The papers loved that concert. It was gruesome, vulgar and unbelievably tacky
STEPHEN GLOVER
The monarchists are cock-a-hoop and the republicans confounded. Even the Queen is reported to be a little taken aback by the huge crowds which came to see the Jubilee celebrations in London. We have, we are told, barely ever before witnessed such wonders.
Not since 1977— I would almost say 1952 — have the newspapers been so unanimous in their adoration of the Queen. Even the republican Guardian grudgingly praises her. The Independent, which once pretended that the royal family did not exist, is effusive. The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express can scarcely control their glee that those who prophesied public indifference have been proved so wrong. The Murdochowned Times and the Daily Mirror are solid in their enthusiasm for the Queen. Perhaps most spectacular is the total conversion of the Sun, also owned by Rupert Murdoch, to the royalist cause. My theory is that William Shawcross, who should be congratulated for his excellent four-part series on the Queen recently broadcast on BBC 1, has privately helped to turn the Sun's previously sceptical editor, David YeHand, into almost as fervent a monarchist as he is himself.
As for the BBC — the same BBC which was so casual immediately after the Queen Mother's death in March — it seemed to revert to its old self, offering hours and hours of uninterrupted coverage of the festivities. Newscasters shook their heads in disbelief, and Jennie Bond looked as though the crowds had come out to cheer her. Perhaps I will be forgiven for pointing out that BBC World — unlike CNN and Sky News — gave the celebrations comparatively little airtime, and that the BBC World Service, of which I happen to be an addict, relegated the Jubilee to third or fourth item on its bulletins during the small hours. Surely the presence of a million people on the streets of London on successive days was more newsworthy, particularly in view of the great affection in which the Queen is held in many Commonwealth countries. But if the BBC's international arm underplayed the Jubilee, our own home-grown BBC rose magnificently to the occasion. Even Prince Charles, who was reported to be cross with the Corporation for showing insufficient respect after his grandmother's death, singled it out for praise after the pop concert at Buckingham Palace on Monday evening.
A great success all round, then, but I would suggest that it was bought at a price.
Those who saw that pop concert may understand what I mean. So far as the BBC was concerned, it was the high point of the celebrations. It certainly drew enormous crowds. Without being an enemy of pop — indeed, I am an erstwhile admirer of some of the ancient stars wheeled out on Monday — I thought it a gruesome, vulgar and demeaning occasion. The Sun's breathless account gives a good flavour. 'Sexy Jenny Frost [of the group Atomic Kitten] struggled to pull up her low toga-style dress after she snagged it on the microphone — and almost revealed her boobs.' (Not much of a struggle, I would guess.) According to the paper, 'Ricky Martin was first on stage proper with his sexy dancers stripping off their white suits to reveal scanty undies and Union Jack scarves.' Emma Bunton, formerly of the Spice Girls, offered 'Big Kisses to William'. The Queen, I thought, sometimes looked perplexed, though Camilla Parker Bowles cheerfully mouthed the words to a song. There were innumerable feeble jokes about Queens, as in Ruby Wax's joke, 'There's so many Queens here you don't know which way to turn.' When Prince Charles delivered a somewhat embarrassing homily to his mother, a pretty young singer from the Irish pop group the Cores stood between them, as though she was the real star of the show, which in a sense she was. Buckingham Palace was then bathed in a pink light.
More generous souls than me may think this was all good clean fun. They will point out that the next day brought more conventional celebrations — though some Hell's Angels, six London buses and lots of dancing girls still managed to get in on the act. But I still think that the so-called pop concert was appalling, and I cannot believe that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh enjoyed one minute of it, or that even Prince Charles really liked it. It was an unbelievably tacky occasion. Nonetheless, they were required by their spin doctors to submit, and in return they received the adulation of the crowds — not necessarily representative Britons — and of the BBC, the Sun and the rest of them. As we had a 'People's Princess', so now we were being given a 'People's Queen'. This is the Faustian pact which the monarchy has been forced to sign to ensure its survival. You may say that there is no choice, and you may well be right. But those who merely pronounce the Jubilee celebrations a triumph, and thumb their noses at the republicans,
miss the point. The Queen entered into this agreement out of weakness, not strength, and even as the monarchists extol the royal family it is being recast.
Every year a party is held in honour of the great Tory journalist T.E. Utley, known as Peter to his friends, and a lecture is delivered. This year the very distinguished Times columnist Michael Gove has written an elegant appreciation of Peter. Mr Gove, though, makes one assertion with which I would like to take issue — namely that Peter 'helped lay the intellectual foundation of Thatcherism in Britain'. People might conclude from this that Peter was a Thatcherite, but I do not believe that he was, if the term is to be strictly defined.
It is true that during the earlier part of her prime ministership he sometimes helped her with her speeches. But between 1975 and 1979 he was not part of that group comprising such people as Keith Joseph who really did help lay the intellectual foundations of Thatcherism. Peter was suspicious of the Manchester Liberalism of the Thatcherites, and did not share their conviction of the allimportance of economics, or even their economic views. He was not, I think, utterly opposed to the idea of redistribution, and wondered whether the needs of the consumer should always be paramount. In time Peter saw that Thatcherite economics were largely successful, and he certainly came to admire Mrs Thatcher greatly. But the free market continued to rank lower in his priorities than, for example, the maintenance of the Union. I only say this because I do not think that the Thatcherites should be permitted to claim everything and everyone for themselves.
Areader has kindly sent me a piece which conveys the spirit of the dumbed-down Times. In a piece published on 2 May about pawnbrokers — I will spare the reporter by not naming her — the Medicis are described as 'an Italian money-lending group that operated throughout Europe'. This is a bit like saying that the Bourbons were a famous family of French art collectors. I would be very grateful if readers would send me any examples of dumbing down they may come across. Entries may be submitted from the Times or the Daily Telegraph.
Previous page
