The Guardian published a headline that characterised ordinary people who will attend the royal wedding as “commoners”. This is how people responded:
— Harry Leslie Smith (@Harryslaststand) March 2, 2018
The full headline reads:
On social media, many expressed surprise at the choice of words:
You might expect @guardian not to use the patronising term ‘commoner’. There is no difference between a royal and the rest of us, apart from the state aid and made up titles.
Royal wedding: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle invite 2,640 commoners https://t.co/F7Sg1Y5tsO
— Graham Smith (not that kind of republican) (@GrahamSmith_) March 2, 2018
The Guardian went on to gush over the benefits for the “commoners”:
The commoners, 1,200 of whom will be chosen “from every corner of the United Kingdom”, will get to watch the arrival of the bride and groom as well as their wedding guests, and then the carriage procession as it leaves after the service.
Social media users mocked it accordingly:
You would think a modern society would be well beyond the irony-free use of the word "commoners".
— OffGuardian (@OffGuardian0) March 3, 2018
For the record, the original press release from Kensington Palace did not refer to the public as ‘commoners’.
“Widely used term”
Responding to The Canary, a Guardian News and Media Ltd spokesperson claimed:
‘Commoner’ is a widely used term when reporting on royalty
Slavery, fascism, and smallpox were also once widespread. That doesn’t make them ideal. This is frankly a terrible line of defence from The Guardian – an outlet that prides itself as a leading left-liberal voice. The term ‘commoner’ was regressive in the 18th century, and it’s regressive now.
– Check out Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state.
Featured image via Surtsicna – Wikimedia
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?