Republicans owe Sophie a debt of thanks

By Joan Smith

15 April 2001

I'm not complaining, you understand. I've been wailing most of my life for this moment. But I have to say, it is just a little bit galling to see the House of Windsor finally brought low by someone as inherently dull as the Countess of Wessex. I mean, she's not Robespierre, is she? It's not even as if she's doing it on purpose, like Diana, who spent her latter years delivering as much pain as possible to her former in-laws. This time, the entire edifice is reeling just because a not-particularly-bright Diana look-alike misread the deal and exposed something no one had ever guessed about the Royal Family and its hangers-on: they trade on their connections.

Shocking, isn't it? Until two weeks ago, when the Sophie non-story first surfaced in the Sunday tabloids, the British were apparently able to convince themselves that the Edwards and Margarets and Andrews of this world liked nothing better than to travel long distances, inquire after the health of total strangers, inspect strangely shaped buildings and accept bunches of freesias from winsome children. With the exception of the Queen Mum (God bless her!), they thought that the born-to-its made a better job of it on the whole than the Windsors-by-marriage -the Fergies and that chinless bloke who married Anne first time round. (The less said about Philip the better. Greek, you see. His aunt had an operation to move her clitoris. Not many people know that.) But now, after one weekend of lurid but inaccurate reporting of what Sophie supposedly said to a fake sheikh, followed by a second weekend of rather more anodyne revelations about the way she has used her royal status at work, everyone's had enough. MPs are signing motions; a junior minister has questioned the royals' sanity; secretaries of state are wondering aloud about their conduct. More significantly, tabloid editors are asking whether we need a Royal Family and DJs are inviting listeners to nominate replacements. Well, I'll go to our house. This country is finally waking up to what has been absolutely bleeding obvious for more years than I can remember, which is the - ahem - internal contradiction of a democratic state that refuses to relinquish the hereditary principle. "It institutionalises deference!", I used to exclaim, on the rare occasions I was asked about this idee fixe of mine. "It perpetuates the class system!" I railed to friends (they know who they are) who produced tortured explanations of their decision to accept invitations to royal receptions and garden parties. I even nurtured a sneaking admiration for Willie Hamilton, the otherwise obscure Labour MP who became a national institution for his much-ridiculed attacks on the monarchy. And I longed for the opportunity - curiously, it has never offered itself - to introduce myself politely to Elizabeth Windsor and announce that I'm not a subject of hers but a proud citizen of a nation with a long radical tradition. And now lots of other people seem to be having similar republican thoughts. But hang on a minute. Reluctant as I am to spring to the defence of Ms Rhys-Jones, as she might be prudent to style herself in future, I cannot see what the current fuss is about. Maybe I'm wrong and the Wessexes are madly in love, but it was obvious at the time of their wedding two years ago that the Queen's youngest son wasn't much of a catch. I have no idea whether Edward is gay or not, and care very little either way, but why shouldn't the poor girl get something out of it? Who are these people who imagined that a PR woman, offered a title and admission to the Royal Family, would modestly pretend that she was barely acquainted with her parents-in-law? Give me strength! What is royalty about, if not making the most of who you're related to? Did anyone imagine that Margaret got invited on all those foreign tours because of her sunny personality? That Diana became the most photographed woman in the world because she wore nice clothes? It's hardly as if the Queen became head of state on merit, after a stringent series of secret ballots. The whole point of royalty is privilege, and being popular because of your connections. That's why a few benighted people, like Sophie Rhys-Jones, still want to marry into it. Until very recently, most of the population preferred to turn a blind eye to this fact, and believe all that waffle about duty and service. Now it's time to get real and recognise that it isn't the individuals who are at fault but the system. Otherwise this country is going to become a republic - which I'm all in favour of - for entirely mistaken reasons.

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 747