Lift our hearts William. But in these days of austerity please don't let your wedding go over the top

By Stephen Glover
Last updated at 7:22 AM on 18th November 2010

Most of us have somewhat confused feelings about the Monarchy.

I remember wandering into my university common room during one royal wedding to find it overflowing with long-haired Left-wingers glued to the television.

Almost all of them would have described themselves as republicans, and yet they were dazzled by the royal pageantry.

Comfortable together: William and Kate will be caught between a frugal wedding and a wedding that will show off Great Britain plc to 40% of the planet

Many of those urging Prince William and Kate Middleton to have a modest, private wedding would probably be aghast if their advice were taken seriously.

There would be a terrific hullabaloo if the two of them disappeared to some tiny ­country church and got married with no photographers or ­journalists present.

In fact, for all the talk of the need for ‘austerity’, the excitement, largely fuelled by the media, will grow almost daily until the wedding takes place.

The BBC is already in a state of virtual hysteria about the event, which it will doubtless cover with its customary aplomb and sense of reverence.

According to one possibly overblown estimate, some three billion people, which is more than 40 per cent of the population of the planet, may watch the spectacle on television.

More than welcome: Westminster Abbey could be host to an estimated 3 billion viewers who will watch the royal wedding around the world

Even if the couple wanted a small ceremony — and it is not inconceivable that Prince ­William’s inclinations lie in that direction — they will be propelled by the media and the public’s expectations towards something rather grand.

Royal courtiers will want the Monarchy to be shown off to its best advantage. The Government, though acutely aware of the need for restraint during ­straitened times, will ­privately say that Great Britain plc is on show.

To steer the right path between what would be criticised on the one hand as a hole-in-the-wall affair, and on the other as an over-lavish extravaganza, is not easy. Some ideas can, however, be easily dismissed.

No one need puzzle long over the suggestion made by the historian David Starkey, and ­endorsed by others, that the wedding should take place in the Chapel Royal in St James’s Palace, on the grounds that many previous members of the Royal Family, ­including Queen Victoria, have been married there.

This happens to be the place where the coffin of Prince ­William’s mother lay after her body was brought back from Paris, and so it is hardly the ideal venue. More to the point, perhaps, it can only accommodate a handful of people.

There wouldn’t even be room for the television cameras.

St Paul’s Cathedral is reportedly being ruled out because that is where Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer got married in 1981, and it might therefore stir unhappy memories.

Westminster Abbey — which was visited by Kate Middleton yesterday and is emerging as the favoured venue — seems to be the more attractive ­alternative. The difficulty is that it might evoke a very grand state occasion.

What is needed, surely, is a wedding that signifies the importance of the event without going over the top.

Even if ­economic times were not so harsh, the couple and their advisers would be wise to opt for a more restrained ceremony than the marriage of Prince ­William’s parents, which ­incidentally was watched by an estimated audience of a mere 750million people.

For one thing, Prince Charles was the direct heir to the throne, which Prince William is not. But far more important than this consideration is the public’s changed attitude towards the Royal Family.

Even the most fervent supporter of the Monarchy could hardly deny that the institution has suffered some lasting damage because of what followed the 1981 wedding.

It was billed as a ‘fairytale’ marriage, and was so described by the then Archbishop of ­Canterbury, Dr Robert Runcie, who officiated.

In fact it was no such thing. Prince Charles’s heart was elsewhere. The public was invited on false pretences to take part in what was a ­charade, or at any rate soon became one.

Fairytale marriage? Prince Charles kisses Diana after their wedding in 1981

The ornate open carriages and royal flummery were glitter that concealed the truth.

The public disenchantment, when it came, was all the greater because of the false expectations which had been raised.

What had been offered to us as a fairy tale turned out to be a depressing and, ultimately, sad soap opera.

Prince William and Kate ­Middleton appear to be in love, and there is absolutely no ­reason to suppose we are heading for a repeat performance.

But for their own sake, and that of the Monarchy, they should resist any pressure to entrance us with magic. A generally less ­deferential public does not want to be taken in again.

The young couple would also earn respect if the Royal Family picked up at least some of the tab for what should be a less grandiose event. 

Though the 1981 wedding took place during a recession, all thoughts of economy were thrown to the wind. By contrast, when the instinctively frugal Queen ­married Prince Philip in 1947 — a time of almost inconceivable scrimping — she used 300 ration coupons to buy the material for her dress, and most of the costs of the wedding came from ­savings which her father George VI had made during the war from the Civil List.

Prince Charles, who has famously expensive tastes, certainly should take a leaf out of his grandfather’s book when it comes to William’s wedding.

(By the way, I happened to ­witness the cavalcade of this climate change zealot passing me in London yesterday. He was being driven in a gas-­guzzling Bentley followed by two gas-guzzling Range Rovers, and a retinue of police outriders on motorcycles. You could light an Indian ­village for a year on the fuel they were burning.)

It seems the Prince is going to dig into his very ample pockets to pay for the costs of the royal wedding, and Prince William, who is wealthy in his own right, could possibly help out. ­

The parents of Kate Middleton, Michael and Carole could also help with the reception with their experience through their party business

Perhaps Kate Middleton’s parents, who have made a fortune out of putting on parties, could be drafted in to help keep down the costs of the reception. They might ­relish being given a proper role in arrangements.

However, we should draw the line at the huge security costs which are bound to be incurred. There is no reason Prince Charles or the Royal Family should bear these expenses, which the ­Metropolitan Police may ramp up out of fear of a terrorist atrocity.

Prince William and Kate ­Middleton seem remarkably grounded and well-balanced young people, and I am sure their instincts will be in favour of a ­ceremony which is dignified and inspiring without appearing excessive.

I imagine that David Cameron’s feelings will be ­similar, and I hope he will feel free to offer the royal couple advice.

The Queen, of course, is still held in very high esteem, but the Monarchy as a whole is probably viewed with less ­affection, certainly less awe, than it was 30 years ago.

The Royal Family is certainly ­fortunate to have found a future king and queen as attractive, unstuffy and sensible as William and Kate appear to be.

They will have pitched their wedding right if they manage to convey that they understand the nature of the times, as well as the subtly changed public sentiment.

This is their opportunity to show that they intend to start as they wish to go on.

Print this article

Read later

Email to a friend