By Arnold Jansen op de Haar

Recently, I followed the coverage of King’s Day in Dordrecht on my laptop. It featured the visit to the city of King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima with their children and some minor royals, but for a moment I thought I was watching the arrival of St Nicholas. (For English readers, this is a Dutch children’s event on 5 December.) Partly, maybe, because the first picture they showed was that of a steamboat.

‘What’s in store for the King?’ the female reporter asked the chairman of the local rowing and sailing club. ‘Not much,’ he answered, ‘we just form the backdrop.’

The same could be said about the reporting itself. ‘This appears to be the fly-past,’ the reporter said when planes flew over in formation. Yes, we had drawn the same conclusion at home.

I would have loved to be watching in a Dutch sitting room. Comments about the little princesses’ ponchos were probably coming thick and fast. Or about their ‘Sound of Music’ hairdos, the prominent appearance of Princess Laurentien in the bows, and the absence of Princess Mabel. (For English readers: the last two are sisters-in-law of the Dutch king.) ‘At the very least mention the designer of Maxima’s dress,’ I shouted at my laptop.

And protesting against the Royal Family was allowed, but only by individuals, not as part of a group. So, every now and then, you would spot a bumpkin with a placard.

On the whole, the Dutch are quite outspoken, but the Dutch media are very cautious. It’s quite different in the United Kingdom.

Recently, Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana was born just around the corner. Just before William and Kate left the hospital, the BBC broadcast a studio interview with a republican who maintained that this was just a child like any other.

The Daily Mail reported extensively on the little princess’s names. The fact that Diana is her third name was seen by the paper as a statement from William opposing the courtiers who want to airbrush Diana’s memory from history. Therefore the paper wondered why Diana still didn’t have a single statue.

Papers are far more outspoken here, including about politics. So you know exactly, and not just in this election week, which party is supported by which paper. It’s most amusing to read about the same item in two different papers.

For example, comic Russell Brand’s support of Ed Miliband (Brand used to be opposed to voting) is, according to the right-wing papers, the action of a lunatic, and according to the left-wing papers an enormous stroke of luck.

A politician’s past and family members, too, are covered in the papers. They interview Aunt Annie and secretly open rubbish bags. If, as a nine-year-old, one molested one’s hamster, the papers will find out.

This is in contrast to the Netherlands, where I don’t even know who the partners of the best known politicians are. Let alone what they are up to. Besides, in the United Kingdom, politicians quite regularly brand one other as ‘dangerous’.

The father of Labour leader Ed Miliband was a Marxist. As students in Oxford, PM David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne were both members of the Bullingdon Club, an exclusive student club whose members occasionally restructured a pub.

Well, I’ve already heard someone remark: ‘At least the Bullingdon Club paid for the damage, but not Ed.’

The good news this week was that Diana has been put back on the map. My mother would have said: ‘Look, the boys haven’t forgotten her.’ I must reluctantly admit that I was rather a fan of Diana. And in addition, I attended a party on the occasion of the Dutch King’s Day (see picture). It shouldn’t get any weirder.

© Arnold Jansen op de Haar
© Translation Holland Park Press