The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Royal wedding reveals the same old class prejudices

Britons find the idea people of moving beyond one's social class both desirable and at the same time repellent.

By Stefan Simanowitz Published 19 November 2010 11:58

Whilst the candor and the maturity of those two young people describing their intention to spend the rest of their lives together was surprisingly moving, the British media's wall-to-wall fawning coverage of the royal engagement exposed the fact that the United Kingdom remains a deeply class-ridden and sexist society.

If news reports are to be believed, Kate Middleton has not only fulfilled every girl's dream of marrying a prince - albeit one with thinning hair and fading looks - but by bagging the 'ultimate prize' she has also set the bench-mark in social climbing. The press obsess about the fact that Middleton is marrying above her station. Her parents are "in trade" running a mail-order company and were once both airline stewards. Indeed, Kate is the first "commoner" to marry into British royalty in 350 years but instead of being cause for celebration, this fact has been met with sneering snobbery from all sides.

William and Kate's relationship is commonly described as a Cinderella story and like the original fairytale this modern romance is also rife with negative gender stereotyping and ugly class prejudice. Despite the veneer of Disneyfication, this royal fairytale and our reactions to it expose many of the worst aspects of British society. Unlike America where climbing the social ladder is celebrated, Britons find the idea people of moving beyond one's social class both desirable and at the same time repellant. Britons aspire to upward mobility but despise themselves and are despised for it.

Whilst I genuinely hope William and Kate share many long and happy years together I find it hard to buy into the fairytale. Although her prince may have come and Kate Middleton may relocate to a palace, she has not been handed the key to happiness. Her parents may bristle with pride at their daughter's 'advantageous marriage' but after the ball is over the new princess will have to get used to a lifetime of dull social events, official functions and media intrusion. Although it is unlikely that she will ever become a feminist icon or a class warrior, we can but hope that the arrival of Lady Kate may yet challenge rather than reinforce some of Britain's most deep-seated prejudices.

Stefan Simanowitz is a journalist, broadcaster and human rights campaigner, you can see more of his work here.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Royal Wedding

More from Stefan Simanowitz

33 comments

Sat, 2010-11-20 04:46 — jeremiah

Classy point Buckskins! I will go to work in protest if the Condems declare a holiday for this charade!

Sat, 2010-11-20 07:32 — Mike Godfrey (not verified)

So what mostly seems to sting over 'their' wedding is basically jelousy.Lets take it from the top. If you could afford to send your child to a private school would you, of course you would. If you could afford to let your daughter marry in Westminster Abbey of course you would. Class barrier, yes there is, but where is the barrier IT'S NOT IN THE WORKING CLASS. Would the average working class family put up with an armed guard following them everywhere. Please lets have a little more common sense and less jelousy

Tue, 2010-11-30 06:06 — robert (not verified)

not even the tiniest drop of Nobel blood. How can it be possible?
The Queen must be devastated and beyond grieve.
I much rather would have cheered for a wholesome German Princess, however obscure her Dukedom might have been.
All the European Royal families are inundated with working class "models" lately. It's just too bad!

Tue, 2010-11-30 09:00 — robert (not verified)

it's a shame that the Prince is not aware of his real duty as heir.
This is to marry a noble lady from a long standing nobel family and breed more noble heirs.
That is the whole noble point of it all.

Fri, 2010-11-19 12:15 — Paul Wooding (not verified)

I agree with much of what you've written, but why sink to the level of personal insults?

Writing "...albeit one with thinning hair and fading looks " is just mean. I'm a passionate republican and feel embarrassed by the media coverage around the engagement yet I don't sink to the level of insulting someone's looks. There's no need for it and it cheapens an otherwise well argued piece.

For the record if we do get a bank holiday I'm committed to a day of charity/voluntary work. I'd love it if we could mobilise people who feel the same to come together and do some good on that day rather than sit in the pub and moan about how much it's costing the tax payer.

Fri, 2010-11-19 12:17 — Molly (not verified)

What really 'peed' me off was the term 'good wife material' Hello? Good luck to them both and I really wish them happiness. I am sure they are lovely people. But I very tired of living in a world where one has 'higher' status than all the hard working ppl out there. The real royals, like doctors, nurses,social workers... people who really help. No doubt they will travel in the best style the world can offer and raise awareness on 'social matters' nationally and globaly but I suspect it will be carefully chosen and mastered projects and not a sincere passion. And it's Katherine (Catherine?) not Kate...

Fri, 2010-11-19 13:01 — Paul Wooding (not verified)

James - my parents sent me to privat school because the local comprehensives were shocking. As a result my dad worked 7 days a week, we never took holidays and we lived in a very small house. Don't fall into the classic left-wing tap of branding everyone who went to private school posh or upper middle class. Accept that the welfare state fails a lot of people who want to better themselves (esp. on education) and sometimes personal sacrifice is the only way.

Agree broadly with your point about the media definition of Kate being patronizing though to average British folk.

Fri, 2010-11-19 12:50 — james (not verified)

I love the way Kate Middleton, privately educated daughter of millionaires never had a proper job is considered "middle class" or a "commoner" (some newspapers printed "commoner" without speech marks).

To make things easier anyone who has enough money to spare to pay private school fees should automatically be regarded upper class or at least upper middle class. Its patronising to the overwhelming majority of British people who earn average wages working long hours and aspire to a slightly larger home perhaps or a longer holiday

Fri, 2010-11-19 12:57 — jeremiah

I like how they portray Kate Middleton as if she is from a council estate. She went to Marlborough College and St Andrews and her parents are multi-millionaires for heaven's sake.

People seem worried how she will "cope" inside the monarchy. Well there is nothing more shocking than middle class people on the make.

I'm sure given her background that Kate Middleton will be running the show in a few years.

The class system is in the DNA of the British people. So long as we have a vast gap between rich and poor and an unelected Monarch as head of state it will continue unabashed.

Mon, 2010-11-22 05:43 — Mark (not verified)

Miserable Git ! who cares ! let the Royalists have their moment of glory ! and with any luck the rest get a day off to to do something else . instead of watching the wedding ! like i did in 81 . Yeah and the U.K. is and always will be a class society , emigrate like i did , if it worries you that much !!!

Sat, 2010-11-20 13:26 — Daniele1

Ben:
I read with utter dismay that you think that a millionaire "commoner" marrying a prince is "social progress".
AT this rate Britain will still be dragging itself out of the Middle Ages by the next millennium!!
How about going a bit further, like most countries have, and abolish the Monarchy and attempt to breach the gap between the rich and the poor so we don't have the filthy rich who owns half the country and the rest who owns next to nothing??
As to the term "commoner" still being used today, I find it both absurd and insulting. It is also an affront to the notion of Democracy that this country pretends to love so much. What a farce!
The whole business of this "royal" wedding makes me gag.

Sat, 2010-11-20 13:33 — swatantra nandanwar

Kate is a great girl with a great future ahead of her. She is the only consort to have a university degree even though it is in Art History. Always a possibility of getting a job as a curator of the Queens Art rather like Anthony Blunt. Perhaps it will lead to a resurgence of more young people applying to study Art History instead of Media Studies. Hope so. Britain is fast ecoming a cultural dessert.

Sat, 2010-11-20 13:33 — Stuart (not verified)

I think it's great news. And yes, the tax payer are going to be paying for it - so what? we spend far more each year paying out for everyone else in our society, and let's face it, in the grand scheme of things the cost of it will be small.
To call it a sham as someone has, I feel is unfair; they appear to be a couple very much in love and that should be celebrated in an age where relationships and sentiment change with the wind.
I wish them the very best of luck and am looking forward to a day off - I shall watch the ceremony on television, perhaps while marking a set of exercise books, and then I shall look forward to seeing how they both continue their work - and lives - in the public eye.

Sat, 2010-11-20 13:35 — Daniele1

Sorry about the grammatical mistakes (own not owns).
Mike Godfrey:
Please spare us the "jealousy" argument.And the "oh the poor Royals have to have bodyguards and have to do all these boring duties".
Remove the shackles you've got around your brain and grow some sense of Justice and fairness.What has jealousy got to do with the notion that everybody is born equal and that no human being should be made to bow or defer to another one, due to his/her birth?? what is so difficult to understand that Monarchy and social privileges belong to the dustbins of History along with slavery and hanging?

Fri, 2010-11-19 14:35 — meihh1

====== http://www.clshoe.us/ ==========

Wonderful
Share a website with you ,
input url in google sirch
(http://www.clshoe.us)
Believe you will love it

Fri, 2010-11-19 14:53 — Ben (not verified)

I get the impression that some among the ranks of the left-wing press would not be happy unless William married a girl who grew up in a council estate and worked in the local pound shop.

Yes her parents are millionaires and she had a very expensive education, but surely the fact that her parents are self-made millionaires counts for something?

She's the product of aspiration. When did that become a crime? If I was a millionaire, I'd want the best education possible for my children. Catherine is the great-granddaughter of a pit miner and now she's destined to be Queen. If that's not social progress, I don't know what is.

Sat, 2010-11-20 17:00 — south pacific

I don't really care about this latest royal hooha.

As an Australian I look forward to us cutting the ties with your monarchy.

Can you imagine the UK having a foreigner as their head of state.

Well we have to put up with such crap.

AUS for Republic.

Fri, 2010-11-19 15:32 — Robert Taggart

Oh to be a Republic !
No to a bank holiday on the day - it will only rain !

Sat, 2010-11-20 19:23 — Daniele1

John Global:
'The Republic of Australia", this is long overdue and I wish you luck in your attempt to get rid of this foreign queen.
The only question I have for the Australians is why have you and still are putting up with , as you say, such crap?
Indeed imagine the Brits putting up with a foreign queen? Ironically they are since the queen is of German descent and her husband is Greek. Hilarious.
Why are the Republicans so quiet?

Sat, 2010-11-20 19:29 — Daniele1

While I am at it, John Global, could you explain why you have a British Queen but that doesn't make you a British citizen with every right to enter Britain and do what the hell you like here? If that doesn't give you that right, what on Earth does a British queen do for the Australians? The same goes for Canada.
How and why do the Australians and the Canadians tolerate this charade??

Sat, 2010-11-20 19:54 — swatantra nandanwar

Do they still have 'class' in Oz? As far as I know they're all working class.

Fri, 2010-11-19 17:23 — Ben (not verified)

They set their company up in 1987 and clearly had the money to send all three children to prep school. Obviously they were doing well even before she met William. Though I won't lie that the royal connection over the past few years won't have done their profit margins any harm!

Fri, 2010-11-19 17:39 — james (not verified)

@Paul Wooding

I don't judge people who go to private school. I think I understand what you are trying to communicate however the thing to remember is this...

Only 7% of population are privately schooled so "middle class" definition I think needs revising in the media and people who use it