Come on, Mirror!
There are few sights more repellent than the British press in one of its periodic fits of humbug. The recent hounding of Princess Margaret is a better — or worse — example than most. There is no constitutional issue involved. The Prin cess has as ever performed her public duties as presented to her. She receives the annuity settled by Act of Parliament. The campaign in the newspapers is completely factitious. In candour our cheap press ought to admit that from its point of view the Royal Family provides wonderful value for money. The annual payments to the Queen and four other members of the Royal Family come in total to less than E1.7 mPon. Even with the Daily Mirror's sagging circulation that is no more than a trifle per year per reader. Considering the amount of copy that Royalty provides, it is one of the journalistic bargains of the age. At a time such as this, with yet another nonsense 'story' in the papers, persons of reflective temper might stop and Wonder why it is that the Queen and her family should Obsess so many people. It is said that many people have dreams about the Queen. No doubt Mr Willie Hamilton MP is among them. His behaviour would be nauseating if it Were not so ludicrous, particularly his latest intervention. He claims that the campaign against Princess Margaret 'is not directed solely against her private life . . . As a person handsomely rewarded out of public funds, we are entitled to expect from her higher standards than would be expected from or accepted from any other citizen'. That is the standard of argument — and English prose —we get from a man rewarded by the British taxpayer in order that he might consider matters of state. Princess Margaret's annuity would be scarcely too much if it was no more than Compensation for the abuse she gets from a self-regarding Oaf like Mr Hamilton.
Since the critics of Royalty invariably bring up the question of money it is worth pointing out how very cheap the Monarchy is. The Civil List payment is considerably less than half of the annual payment of salaries to Members of Parliament, now running at nearly £.4 million. MPs picked Up between them last year £1,243,000 in travel expenses. They have granted themselves 0,512 a year for secretarial expenses. If the matter were judged purely in utilitarian terms it would be hard to deny the Monarchy does its job a great deal better than the House of Commons and that its cost, so much lower than that of the Commons (or two days' subsidy for British Steel), is a bargain.
Of course the Monarchy carries with it certain responsibilities, and supporters of royalty, sincere ones, may well wish to argue that by her indiscreet behaviour — for indiscreet is precisely what it is — Princess Margaret has neglected her duties. There is a Lady Bracknell-like element in this argument — what is the use of Royalty if they don't set us a good example? — but since the function of the Royal Family in a constitutional monarchy is in a sense decorative, it is important that the decorating should be done in a seemly way. Since George V succeeded Edward VII it has become a convention that members of the Royal Family shoul4 live in appearance at least lives of great rectitude. There can be no doubt that Princess Margaret will by now have been told, privately, that it would be better if she stopped breaking this convention. It is certainly debatable to what extent public opinion is willing to tolerate indiscreet conduct by members of the Royal Family. What, for example, would be the reaction if it were not Princess Margaret but Prince Charles who was flouting the conventions? In the present case, however, there can be little doubt that the Monarchy's standing is unharmed. Nobody blames the Queen for Princess Margaret's weaknesses. On the contrary, her own irreproachability shines even brighter in comparison. The Princess's behaviour is not, therefore, one of the great issues of the moment, and what remains the saddest aspect of the story is the mindlessness of the press coverage. The country faces grave economic and political problems. Yet our papers can do no more than offer a mammoth silly season story.
The Daily Mirror reverted to a headline previously used: Come on, Margaret. The reply might be, Come on, Mirror. Make up your mind if you are going to treat the news seriously.
Previous page
