(6 of 8)
Some Welsh critics are upset less by political implications than by the cost of the ceremony, though the investiture is expected to increase Welsh tourism revenue by some $7,000,000. One of Charles' dormitory mates, Geraint Evans, says that "using the excuse that it's good for tourism and the economy only downgrades the royal family and makes the whole thing appear to be a gawpy spectacular." The student chairman of Pantycelyn Hall, Spencer Morgan, says: "It's like a circus. It evokes all the childish superstitions of the people." Though once opposed to Charles' coming to Aberystwyth, he is now won over: "I sense a genuine feeling of interest by the Prince in learning as much as he can about the people and the country whose name he'll bear. He is a master of etiquette and conducts himself with aplomb. He'll make a king."
But is a king necessary? Should the question even be asked? The most adamant defenders of the monarchy reply no. As Anthony Sampson (Anatomy of Britain Today) put it, "Once you touch the trappings of monarchy, like opening an Egyptian tomb, the inside is liable to crumble." Opponents contend that the monarchy is increasingly out of date, and that unless outmoded customs and myths are done away with, its relevance will soon be ended. Malcolm Muggeridge, who created a hullabaloo 12 years ago, when he dismissed the monarchy as a "royal soap opera," said last week that "the monarchy has ceased to have any importance or to play any part in the national life. However hard Charles tries, the monarchy will get more and more remote from reality, and so seem funnier and funnier to the ordinary person."
Counting the Cost
The cost of monarchy remains the crown's most vulnerable point. "I do not think that Princess Margaret, the Duke of Gloucester or the Queen Mother are worth the money we pay them," charges William Hamilton, a Labor MP. "The Queen Mother has plenty of charm and smiles a lot—but so she should. She gets paid £70,000 ($168,000) a year by the taxpayers." Queen Elizabeth receives $1,140,000 annually for her household expenses. Charles is paid $72,000 annually now, and that sum will rise to $480,000 when he turns 21 this autumn.
Defenders of the monarchy argue that the royal family are a relatively frugal lot, and that the crown, thanks to the lands it owns, really pays for itself. The gross revenues from crown lands amount to an annual $13.2 million. These funds are turned over to the government, which, beyond paying the Queen, gives allowances to some members of the royal family that amount to only $384,000.
Undoubtedly, the Queen and her relations provide the finest body of professional bazaar openers, foundation-stone layers and medal awarders that a ceremony-loving people could wish for. Despite all the criticism, probably most of the British, fundamentally a sentimental race, would still say yes, the monarchy is worth it. The late Cassandra (William Connor, columnist of the London Daily Mirror) once wrote:
"I am a royalist rather than a republican because I think that the romantic hokum that surrounds kings and queens and princes and princesses is cheaper and more entertaining than the myth that surrounds the dreary old men who end up as republican Presidents."