Tongue in Cheek

Royalty is like sex: we may feel guilty about it, or try to hide it or make excuses for it, but like it or not we can't do without it.

There isn't a country in the world which hasn't had Royalty at some stage of its history; those that tried to do without have either gone into serious decline or been wiped out entirely. Consider the United States, for example. Although they seem on the face of it to be managing very well without a monarchy there are, I suspect, many Americans who still buy model kitsets of the Brittania or gloat over hidden pin-ups of Corgis.

What the Americans have failed to realise is that monarchism is a psychological necessity. Although they may boast that they don't need a Queen, their country abounds in signs of an all-consuming Royalty-wish. The much-idolised Statue of Liberty is obviously a subconscious symbol for the Queen Marilyn Monroe is one of many Queen-figures produced by Hollywood, which is itself merely a pathetic simulation of Buckingham Palace.

Magazines like 'Playboy' and 'Oui' originate almost exclusively from America or Europe, but Britain seems not to need such things. It is also interesting to note that while America is noted for its cult of 'Momism' or Mother-worship, no such thing exists in Britain. They simply have no need of it: they have the Queen.

Obviously, then, Royalty is vital to the healthy well-being of a state. On the other hand, you can get too much of a good thing. Royalty tends to be extremely expensive, sometimes tiresome and often socially embarrassing. Britain tried for centuries to cope with her large amount of Royalty, and several times came perilously close to giving up the struggle and going the way of France and the United States. But, with typical British originality and daring, they found a better solution: the Commonwealth.

The British realised that they had more Royalty than was really good for them. At the same time, many nations were in dire straits because they had no Royalty at all. So, they invented a system of sharing the world's limited Royalty resources equally, so that no-one got too much or too little. This is the purpose of the Royal Tours.

Whether we like it or not, we in New Zealand need Royalty as much as everyone else. We too collect pin-ups of Prince Citarles and exchange gossip about the Dukes love life During Royal Tours we run around like headless chickens, cleaning up streets, cheering and waving flags. The Maori Queen cannot shake hands or open bridges with the elegance and style of Elizabeth, the splendour and excitement of a Tour cannot be matched by a by-election in Mangere or a Farmers Christmas Parade.

In fact, we could probably do with a little more Royalty than we have right now. The interval between the 1970 Tour and the recent one was so long that it nearly proved fatal. By 1975 New Zealanders were so desperate for a taste of monarchism that when Muldoon offered to take upon himself Royal omnipotence and the divine right of Kings, they welcomed him with open arms and open purses. But just as you can't make a true cup of tea without a genuine teabag, you can't have a true monarchy without a real Queen.

Now that the Royal Tour has given New Zealanders a glimpse of the real thing, they will quickly reject Nationals cheap imitation.