tip off

Razer’s Class Warfare: Wills, Kate will never be royals — but they can be celebs

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are in Sydney, and they will no doubt be on their blandest, most boringly dutiful behaviour. But that’s not due to the dignity of their titles — it’s in opposition.

Wills kate

Last week, when giddy praise followed the grim loss of Peaches Geldof, my colleague Guy Rundle was on hand to bury the death. In a rather good piece for Crikey, he observed that Britain’s fascination for “It Girls” was made possible by the nation’s bygone attachment to nobility.

Geldof’s rule — more authoritative than a (Kylie) Minogue’s or a (Lindsay) Lohan’s — was permitted by the heredity of fame and maintained by a life apparently spent in the new sovereign leisure: gold teeth, Grey Goose, tripping in the bathroom.

She would never be royal, but she was, in the least figurative sense, a princess.

Guy is not the first to observe that the divine right once reserved for kings is now enjoyed by the famous. Just as monarchs were once held to be subject to no judgement but God’s, celebrities are above earthly law. Even if they’re done for DUI, their mug shots are not so much evidence of criminality but a promise of forgiveness for every weekend spent in blood stains, ball gowns, trashing the hotel room. Actual royals no longer enjoy the possibility of redemption.

If Guy, as is often the case, is right and drug-fucked celebrocrat princesses now inspire the best deference, then what of the changes to traditional princess employment? The Duchess of Cambridge, newly arrived in Sydney, has a purpose that is certainly diminished and probably distinct from those who once stood in her espadrilles.

Catherine and her husband are, I would argue, not part of an ongoing tradition as far as we, their future subjects, are concerned. Their lives are a new exercise in wholesome niche-branding — mildly less successful than One Direction’s, given the modest size of their audience in Sydney yesterday.

Royalty is no longer the business of royals. What we have seen on this tour — and from the time that normal dad William put normal son George in a normal baby capsule in a normal car in a normal act of normal as his normal wife normally displayed her normal baby bump  —  is an act of press choreography as bland as it is novel.

Monarchists, of course, will argue that tradition remains undisturbed, that the grandly dull young Mountbatten-Windsors are as conventionally inspirational as they will be one day constitutional. But monarchists forget their history, and accolades for an imagined ongoing practice of niceness continue. This rot in The Courier-Mail typifies the idea that the purpose of the monarchy is renewed by the couple. They are “fresh-faced, respectable people who have managed to restore the public’s regard of royalty to a level not observed for generations”. Although no generation ever esteemed its monarch for being fresh-faced and respectable.

It is certainly true that the Duke and Duchess offer no hint of scandal in an age afflicted with it.”

Blah blah return to tradition. Blah blah role model. Blah blah we hunger for the steady dignity of a sovereign in an age dominated by reports of crank-fuelled blowjobs in the loos of the Chateau Marmont.

Such lavatory acts were the remit of Knights of the Garter for centuries. Those born noble were not required to act well and so, for the most part, they did not. It wasn’t so long ago that a blozzer-in-the-hotel-loo royal story would have been unsurprising. Monarchists seem to have forgotten a recent age of royal-celebrity fusion that featured toe-sucking, bulimia and tampon-fetish. The contention that William Wales is acting as his family always has is pish. Pop him in a Nazi uniform and into the arms of a transgender sex worker dressed as Anne Frank. That’s the royal tradition, now enacted by celebrities.

The Duke and Duchess represent a new habit of complicity with a press that finds moments of non-scandal are good for business.

Naturally, there were those prompted by old habit to greet them at the Sydney Opera House. But there were also those, including contemporary hit FM station Nova, which used the occasion as a branding exercise, who like the couple for precisely the same reasons they like Zooey Deschanel. Namely, they are “fresh-faced, respectable people” who have managed, unlike Deschanel, to secure what seems to be a fairly binding guarantee of uncritical press.

It is certainly true that the Duke and Duchess offer no hint of scandal in an age afflicted with it. But their decorum is hardly traditional. If we overlook Her Majesty, an unusually dutiful sovereign, the royal Houses have long and recently been staffed by adulterers and idiots. When one’s reputation is acquired by birth, there is no point in maintaining it. William’s parents certainly didn’t bother. Nor did his great-aunt Margaret, his abdicating antecedent Edward VIII, James I, Henry VIII and anyone called Charles. Profligate conduct has long been the royal rule and not its exception.

That the dreary Duke and Duchess are obliged to actively build and uphold the dignity once conferred by their titles is evidence that fewer of us give half a shit for the monarchy.

They will never be royals. But, if they continue their pact with the press, they just may continue to be impotent celebrities who are famous for being fresh-faced and famous. They will be judged by us here on earth while Geldof speaks to her maker.

10
  • 1
    graybul
    Posted Friday, 18 April 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    Competing in a crowded marketplace, Razor clearly feels authorized to pontificate upon the illuminated status of others scrabbling to be heard, seen, upon the ‘catwalk’ of life. In the real world, such inate frivolity exists solely in the present; has no relationship with or to, past or future.
    So when Razor extends her frivolous analysis of Personalities, Celebrities to long serving, valued Institutions bridging centuries of community, societal service and relevance, she seeks to substitute substance with triviality. Undermining Institutions by linking, denigrating behaviour, fraility of human condition serves no one’s interest!

  • 2
    Posted Friday, 18 April 2014 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    GRAYBUL: Congratulations for utterly missing HELEN RAZER’S whole point. It takes real talent to miss the point of an article, but you’ve done it. Go to the top of the class.

    Helen’s point is 1) Today’s royals have, in their desperate quest for publicity, become mirror images of every two bit bint with a dress slit up to her fanny and a huge pair of sunglasses, aspires to become. Huh? Whoa tiger, not there yet? Relevance. 2) Everyone in the entertainment industry-especially the royals-aspire to ‘Relevance.’ Relevance!

    The poor bloody royals have no persona or, relevance, outside their ‘royalness.’ Isn’t one of them restrained from serving in his own nation’s armed forces? Is his name Harry? I think so. He has nothing to do with his whole wretched life except to lie low in some inconspicuous dog hole and pray like mad his brother flits the twig early on in the piece. This at least, will mean that he will have gone down in history as actually giving a pretense of working for a living.

    You accuse Razer of dabbling, with frivolity, on personalities and celebrities. Tell me what could better encapsulate the meaning of frivolity better than an individual skulking around on an Easter Friday hoping to catch one member of the press in some candid comment.

    This cult of celebrity has reduced the English royal family to being a clueless, middle class, anonymous bit of glitz. This, of course being exactly what boring middle class, valueless members of royalocracy, ie Australians simply lurve…

  • 3
    Dan B
    Posted Friday, 18 April 2014 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Or, they could simply, and legitimately, be fresh faced, respectable people sick of past generations, and literally trying to clean royalty up..

  • 4
    BookishMisfit
    Posted Saturday, 19 April 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    I think the young Windsors (Cambridges?) are celebrities and that is purely typical of the times.

    Rupert Murdoch was actually responsible for commodifying William’s mother, Princess Diana. She was the first ‘celebrity of the modern era, was she not?

    I don’t mind one way or the other. What is, is, and I value our English background. We have changed that quite a lot over the last two centuries for the better, I think.

    If we were to have a republic I am not sure that the processes of electing a President would be free of political influence and corruption.

    I like Helen Razer but wonder if she has seen Helen Mirren play the role of Queen Elizabeth in “The Audience”? The Monarch is shown to be witty, wide and enduring.

    It is really the institution of the monarchy that is under question here, not the young Royals. I would like us to retain a connection to our history. Could we maintain a connection with the monarchy and still be a republic?

    If we did not have this kind of royalty, people would create another and it may be worse.

  • 5
    BookishMisfit
    Posted Saturday, 19 April 2014 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    Ooops - correction to second last para … “The monarch is shown to be witty, WISE and enduring”.

    Apologies to the Queen. She would not mind, and has always been gracious and beautiful, as well as witty.

  • 6
    Posted Saturday, 19 April 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    GRAYBUL: You are to be congratulated for missing the point of Razer’s article. I am told that my comments are too rude to get published, so I’m making an special effort to be nice….. Back to my theme.

    I don’t understand why you arrive at the following conclusion…”Razor clearly feels authorized to pontificate upon the illuminated status of others scrabbling to be heard, seen, upon the ‘catwalk’ of life.” Perhaps it is a question? Should the question be as follows:- Helen Razer is a writer. This mean she is free to comment on a wide range of issues AS LONG AS SHE doesn’t write about anything with which you do not agree? Or do you mean you agree that royalty falls into an acceptable subject for discussion but that Ms Razer should be lynched for her perceptions of royalty being outside your own remit?

    If the latter I would need to know what gives you the inside running on the overwhelming importance to fill the scandal sheets with this nation’s preoccupation with puerile celebrity, and the people who aspire to relevance via the colour pages of the women’s magazines?

    May I assume you to be cognizant of the goings on in any of Rupert Murdoch’s publications and of the outright junk they laughingly refer to as journalism? There you go; you are admit it.

    Having reminded you of your own readership of bits of squalid junk, I would now ask…have you failed to notice that in order to give the royals any conceivable relevance, the spin doctors of Buck House have had to completely rejig the whole thing. They are no longer princes and princesses of wherever,…. they are “”“”“T H E Y!”“”“”“You will know when the process is complete when Catherine arrives at a charity function partially dressed in a little number which is slit up to her- you wouldn’t like me to use the word fanny, would you? OK I’ll say -waist. She sports huge sunglasses which double as a hairband and comes perilously close to tripping over her elevated shoes while meeting up with a guy rope peg.

    At this stage in career she is about to find out she is in fact the sole, important piece of relevance left in the whole royal escutcheon. Her husband, by this time, will have sort of been encapsulated into a semi-living piece of wallpaper, festooned with faux maiden hair ferns borrowed from the Country Women’s Association tent at the last Royal Melbourne Show. Her brother-in-law, who once looked as if he had found relevance until the family decided it would be unmanly for him to look as if he might actually work for a living-was last seen going to live in the Falklands.

  • 7
    Liamj
    Posted Sunday, 20 April 2014 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    @ BookishMisfit - “It is really the institution of the monarchy that is under question here, not the young Royals.”
    ..and thats why the Windsors are so well behaved these days, they know they’re still overpaid by the taxpayer thanks only to habit.

    Could we maintain a connection with the monarchy and still be a republic?” Get them a cage at the zoo? A float at Moomba?

    If we did not have this kind of royalty, people would create another and it may be worse.” As Razer points out we already have, and they are not very admirable.
    But isn’t that their function? in a society busy gorging ourselves towards extinction, we want role models who mirror our mindless selfishness. People blame the role models or News Corpse for giving them prominence, but what if we pick them to endorse, model for, and justify us.

  • 8
    Posted Sunday, 20 April 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    LIAMJ: Can you not see how easy it is for Australians to fall between two hard places? The monarchists will vote for foreign royalty and the Republicans will vote to stand on our own two feet.

    The real danger lies, as it did when John Howard was rigging the questions to make sure a republic didn’t eventuate, with any large group of people who decide to become spoilers. In the last referendum many people, including ones who should have known better, took the attitude, “Well if people aren’t going to vote for my template for a republic, I’m going to make sure they will continue to get stuck with royalty. Which is exactly what happened.

    ””“Could we maintain a connection with the monarchy and still be a republic?” Get them a cage at the zoo? A float at Moomba?”” I know it’s a joke. But this is a bit like asking a doctor “Please can I be just a little bit pregnant? Either you are, or you are not.

    “If we did not have this kind of royalty, people would create another and it may be worse.” This is a classic case of monarchist scare mongering. Sure, it could be worse. But hey, most countries that share our standard of living have actually had to fight and die for their principles. Whereas our worst case scenario would be to be lumbered with a foreign head of state whose opinions are dead in line with Tony Rabbott and his meretricious mediocrities.

  • 9
    BookishMisfit
    Posted Monday, 21 April 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    @Liamj - I think there are worse things than the Royals or the institution of the monarchy itself.

    We don’t have to watch any of the TV coverage or read the newspaper reports. Many don’t. I don’t bother with other kinds of celebrity either. Why waste the energy?

    We managed to have strong elements of a social democracy despite being figuratively part of a monarchy. Some of the best social democracies in Europe developed in monarchical societies.

    Real social democracies care for everyone and it worries me more that the social democratic principles which underpinned out own country for decades are disappearing. This fact is not because of institutions like the monarchy or the mindless Hollywoods of the world.

    It is because of capitalism in its various forms and I’d like to see Helen Razer and others write more seriously about that. :)

  • 10
    fractious
    Posted Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Yawn. Second-rate media hacks tearing into the Royals has been a pastime for at least as long as unimaginative columnists have lacked any idea what to write for their weekly spray. Filed the same way I’d consign any dull razor.

    No, I’m not a monarchist.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...