted a telephone poll in which 82 per cent of respondents said they would refuse to foot the bill for a new Bri- tannia. After a meeting with his shadow Chancellor, Tony Blair sided with the Sun. The Mail, meanwhile, accused Mr Portillo of upsetting the Queen and suggested that a new yacht be financed by the royal family and private business.
On the strength of this alone one would incline.towards the cause of the royal yacht. It is not that the idea of it is so irresistible, rather that its opponents are so much at fault. Since when have the British become so churlish? No, scratch that: we were ever thus. Since when, rather, have we become so pig-ignorant?
With regard to public affairs, few of us play with a full deck. We have reached the point where a researcher for Carlton Tele- vision's debate on the monarchy — in which, incidentally, I was happy to take part — was able to inquire, 'But why does the Queen need three boats?' When asked to name the other two, the researcher replied, 'the Canberra and the QE2'.
See what I mean? There is a public fanta- sy, encouraged by the media, that if we abolished the monarchy we would all be very rich. A recent World in Action pro- gramme encapsulated this view when it showed a Welshman in a jacuzzi demand- ing, 'Sell the jewels and house the home- less.' Or, as Labour is putting it, would you rather a royal yacht or a hospital?
Such a question is the most recent exam- ple of Mr Blair's irresponsible approach to government. Why didn't he come out with it and ask us to choose between the royal yacht and the lives of 400 angelic little chil- dren? No wonder the Queen is upset. Her loyal Opposition appears bent on portray- ing her as a mass murderess.
Sony, Mr Blair, but you are talking rot. We do not have to choose between a royal yacht and a hospital. Britannia pays for her- self and there is no reason why a replace- ment should not do the same. As Robert Hardman pointed out in the Daily Tele- graph, the promotional value of such a ves- sel is between £200 and £500 million a year. Within 12 months Britannia's replacement would have more than recouped her £60 million investment.
This brings us to myth number two. 0 wretched taxpayer groaning under Tory tyranny! What, yet another burden on thee! Burden? What burden? The Government has said that the £60 million cost of a replacement for Britannia would be spread over five years. Until the yacht starts mak- ing money, at which point the taxpayer is repaid in full, we will each have to part with the colossal sum of 19p.
Which brings us to myth number three, which is that the Tory Government is so enervated that the best vote-winner it can come up with is some HMS Ruritania that will legitimise an archaic class system. What piffle. The Norwegian monarchy has a royal yacht. This does not prevent Norway from being one of the most socially pro- gressive and egalitarian countries in Europe.
Such a vessel would not even belong to the sovereign. There is a nonsense, howev- er, that the Queen owns everything from the royal yacht to Buckingham Palace. In fact, Britannia, Buckingham Palace, the Crown Jewels, Windsor Castle, most of the royal family's jewels, the art collection, the income from the Crown Estates and so forth all belong to the state; in other words to you, and you. When Edward VIII abdi- cated he wasn't even allowed to take away his father's stamp collection.
The Queen's personal wealth is not even in the same league as that of our business magnificos and industrialists. This is espe- cially true since she agreed to pay income tax and most of her family's allowances from the Civil List. The idea that she should pay for a new yacht herself is worse than small-minded choler and envy, it is a blunder. Her entire private fortune could not cover the cost.
But who would believe this? The other day I asked a friend how much she thought the monarchy cost us. She imagined it was at least £30 a month. Really? Last year, the annual public bill for the monarchy was approximately £53 million. Of this, £30 mil- lion would still be incurred by a republic. The £53 million included more than £20 million of grant-in-aid for the maintenance of the royal palaces, which would still have to be kept up under a president. It also included the £7.9 million Civil List payment which covered the Queen's cost as head of state — less than the amount spent on the German President or Covent Garden and the £550,000 cost of overseas visits which a president would still have to make. The net cost of the monarchy was £23 mil- lion. If Britain became a republic we would indeed all be richer — by 38p a year. This would buy each of us one Mars Bar.
There is, actually, a way of paying for a new yacht that would not involve the tax- payer, the monarchy or some private busi- nessman who would plaster his logo all over the funnel (Branson's Firgin Queen?). In return for the monarch's Civil List pay- ment he or she she must surrender to Par- liament the income from the Crown Estates. On the Queen's side, the bargain is a bad one. Last year these lands yielded £94.6 million. It would be snip to find a replacement for Britannia out of this sum. But no one's listening. We have all closed our ears to the truth. Or perhaps truth has been redefined as what we want to believe. Sometimes I think we are no longer grown- up enough for a monarchy. Perhaps we are no longer adult enough for a parliamentary government? In an age where people believe that a penny more on income tax would cost them precisely one penny a year, I doubt we are capable of digesting anything more complex than The Simpson. Worse, most of us couldn't care less. We are quite happy to take our stand — on whatever question it may be — from a posi- tion of utter ignorance. So let's not have a royal yacht. Let's throw away all the money it would make for Britain. Let's not think about exports worth billions paying for more hospitals than a one-off £60 million which would just about finance a small wing at St Mary's, Paddington. Let's just go one being the way we are — a yacht of fools.
Previous page
