Britain's Poet Laureate - A Controversial Role?

Simon Armitage (2009)

photo by Alexander Williamson

via Wikimedia Commons

After 10 years writing poetry for her country, Carol Ann Duffy has finally passed the baton over to Simon Armitage as he is elected to be Britain’s new Poet Laureate. A truly deserved selection. Yet with the recent hand-over, it is fair to say that there has been controversy in the poetic world of late.

The origins of the laureateship stem way back to 1616, when Ben Johnson was afforded a pension by the state, but the first official holder of the title was John Dryden, appointed by Charles II in 1668. The elected poet has no statutory duties but must create verse to mark significant events in Britain, such as royal weddings or memorial celebrations (although over recent decades the role has moved much more to promote poetry itself). The prestigious title also affords them a cask of sherry and an annual fee of £5,750. Until Duffy’s predecessor, Andrew Motion, limited his tenure to 10 years, the position was for life, and indeed has typically been men. 

In fact, Carol Ann Duffy was the first woman, Scot and openly gay individual to be appointed in the history of the title – a real milestone in British history. Yet whilst I truly believe that Duffy was a fitting and worthy Poet Laureate, one must admit it seems rather convenient that such a unique person should be selected in a time where equality for women and LGBT rights were becoming prominent in the public eye. Duffy’s work is great, of that there is no denying, but is it not reasonable to suggest that the government (who is responsible for electing the laureate) may have selected her simply to break tradition and prove their inclusivity?

Other issues with the recent election have also been brought to the surface by Poet Laureate candidate Benjamin Zephaniah in a somewhat viscous outburst. Zephaniah openly rejected and criticised his candidacy in 2018, and has previously refused an OBE in 2003, writing in The Guardian, “OBE, me? Up yours, I thought...I get angry when I hear that word “empire”; it reminds me of slavery, it reminds of thousands of years of brutality, it reminds me of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised”.

Talking of his candidacy, the poet, author, actor and musician tweeted: “I have absolutely no interest in this job. I won’t work for them. They oppress me, they upset me, and they are not worthy”. In his original article (linked) you must admit, Zephaniah has a point. 

The poet John Agard has also criticised the ordeal of the Poet Laureate and the way that they are selected. After being shortlisted by a panel of literary experts, the laureate is officially appointed by the queen acting on advice from members of the government. Yet Agard tells The Guardian “I’m certain that the prime minister is very familiar with iambic pentameter. But since poets don’t have the final say in politics, logically speaking there is no reason why politicians should have the final say in poetry”.

It might also be argued that being told to write about specific subject matter in itself is problematic for the writer. Surely if the ideas do not come organically then the final product is likely not to have such conviction and gravitas as when they are natural. The poet’s heart has to be in it for the writing to be compelling and emotional for a reader. Poet Wendy Cope, who was earlier suggested for the role, told The Guardian in 2008, “I have nothing against the Royal Family but I wouldn’t want to be under pressure to write poems about them”. She argues that it is “an archaic post” with “ridiculous expectations attached to it”. Cope did in fact call for the position to be abolished altogether back in 2009, although she has since admitted that this may have been a little over the top.

"It's not just the heart that breaks" from

Havisham by Carol Ann Duffy

Photo by Laura Lewis

via Wikimedia Commons

With regards to Simon Armitage, I must say that the choice is an excellent one. There was much speculation, encouragement even, when the selection committee was first announced as to if they should select a person of colour to fill the role, but does this not boil down to exactly the same standards as when Duffy was selected? Yes, Britain has not yet had a black poet laureate, but if we are selecting a poet based largely on their heritage and personal traits over their poetic talent, then surely the poetry suddenly means very little. If a writer creates good verse, then this should be what stands the test of time, not their outward appearance. This in fact makes up part of Cope’s original argument against the laureateship.

However, Simon Armitage appears to have been appointed with talent at the forefront of minds – thank goodness! A well-studied, celebrated and generally well-read poet, his work combines dry colloquialism and humour with frequent poignancy and features a real range of subject matter from death to lost love, classical myths to everyday modern life, all approached with directness and wit. Over the next decade it is hoped that he will continue in Duffy’s footsteps, promoting poetry and continuing with the Ted Hughes Award that Duffy set up back in 2009. Best wishes and congratulations to him!

Read Cope's article, detailing her reasons for calling for the abolition of the Poet Laureate here. Links to other mentioned texts are attached in the above article.