When it comes to a position on the British monarchy, I am generally rather ambivalent. The Queen’s role is largely ceremonial, and an unelected House of Lords is a far more alarming swordswipe across the whimpering guts of supposed democracy. Asking me whether I’m a monarchist or a republican will usually elicit a blank, shrugging response. You may as well ask me whether I prefer 1930s experimental jazz or medieval lute concertos – I simply don’t care enough to have an opinion.
One thing that is often chalked up in the Royal family’s favour, however, is its impact on tourism. And there’s no denying that revenue from Royal-related tourism far outstrips the money the British taxpayer spends on the upkeep of Liz and co. People are suckered in from around the world by castles, palaces, history and tradition. Frankly, Visit Britain could just keep dangling pictures of castles in front of the majority of American visitors and they’d still keep coming.
Therefore, an event like the Diamond Jubilee should be tourism gold dust, right? Spend millions on a big pageant along the Thames, broadcast it around the world and show potential visitors just how wonderful Britain can be. It’s a no-brainer.
Alas, what was broadcast to the world was a marathon of bleak, black comedy. Hundreds of little boats set off down the Thames, honking away in celebration. By description, this sounds incredible. In reality, it looked a little tinpot – the equivalent of trying to demonstrate wealth by shaking coppers out of a big collection jar.
The Royal party stood there heroically, waving with rictus grins for four hours as the novelty factor wore off, turning the procession into a stoic clock-watching exercise. And all the time, it got wetter, greyer and darker. The BBC commentary team plunged deep into its barrel of fake laughter, trying to pretend that the whole sodden affair was still in some way highly enjoyable. Yelps of faux-amazement were interspersed with announcements that yet another supposed highlight of the day had been cancelled due to the weather. The wow moments were continually replaced with waaaaaaaaah moments.
Then there was the climax; the glorious fist-chewing climax. A dolled-up choir sailed past the royal barge as the surrounding gloom reached a crescendo. They sang Land Of Hope And Glory, over and over again, as if continual repetition of the words until the end of time would eventually make the Weather God’s arse stop slinging its thundering rainwater diarrhoea against them. Everything about it screamed epic misery at the sluice gates of hell.
ENJOYED THIS POST? HELP FUND THE SITE
My first book - Hardly Paradise: Anti-Postcards From A Grumpy Traveller - features 70 of my favourite travel stories from around the globe. It is out now on Kindle for just £2.99.If you've enjoyed what you've read on this site, then buying the book would be the best way of saying thank you and helping to keep it going.
If you've not got a Kindle or just aren't interested in the book, that's OK. But if you click through on the link below, then buy anything else from Amazon (travel gear, guide books etc), I'll earn a tiny commission. And that would be nice too.
It all left me with one question. What must the millions of potential visitors around the world have been thinking as they watched this? Was it…
A) “Wow! I really must go to Britain as, once every sixty years they send some boats down a river whilst singing.”
or
B) “That confirms everything I feared about Britain. It just looks GRIM. Two weeks in Cancun it is.”
God bless you, ma’am.
All content copyright David Whitley. My recommended books, travel gear and music
Aw, the old ‘the monarchy pay for themselves in tourism’ myth, which is, I believe, a red herring. There is no data to show this at all. What attracts people is our history. Not our monarchy. Graham Smith says this perfectly:
“There is no reason to believe that if Britain abandoned the monarchy tourism would suffer — that’s something even the head of official tourism agency VisitBritain has acknowledged. Our history is certainly an attraction — and the great thing about our history is that it will always be there regardless of what we do in the future. Selling hotel rooms and “I Love London” T-shirts is, anyway, no reason to abandon a proud ambition for democratic reform.”
http://m.cnn.com/primary/cnnd_fullarticle?topic=newsarticle&category=cnnd_world_europe&articleId=urn:newsml:CNN.com:20120529:uk-jubilee-republicans:1&cookieFlag=COOKIE_SET
Given most of the world got the highlights due to time differences (i went to bed after the second flotilla) I’m team A. I watched the first hour of the flotilla and was off to bed by the time they got to the London eye. I loved the rowboats, my mum who clung on for another hour spent an hour this morning at coffee telling my dad and I about the historic boats, and I did sit there thinking “wow, London looks great” while I watched it, and again when I watched the highlights. Personal fav moments? Venetian gondoliers vs. Maori canoe team, and the Queen not sitting on the boat throne. London looked great, and that 30 to 60 second coverage, despite the crap weather, was a great ad for the city.
Heh, Nikki and I were having exactly this debate on Twitter yesterday. She makes a good point that the castles would still exist if the monarchy were deposed. However, I think she is wrong -! the monarchy itself does attract people too. (And s I’m not British, I think I’m better qualified to answer this question!).
Tourists aren’t attracted by your history – they are attracted by the fact tht it’s LIVING history. Castles without royals are simply not as exciting – Europe is full of them. The monarchy is definitely an asset from a tourism perspective.
On the other hand, I don’t think you should make important constitutional decisions based on the value to the tourism industry (nor on the cost of funding the monarchy).
The Palace of Versailles and many other European castles and palaces seem to do just fine tourist-wise without a ruling monarchy. If you keep the monarchy simply for tourism purposes, you are seriously doing government wrong. I similarly doubt whether the main purpose of the jubilee flotilla was to attract foreign tourists to Britain.
To answer your question whether foreigners found it boring, no not all, as we watched two to five minute well-edited versions, not four hours.
I took my brother and his family (two teenage boys) into London yesterday, with no big plans to sit and watch the flotilla but just to enjoy the atmosphere. London had a great vibe – streets full of people wearing their red white and blue, the chance to walk along the main arteries of the city without the usual traffic snarl-ups. 5 mins of seeing a few boats as we crossed Southwark Bridge was enough to get the gist (4 hours would have been painful).
I wouldn’t have watched it on the TV, bad commentary or not. Neither would I have wanted to stand for hours to bag a prime spot. But a wander through a strangely quiet central London (away from the river), a pizza, a stop for a drink while others were racing by to try and get to the river, and even a glimpse of the royal boat, and our trip to London got a big thumbs up from our guests.
I have the same ambivalence about the monarchy as David, but regardless of views I though that living so close to London it worth being part of the big party.
If I was a potential foreign visitor I can’t imagine me being swayed to visit the UK as a result – but as others have said, I don’t think that was ever the point of this.
Yes Versailles attracts tourists but it’s not about the number of people visiting castles – you’d probably get more under a republic because Buckingham Palace could be open to the public. It’s more that it’s part of Britain’s brand. There is value in retaining links to the past. Tourism aside, I really think it would be cultural vandalism for the UK to get rid of its monarchy. For the rest of the Commonwealth, not so much – we should have our own heads of state.
Lot of sad bastards and soaking wet tourists being interviewed in the Mall yesterday. Quite a few look like they’re on the mobility, on cathaters, or on the special ward. Would you please all leave my (great) city and fuck off back to wherever the fuck you come from…
Too much?
Too much?
Well, it was no worse than watching cricket. You watch, you go away to tidy up for an hour, you come back, nothing has changed, you go for an errand, you come back, nothing has changed…
Nah cricket is good. Worthwhile. Fun. Has a bar. Has a seat. Dry. Cheaper than £200 million on year on chinless workshy yahs. Stuff like that.
It’s a much-used argument by the monarchists, but I honestly think that if you scrapped the royals, but kept all their palaces, castles etc open to the public, you wouldn’t see any reduction in tourism. And I know this is also a much-used argument from the other side but – France got rid of its monarchy a while back and, last time I looked, was the most-visited country in the world. For me, the Olympics were a much better advert for the UK (especially London, particularly when the sun was out). Anyone who watched even a lap of the marathon would have surely added London to their ‘must visit one day hopefully fairly soon’ hit-list.