2D or 3D, The Queen's dimensions do impress

There have been two revealing and thought-provoking images of Her Majesty, The Queen, on our TV screens this week.

The first was the remarkable footage shown on Channel 4 of The Queen’s coronation and her first few months as monarch – all shot in the gloriously intoxicating aspect of 3D.

As you will see from the crop of movies out this year, 3D is definitely ‘in vogue’ and Channel 4’s week-long celebration of the art of that extra dimension has been boosted by the amazing footage it discovered of The Queen showing her, literally, having new depths.

Fast-forward 60 years and on Wednesday we saw her resplendent in robes and crown opening Parliament. This was all in 2D (sadly) but those pictures will fly around the world as an example of the peculiar but rather splendid nature of our Parliamentary traditions.

These two bits of film left me pondering again about The Queen.

For, whether you are a staunch Republican or an avid monarchist, you can’t deny she has been one of the few ‘constants’ in British life since that ‘3D’ coronation in 1953. Politicians (and political parties) have come and gone as have members of the ‘new Royalty’ (celebrities) but The Queen has remained as a seemingly unshakeable rock in the midst of it all.

She has (amazingly) gone more than 60 years without ever really putting her foot in it, too – something none of us could ever say. Or indeed, let's be honest, any of her family.

It is a pretty impressive record.

I guess , like most people, my opinion on the monarchy has shifted over time. As a young, punky rebel I was very much an anti-monarchist. My preferred version of God Save The Queen was The Sex Pistols’ one rather than the national anthem and for years I argued that in this day and age the monarchy was an anachronism. And an expensive one to boot.

But over the years, as I have seen so much turmoil in the political arena, the solidity of the monarchy has increased its appeal to me. Without a King or Queen as head of state we would have had, instead, either a Prime Minister/President rolled into one or a separate, elected President alongside a PM. E

ither way I am pretty certain that due to their immense popularity at times that would have meant both a President Thatcher and a President Blair at one point. Both presidencies would have been very popular with their supporters – but would have incensed their opponents both here and abroad. And if you look at the nobody who has just become President of Europe that hardly inspires the Republican cause either. I doubt too many people will be buying tea towels with his face on it ....

The monarchy has also ‘got to me’ as I have travelled more and seen what they mean beyond our shores. The Queen (sorry about this Madonna, Angelina or even Jordan!) is the most famous woman in the world and when people see her they automatically associate her with these shores. It is a positive image - something our politicians and political instituitions rarely give.

I also recall watching a documentary which showed President George W Bush (another great advert for a President don't you think?) nervously waiting to meet The Queen at the White House. The US President is the most powerful figure on the planet (sadly) and yet W. knew where he ‘stood’ alongside Her Maj. After all where he is now – while she is opening Parliament?

I have also seen the effects of the monarchy at close range – the lift they give people they meet, the excitement their visits generate, the money their presence brings to projects – and let’s be honest no British politician has the ‘star quality’ to generate that unified enthusiasm.

So yes, whether it is 2D or 3D I now admit that The Queen and the institution she represents ‘works’ for me. I know my younger self is shouting ‘shame’ but I can only shout back – ‘come on Sam, it’s got to be better than a President John Major or a President Michael Foot surely?’

The end of the decade...what, already????

It came as something of a shock the other day to realise that we are a matter of just 12 weeks or so away from the end of this decade. Yes, not just the end of the year, but the end of a whole ten-year period.

Why I found this somewhat surprising is because in many ways it doesn’t feel as though we’ve ever properly defined this period at all and it seems odd to wave goodbye to a decade we have barely said hello to.

One of the reasons for the lack of identity for this time is that even now, as we enter the last weeks of 2009, nobody has really found a decent, universally understood name for it. We all have images flash into our mind the moment anybody says the 1970s (Abba, punk, Silver Jubilee etc), the 1980s (Thatcher, new romantics, the wedding of Charles & Di etc), or the 1990s (Oasis, the rise of New Labour and Britpop) but this decade’s name just doesn’t have the same immediacy. The phrase ‘the noughties’ just doesn’t do it in the instant-warmth, instant-memory sphere does it?

The truth is, when I think we do look back on the noughties (for that looks to be the name which will go down in history), I suspect any of its great music or cultural events will be dwarfed by the really bad stuff. Forget the Beatles being the enduring image of the 1960s, for instance; I’m afraid this past period will best be remembered for 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, climate change, economic meltdown and that appalling fellow George W Bush.


But, if the noughties were a bad dream best forgotten, what are we going into next?

Are we going into a nice easy-to- identify, well-named decade like the 20s, 40s or 80s again? No, of course not. Sadly, we’ve got another decade with an ‘identity crisis’.

The preferred name (apparently) for the next ten year stretch (2010-2019) is the ‘twenty-tens’. Others prefer the ‘two thousand and tens’, some go for ‘the tens’ and the odd person (well, me to be specific) prefers ‘the teens’. OK, I accept that ‘the teens’ is fine for the year 2014 but not so great for 2011 but, heck, I still like it.

Of course, the one thing that can cheer us all about the decade to come is that we can already see some bright lights on the horizon.

There is nothing in the America constitution that could allow George Walker Bush to stand again (although I understand there are more Bush’s lurking in the, err, bushes) and let’s not forget this country will be given an enormous boost in 2012 when we will have the Olympics and hopefully six years later if we get the football World Cup. Even if you’re not a sports fan, you have to admit that at least it’s something positive to look forward to after the pretty uninspiring and rather bloody decade we’re vacating.


The end of a period like this will, inevitably, mean a plethora of newspaper and magazine reviews where we look at the highlights and lowlights of the years gone by. There will be Best of the Noughties CDs galore and you can bet your life that the TV schedules are already bulging with retrospective programmes about a decade I suspect many of us will actually quickly want to forget.

So what has (apart from the truly gruesome things mentioned earlier) really defined the noughties in the UK? I personally suspect it will be the rise of reality TV in all its guises from Big Brother and X Factor to the reality-TV-for-people-who-claim-they-
don’t-like-reality-TV such as The Apprentice and Dragons’ Den. Such programmes have revolutionised TV and made everyone believe, sadly, that ‘celebrity’ is the ultimate profession to aim for.

So, reader, George W Bush and Simon Cowell could well be THE defining faces of the noughties.

Blimey.

Bring on the ‘teens’....