What is it about the Royal Family and the British Establishment that makes it so attractive to youngsters?
*squiggle - doodle - squiggle - doodle.* That was my introduction to the high-minded culture of the arts as it was many others I’m sure. A jolly, bearded behemoth of an artist grinning fulsomely which made far more of an impression than any “so called” “masterpiece” by any of the officially endorsed patron saints of the Left Wing art establishment such as the Chapman Brothers, Vivienne Westwood, Pablo Picasso or Giotto. Squiggle - doodle - squiggle - doodle. This is what made art accessible and fun: an outrageous, hairy cornflake of an almost-anglophone peintre armed with wit, repartee and a “wobble-board” - what child couldn’t be drawn to that? Not I - nor apparently - my 1980s contemporaries who knew where they were with Aussie banter, “cheeky” asides and his alter ego-cum-mascot the Rolfaroo holding court over proceedings. In later years I was glad to see the maestro emerging as a strong social conservative as per his country’s policy over “natives”, urging the indigenous Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia to “get up off your arse and clean up the streets,” before adding “why would you expect somebody to come in and clean up your garbage which you've dumped everywhere(?)". Splendid, culturally concise stuff to be sure. Is it any wonder these steadfast free market values led this greatest of all painters to be taken up as court artist/folk musician/jester to the House of Windsor and to be awarded the CBE and Order of Australia in the process? In this the most avant-garde of all antipodeans was mirroring the progress of musical impresario and philanthropist Jimmy Savile and the wit and raconteur Stuart Hall both of whom were doyens of the Royal Family and the conservative establishment during those halcyon years. In the process these titans of culture and conservatism gathered about them a great number of frantic fans - many of them youngsters, with unfortunate consequences as we have seen recently. In the fallout from the Operation Yewtree to my mind Britain needs to look at itself as a society and ask itself some difficult questions, the most difficult of course being - what is it about these men that make them so attractive to children?
From the very beginning messieurs Savile, Harris and Hall were instrumental in bringing an exhilarating mix of high culture and bonhomie to all our childhoods. Savile in his work as chief gift giver as host of Jim’ll Fixit reminded us youngsters that it was and always would be who-you-know rather than what-you-know - truly the Tory way - and ended up blessed to spend eleven successive New Years Eves with The Lady at Chequers. Hall proved that a simple working man from “Oop" North could possess just as an adequate dexterity at language as his continental contemporaries Jean-Paul Sartre and Samuel Beckett, going on to accept an OBE and becoming the subject of a House of Commons motion congratulating him for his forty years service to the noble art of sports commentating. Now, we all know that children are subject to have their heads turned by excitement, by glamour and by the grace and favour of Margaret Thatcher and Her Madge herself. As has been revealed by some unsavoury (and unnecessary) high court trials a great many children may have been impressed by these bastions of the conservative establishment a little too much. These sorry affairs have opened up a great many questions regarding our children and their futures. Just what makes the Great British child so flighty, so prone to the bright lights of power and prestige and titillation? Are they easily led? Are they desirous? Insatiable? Perhaps deep down these brazen kiddlings are simply too easily led by all that glitz and glamour.
In the wake of revelations regarding a number, or perhaps more. Perhaps dozens. Perhaps many dozens of children throwing themselves towards these bulwarks of the establishment one wonders about the quality of parenting in this nation of ours when we have in effect children who for several generations have clung so tightly to the trappings of power and the fame that it represents. Maybe we of Right minds and righter attitudes towards traditional family values should try and become less attractive - take a leaf out of Sir Leon Brittan’s book for goodness sake. There is a man who’s not been attractive to children for decades. Another suggestion is perhaps to adopt less groundbreaking and “trendy” musical tastes than the peerless innovator Savile who after all effectively invented “rave” music with the pioneering use of twin turntables. Want a non-child friendly soundtrack to your next dinner party or Conservative Association meeting? Look no further than the “hits” of Sir Cliff Richard! There’s no way any child AT ALL could be attracted to someone like him.
One thing I would like to make clear: no near-middle aged Tory should feel any sort of guilt when looking back at childhood infatuations with the likes of Hall, Savile and the Australian artiste himself. As Lord Tebbit has pointed out at the time in which they were in their pomp the priority in our national life was to defend the system. The establishment. This is what these men represented and why children found them so attractive and this is why we should regard these Grands Hommes of the arts as the cultural vanguard of the Right which crushed the Leftish Hampstead limp-wristedness of the continental, Labour supporting metropolitan elite. How sadly times have changed . . . as a latter-day wheezy-breathing Oscar Wilde languishes in Wandsworth Prison let us remember the cultural contribution of those we have lost along the way, for as the groundbreaking Mancunian “emcee” D.L.T said at the time of Sir Jimmy’s passing - “We are all going to be worse off without him around.”
