PBS NewsHour: What Does Royal Wedding Mean for Role of Monarchy in Britain?

[alp227]

Run time: 08:32 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Sq8VICdAs   Posted on YouTube: April 30, 2011 By YouTube Member: PBSNewsHour Views on YouTube: 334   Posted on DU: April 30, 2011 By DU Member: alp227 Views on DU: 934

 
Transcript: Margaret Warner interviews New York Times London bureau chief John Burns. I'm glad that the NewsHour (recently having won a ) is bringing up actual issues such as the coexistence of monarchy and democracy and the British government austerity, as the networks would be focusing on the scenery and fashion (I mean, how many fluff segments on the morning shows about Duchess Catherine's wedding dress?). An excerpt:

MARGARET WARNER: And why does that matter for the U.K.? I mean, here is this very modern democracy. Why is the monarchy still in such a prominent place?

JOHN BURNS: Well, I think the simple answer is it works pretty well.

And I have a suspicion that it's more than the celebrity and the hubbub that intrigues Americans about this. We have a head of state who is not involved in the political fray. The institution of the monarchy assures continuity and embodies, if you will, the state, the nation and the nation's sense of itself.

Queen Elizabeth who has been on the thrown for very nearly 60 years, next year, has accomplished that with tremendous success. We have had two Elizabethan ages in this country, the first Elizabeth in the 16th century and this one. And I think she will go down in the history of the British monarchy as one of our great monarchs.

So, on its face, I think this country is, by default, a monarchist country. It works well. There is no reason to change it. It gives people a great deal of pleasure. It reminds us of who we are and of our history. And that loyalty, that fealty, if you want to call it that, has been sorely tested by the events of the last 30 years.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, today comes, of course, also at a time of incredible budget austerity, painful cuts. And many politicians, even the prime minister, said he hoped today would be a moment of I think he said joy and light relief in a painful time.

Did you -- was there a sense of that?

JOHN BURNS: Well, it's true. It's true there is a lot of pain being inflicted by this austerity cut. The government has declared an across-the-board 20 percent cut in government expenditures over the last -- over the next four years. Put another way, it means rolling the British economy back five or six years.

So in London you don't feel this quite as strongly as you do in the provinces. But there's no doubt that there would have been a lot of people out there today who found, in the day's events, one day of relief from all of that.

There was some on the left wing, a complaint about the cost of the wedding. But if I tell you that the government has said that the all-out cost was about 30 million pounds -- that's between $45 million and $50 million -- which represents about half the cost of one of the fast combat jets that Britain has deployed over Libya, I think it sort of puts it into perspective, a price I think that many would judge well worth paying for what we saw today and for what we may hope it portends.

(on edit) Just remembered that an Australian network actually also brought up the Australian republic debate in its coverage; at the 7 min mark of this video

[phasma ex machina]

1. Judging by its own interest in the Royal Wedding America seems very much a London province. nt

[Enrique]

2. it means nothing

i don't care what Dr. Who says, that wedding means nothing about anything.

[colorado_ufo]

3. Chuckle of the day:

"Queen Elizabeth, who has been on the thrown for very nearly 60 years . . ."

I would think that she should be quite bruised by now! It should have stated, "on the THRONE . . .".

Is our journalists learning?

:P

[jwirr]

4. I did not listen to the video but want to share my thoughts after seeing

the wedding. I think many of us here on DU have it wrong. We are angry about how the money could have been used for better things. But this is one of the best stimulus programs I have seen in this present world crisis. Think of all the money spent by the rich in England to produce this show. Jobs, jobs, jobs. And a lot of the money came from the richest people in England including the royal family. And add to that the lift in spirits that you saw from the people in the streets. FDR would have approved.

We could certainly use something that would loosen the purse strings of the rich in this country and we sure as hell need something to assure us that the world will go on. But we do not have many traditions in this country that pull us together and give us that assurance. We are too divided to ever agree on anything as simple as a young couple getting married in a interesting and traditional way. We would be fighting over the dress, the uniform, which church if any and every other detail of any thing that needed doing. Like we do about getting through this de-recession.

At least some of the economy in England has had a boost and they have had a reminder of who they are and where they have come from and that they can make it through some pretty rough times.

I think the fuss about the wedding was well worth it. Not because it was a ROYAL wedding but because it was good for the economy.

[liberation]

6. Do you have any numbers and facts to back up your assertion?

This talking point is getting ridiculous, amazing the lengths people are willing to go with their logical dissonance: throwing a lavish wedding while the rest of the country has to endure fairly draconian "austerity" reforms is the epitome of contempt by the elites for the plebe, not the summit of their love for the little people.

Enough with this plantation mentality.

[pretzel4gore]

5. john burns, one of the bush pushers of 2000 election...

everybody forgets that it was these rightwing mainstream media hirelings who sold their arses to the reactionaries going back to reegan time (if not earlier- during the 'watergate' affair, ferinstance, most ms media were outraged at very idea nixon 'broke' any laws- since he WAS the law, the lapdog media said!)
picture this: you're an observer at a rassling match between 2 chumps, and newsmen are alongside yelling reports into microphones while crowd jeers AT THEM...the chumps battle weakly, being silly little weaklings, but the RIGHTWING CHUMP has a big rubber bat which he beats the lefty chump with...MEANWHILE, the referee, who's a 800 pound gorrlla-type JABBA THE HUTT guy filling the ring with greasy fat etc and he constantly slaps the lefty chump's head! But newsman ignore the JABBA and the RUBBER BAT and describe to their listeners an UNFAIR FIGHT as the lefty has CROWD ON HIS SIDE and poor rightwinger is the underdog!
>john burns is the rubber bat used by the rightwinger

[JDPriestly]

7. Who cares?

For Americans, it is a pretty pageant. That is all. Little girls love it. I remember Queen Elizabeth's coronation. I made a scrapbook of the pictures from Life magazine, etc. I also remember Queen Wilhelmina. Little girls love this stuff because it reminds us of the romance of fairytales. Little girls want to be princesses.

It is a waste of time for an adult to be interested in the wedding of someone they don't know.

As for John Burns, I am reminded of the old saying "Let them eat cake." John Burns is taking it farther and saying "Let them eat frosting."

Let's be grownups, please. Why was this even posted on DU?

[alp227]

8. if you click on the PBS.org transcript i provided

this is an interview with a journalist regarding the political effect of this wedding in the British monarchy