This royal wedding is Britain's Marie Antoinette moment

How well we do it! Was the princess beautiful in lace and was the prince charming? Indeed they were. The glorious pomp and circumstance did not disappoint those 2 billion worldwide watchers, indulging vicariously in the theatre of majesty. They tell us this is what we are best at, the great parade, the grand charade. If you weep at weddings here was one to cry for, for us more than them. The more extreme a ceremony's extravagance, the more superstitious you might feel about the outcome: the simpler the better the prognosis, in my experience.
But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did.
Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives.
Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones.
The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school.
Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%.
In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state.
A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement.
How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging.
This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer?
The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report.
Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are.
Polly Toynbee @'The Guardian'