Wombat Diet

Yesterday I read a story on Yahoo news about a forthcoming TV program in which the Queen of England was seen having a grumpy moment. This was welcomed as a refreshing sign of normality. Within hours the BBC was donning sackcloth and ashes, beating its breast, groveling apologies and committing virtual seppuku.

Having seen the original sequence it certainly appeared to me that the original interpretation — by the controller who received it from the production company that prepared it for the BBC — was reasonable. HM was striding out of the picture saying she “had enough.” Now we are told that this interpretation was entirely wrong and that she was on her way into the room at the beginning of the photo shoot. Nobody seems yet to wondered why, if this is true, she’d had enough before the photo shoot started. I suppose even HM can get out the wrong side of bed.

Is it possible that she was sufficiently incandescent at the BBC’s indiscretion that a very large piece of humble pie is being unwarrantedly being forced down, perhaps because the alternative, conflict with the Palace, is worse than conflict with the government? The enemies of the BBC are rubbing their paws and salivating with glee.

Either way, it’s hard to avoid the parallels with ancient Rome with its lusts for blood, scandal, celebrity and circuses. On the 1st of July I visited a pub after buying the newspapers in order to savour the newly smoke-free air. Some philosophers at the next table were holding forth on the ills of the country, starting with the smoking ban. What exercised them most of all was muslims burning the Union Jack and worse, unbelievably, “criticising the royal family!” This was said with vehemence and suggestions that critics of the royal family should be deported. Forthwith.

Last night I watched the second of a three part series on BBC on the just published diaries of Tony Blair’s press secretary, Alastair Campbell. I found myself liking the popularly disliked spin doctor for his integrity, idealism and his trenchant and slightly overblown language, especially on insufferable fools. I liked him also for his loyalty to Blair, his self-sacrifice (his “wife” wanted him to quit) and his intuitive recognition that Blair needed a confidante to see him through some of the grief he had to endure from his own party — even if they swaggered about their “balls of steel” a bit too much.

He was at his best making a roomful of journalists laugh as he demolished a story. It was hard to take entirely seriously as a Prince of Darkness someone who reveled like a lovestruck schoolboy in meeting the Princess of Wales. However, that was forgiveable peacock foible; he pulled Blair’s chain about it (”it was me she wanted to meet”). How odd that a woman who dazzled so many was disregarded by her husband–an irony overlooked by her brother.

Campbell dissected the public mood after the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, when then royal family was deeply, roundly unpopular over its initial refusal to show sufficient regret over Diana’s death. People expressing popular outrage said on camera that it “was a disgrace,” and did so with the same soft of vehemence my neighbours in the pub reserved for people who “dared to criticise the royal family.” Prior to Diana’s death the royals had seemed exempt from any kind of real criticism. Satire may have been allowed, but republican sentiments had always been out of the question. Campbell helped save the monarchy and was a just a little immodest about it. The string-em-up needle on the compass of popular opinion was deflected by his clever little tugs on the public heartstrings. He got the Queen to say “.. and as a grandmother…”

Tension between the BBC and the government is a good thing. Perhaps in the end tension with royal family will be good thing too. Who could be surprised if a future monarch said: “You know what, the entire family is now agreed, we don’t want the job. Ask the Beckhams.” The media have become insufferable.

Now the new spin from the new government is that there is no spin any more, and there’s a little too much self-righteousness and posturing about change. Mr.Brown has supposedly learned that top-down government is not a good thing, but today he is mocked in the press as “mad” for school curriculum changes which include the exclusion of Churchill and the introduction of Urdu. He will need a little spin if he is to survive his alleged charisma deficit and micromanagement like this.

Meanwhile, a few of Blair’s down to earth again experiences are droll. He’s learned to use a cellphone and sent a text message, only to get a reply asking “Who are you?” HM should be so lucky.

Tags: Britain, London