Let me come clean. I am not a supporter of the British Royal family. In my opinion, the monarchy is an anachronistic curiosity whose continuous presence is an anomaly in today’s complex mix of worldwide socioeconomic groupings. Having said this, I accept that many in my age group would disagree. According to Statista, 80% of the UK’s 65+ population (in 2023) would prefer a monarchy rather than an elected head of state. This percentage starts at 37% among 18–24-year-olds and then steadily rises to 56% for 25–49-year-olds and 67% for 50–64-year-olds to reach my age group’s figure of 80%.   I am in a minority. I understand this and tolerate the constant barrage of Royal family news, usually with humour and disbelief that anyone would be interested in the antics of Charles, William and Kate, Harry and Meghan, Andrew, and other lesser members who occasionally receive a mention. I put up with the BBC’s occasional knee-bending on their website and news broadcasts. I glance away when passing the glossy OK! and Hello! celebrity magazines in newsagents and supermarkets. But this morning, I could not resist reading Allison Pearson’s front-page article in the Sunday Telegraph.

Sunday Telegraph, 24 March 2024
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-68648684

A nation is in shock … rings out the headline of her article. Really? I know nobody among my age-group acquaintances who is in shock over Kate’s self-declared cancer diagnosis. Sympathetic? Compassionate? Solicitous? Yes, but not shock. I know of nine immediate or extended family members or close acquaintances in my age group who have been diagnosed with a type of cancer (prostate, lung, bowel, skin, kidney, liver, breast, Hodgkin’s lymphoma) and have undergone remedial treatment and, so far, survived, or died of the disease. Cancer is a threat we all live with, no matter what age group, and when it happens, personal and family emotions run deep. Kate and Charles have my sympathy, but I am not shocked about their diagnosis.

I went on to read Pearson’s article. It is a masterclass of sycophancy. No matter where you stand on the question of the Royal family’s existence, the article is fawning to the extreme. We read words, phrases, and sentiments like these: … our wonderful princess; … an unprecedented TV presentation that dealt a blow to the nation’s solar plexus; some … have been stunned by the news … others will have been in tears; watching our Princess of Wales, parchment pale, clearly fragile, yet valiantly composing herself to record a message in that crystal-clear voice. These are adjectives, adverbs and metaphors designed to evoke an extreme reaction and imply an unquestionable love and, possibly, reverence.

We read about a friend who, on hearing the news on her car radio, pulled over to the side of the road and sobbed. And another who was relieved that the Waleses were not about to separate. “For the backbone of Britain, we need those two to be together and happily married,” said my friend. So true, writes Pearson.

Then, there is a reference to … the haunting echoes of Diana, another beloved princess. Cue the Wilhelm scream – aargh!

Having reached this point, I was not motivated to continue to page 2 to read the remainder of Pearson’s article. I expect this obsequious ingratiating prose in the red tops and celebrity magazines but not in the Sunday Telegraph. I am uncertain about what Pearson hopes to achieve by writing this article. Does she want some form of Royal approval? A Damehood, maybe? Is she just writing ‘something about Kate’ for the front page because that’s her job, and she lacked inspiration when she composed her article? Is the article secretly satirical? Is she seeking a promotion to one of the celebrity magazines where she may earn more money? Or does she and Allister Heath (Editor, Sunday Telegraph) genuinely believe that what she has written truly reflects the reaction of the nation to Kate’s recorded message about her cancer diagnosis?

I suspect we will never know.

(^_^)