I don’t have any great interest in, or regard, for the royal family, although I admit to turning up my hearing aids when they share their thoughts in public. It’s not usually the content but how it’s said. Understandably, the late Queen was a great proponent of the “Queen’s English” or Received Pronunciation (RP). To my ear, “my family” sounded more like “meh femileh,” uncannily close to the local, more proletarian pronunciation of the famous “Dundee peh.”
Her immediate family generally followed suit. The Princess Royal regularly slipped in the odd “r” where it didn’t really belong, the alleged “naff orff” being a good example. In the course of his work, my late cousin had dealings with the then Prince of Wales concerning planning issues at Balmoral and Birkhall. My cousin was a bit of a sponge, readily absorbing peculiarities of the prince’s mannerisms and speech.
He (my cousin, not Charles) was often accompanied by the Doric-speaking local councillor, who greatly enjoyed telling how one meeting ended in a linguistic faux pas. As the tea things were cleared, a sure sign the audience was over, my cousin rose to his feet, bowed, and said, “Well, we’ll be orff, now.” Cue stifled laugh from the also present Camilla.
Some younger royals appear to be distancing themselves from RP. The Duchess of Cambridge however, is also a bit of a sponge, now sounding posher than her husband. Of course, RP as used by the royals serves a purpose. It sets them apart, emphasising their difference and superiority. Does it matter a two-penny toss if they choose to communicate in RP or Swahili? Of course it doesn’t, but it does create ripples in places where “accentism” still counts.
Accents and their acceptability change constantly. In the 60s, The Beatles, and TV’s The Likely Lads brought Liverpool and Newcastle accents to the fore for the first time. Gritty northern films such as A Kind of Loving, Billy Liar and This Sporting Life also contributed. More recently, exposure to American dramas such as The Wire have influenced how young people of all ethnicities communicate. Increased geographic mobility and absorption of many different cultures have had even greater impact.
Despite it all, “accentism,” is still alive and well. Speaking Up, a report on accents and social mobility, published last year by academics in Bern, London, and Edinburgh, suggested that some accents are more equal than others. While Scottish, southern Irish and American were all rated highly, the “working class” accents of Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool were perceived less favourably. Ethnic minority languages were ranked lowest. Unsurprising then, that young people living in the England’s North and Midlands are more concerned their accents count against them in competitive situations.
Accents continue to mark the north/south divide. Speaking Up and its conclusions simply reflect the imbalance in political and economic power between north and south. The current neutral accent of the posh south is the direct descendent of RP. “RP lite” still dominates media, politics, and the law. If you hail from the North, there must be considerable pressure to change one’s accent to “get on.”
Poet Ian McMillan, the “Barnsley Bard,” claims the North has become a “ventriloquist’s dummy” for the south and questions why other accents are rarely heard in news bulletins. Today presenter, Amol Rajan, has also recently questioned the dominance of “posh newsreaders.” On the other hand, Radio Orkney is to be congratulated on its continuing promotion and use of the Orcadian dialect.
In most walks of life, we’re encouraged to embrace diversity, so why should some accents and dialects be considered less acceptable than others? The country is enriched by its many accents and dialects. If someone wishes to change their accent that’s fine – though Lulu serves as a terrible warning.
No one should have to change out of obligation or to improve their prospects. My mother was quick to let me know if I was straying too far from my linguistic roots. “Fit’s wrang wi’ spikkin’ wi’ the vice ye grew up wi’?” “Nithin’ mither, nithin.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel