The Slatest

This New York Times Story on the Queen’s 90th Birthday Is So, So Bad

Queen Elizabeth II with her stiff upper lip.   

Mark Cuthbert–Pool/Getty Images

It’s bad enough that so much of the tabloid media is obsessed with the goings-on of a certain royal family. But even worse is when harder news outlets start engaging—fawningly and pathetically—with the British monarchy. This was the front page of Thursday’s Washington Post, the flagship newspaper of the capital of a nation that, I seem to remember reading, once fought a revolution. And this was the “news” story that greeted readers of the New York Times on Thursday morning about the 90th birthday of Queen Elizabeth II. Here is how the piece, written by Dan Bilefsky, begins:

She has been served by 12 prime ministers, starting with Churchill; navigated the decline of the British Empire; braved the tragedies of her family and the nation; and, on Sept. 9, edged out Queen Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British history: 64 years now. And she is lauded for having the stiffest upper lip in the realm.

When it comes to the Queen, real reporters are apparently allowed to become People magazine photo-caption writers. Yes, Queen Elizabeth is certainly an improvement on many of her predecessors. But she is also a mere mortal who has been content to live a life of pointless rituals and familial squabbles. Bilefsky, who covered the Charlie Hebdo shootings for the Times, continues:

On Thursday, Queen Elizabeth II celebrates her 90th birthday, and a grateful Britain is honoring a woman her biographer Douglas Hurd, a former foreign minister, has called “The Steadfast.”

Through seven decades, she has remained gloriously and relentlessly enigmatic in one of her signature pastel outfits and colorful hats, chosen, royal experts say, so onlookers can spot her in a crowd.

I have read the second paragraph here several times and can’t tell if it is supposed to be in jest. Spot her in a crowd? The woman only appears on balconies! Anyway, the piece continues by noting all the nonsense that the supposedly civilized British people are going to be engaging in to celebrate their ruler’s (sorry, sovereign’s) birthday. The worst part of the piece comes when Bilefsky starts consulting “experts” on the subject of the Queen:

Though the monarchy is associated with the class system, wealth and privilege, Peter York, a leading cultural commentator, argued that the queen’s unbridled blandness was a form of “human bondage.” Britons, he said, relished reports of her legendary thriftiness, including stories, apocryphal or not, that she roams Buckingham Palace turning off lights, enjoys soap operas and eats “nonbanquet dinners out of Tupperware containers.” In private, she is said to have a keen sense of humor.

“She should be congratulated for living this long,” Mr. York said. “The certainty of her life reminds Britons of the continuity of their own.”

Priceless. “Associated with the class system” is indeed a nice euphemism. As for poor York, you have to feel bad for “a leading cultural commentator” when the stories he relies on must be hedged with the tag “apocryphal or not.”

Finally comes the last paragraph, and Bilefsky does not disappoint:

Whatever the challenges, the queen appears to have kept the promise she made on her 21st birthday: “I declare before you all, that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”

So the Queen serves her subjects. Excellent. Just like some journalists.