Like most children of my generation I have a mug to commemorate the Queen's Silver Jubilee. I say 'most'; up until fairly recently I glibly assumed that every schoolkid in the land was given one - I can certainly remember our entire Primary School stood neatly to attention in the playground waiting to be given them. However only a few months ago I discovered that my wife ("Ee, we 'ad it rough when I were young") never got one from her school, and on that basis I have to assume that there were other schools which also failed in their patriotic duty. In doing so, they also, although probably unintentionally, messed up the opening to this week's column, because it would have been so much neater to be able to start with a straightforward declarative that "Every child of my generation was given a mug for the Silver Jubilee." Instead, I've wasted a whole paragraph in dogged pursuit of accuracy. Ah well, never mind. It's not the first paragraph I've wasted, and it probably won't be the last...

But anyway, I was reminded of all this last night while having a cup of coffee in the bath. (A perhaps slightly disturbing insight into my leisure time there.) As I looked at the Silver Jubilee mug, and saw the picture of a still-young Queen Elizabeth the second, I found myself wondering: What is the point of it?

In case a cry of panic has suddenly gone up, fearing that I've suddenly turned all 'Question Timey', let me clarify that I'm not actually referring to the Monarchy here. Oddly enough, that isn't a subject on which I have a definite opinion. On the one hand they could be argued to be a bit superfluous in today's world. I'm afraid I don't have any truck with the argument that always gets trotted out at this point about how much they do for tourism in this country. Rubbish! Tourists flock here to see Buck' House, or the Houses of Parliament, or whatever - buildings, historical monuments, places of note, not to see the Royals themselves. It's not as if it's Butlins, with the Queen doing her Joe Maplin bit, welcoming guests to their chalets, and telling the coach drivers where to park. People would still come to look at our old relics (and again, I refer here to the buildings not the monarchy) whether the Royal Family was still extant or not. In fact if the end were to came in the form of a bloody revolution, then the number of tourists would probably greatly increase.

Then there's the controversy surrounding the Civil List. I don't mind paying for the Queen and Philip, nor Charles for that matter. But I don't quite see what we are paying them for. I may be entirely wrong (in which case somebody had better correct me before I get locked in the Bloody Tower for treason) but I always assumed that the palaces and all the accoutrements were effectively state property, used but not owned by the Royals. Charles, for example, is Duke of Cornwall, but I don't take that to mean he actually owns the county. Could he for example, sell it on eBay if he was fed up with the smell of cow manure or the general scruffiness of farmers? So assuming they don't actually own anything, surely the upkeep of said palaces, etc would be down to the state too? I suppose what I'm really saying is, what exactly do Liz, Phil and Chas spend their money on? I can't believe they nip down the shops of a Saturday looking for bargains, or surf the net for DVDs.

Of course the Civil List extends rather further than the top three doesn't it, which is part of the reason that it is such a contentious subject. Again I'm a bit torn on the matter. On the one hand, yes, why on earth do our taxes go to pay the likes of Prince Edward? But on the other hand, it would be a bit unfair for him to get nothing and have to make his own way. Even if there were jobs that he was capable of doing (personally I think he would do very well as a William Hague lookalikey, but I'm not sure there's much of a call for those - and anyway, William Hague's fairly free to do that himself nowadays); even if there were jobs available, his chances of securing employment are going to be pretty slim. Crikey, I was once turned down for a part-time job at my old school because with a couple of A-Levels I was overqualified. What chance does fifth in line to the throne stand? (As a side note, I think I'm right in saying that Eddie is fifth in line, as the line of succession is male-driven. Princess Anne, if she were having an Alec Guinness moment, would have to work through all three brothers and both nephews before she was top dog. No offence.)

In my model universe (but then I was never very good at making models) the state would pay for the palaces (maybe not quite so many, but enough to go around) and the Queen and Prince Philip would use their income to do what all parents have to do at one time or another - provide for the kids when they can't manage it themselves. Surely she can afford to slip Eddie & Andrew a grand or two from time to time?

The other knotty issue which pops up with depressing regularity when discussing the Monarchy is, who should be next? Constitutionally speaking Charles will be next, but there has been a lot of talk of him passing it straight onto William instead. Personally I'm not sure what the thinking behind this is. OK, he might look a bit more pleasant on the stamps (and I'm keen to avoid any 'licking Prince William' gags here so will move on quickly) but other than that, does it really matter who the Queen or King is? The role may be important, but surely by definition the individual is irrelevant. He or she is a figurehead, an ambassador, a representative - what he or she likes or dislikes or thinks rarely if ever comes into it (unless you're Prince Phillip, of course, in which case it does tend to slip out from time to time). What some people seem to forget is that if Charles has been waiting a long time, won't William be too? Given that the Queen Mother lived to be over a hundred, the Queen could easily have another twenty or more years in her yet; Charles another thirty or forty after that. William could easily be in his seventies by the time he ever got the throne, and I daresay he won't be as photogenic, or indeed lickable, by then.

When I think of the Monarchy at all (and, to paraphrase Colin Baker when he was referring to a creaky old TV show in which he briefly played the lead, I can sometimes go several days without thinking of the Royal Family at all) I like to imagine them as real people. I like to think that the Queen nags Phillip relentlessly before they go anywhere not to put his foot in it. I like to think that, like rebellious husbands the world over, he does it just to annoy her. I also like to imagine that on Christmas Day they all sit around watching "Granny's Speech" and taking the mickey out of her. Maybe in the build-up to the recording, Harry tries to get her to drop in a couple of one-liners; maybe Charles gets sniffy and says he could do it much better. Maybe, going back to the Civil List issue, they should combine it with a telethon next year to make the Monarchy self-supporting; instead of a Christmas Day Message we could have "Queens in Need" - well, they might want to work on the title, to ensure they don't attract entirely the wrong sort of publicity, but you get the idea: "There are people, royal people like oneself, who are struggling to make ends meet on twenty grand a month. Please give generously." (Mind you, I also like to think that one day somebody will combine the horror flick with the phone-in, allowing the viewer to vote for who gets killed off next, so maybe it's me that needs abolishing rather than the constitutional head of state.)

But anyway, having spent six paragraphs on the subject, let me return to my statement that I was not actually wondering what the point of the Monarchy was, but rather what is the point of a commemorative mug? Here is something specifically designed never to be used. Wasn't there a song in the Seventies - "Commemorative Pottery Items. Hah! What are they good for? Absolutely nothing." Something like that anyway.

Of course, the quick-witted amongst you will have noticed the flaw in my argument, because I was actually using the mug to drink coffee out of last night. Well yes true. But for many years that mug resided in my Mum's china cabinet. Not just that one in fact. There was also my brother's Silver Jubilee mug, and two Charles & Diana Wedding mugs. One of these I got at school, which was a very strange object with a gold picture printed on a black mug; my brother's school on that occasion didn't supply one, but my grandmother did, which was in fact a much nicer mug, much more in the style of the Silver Jubilee mugs.

It was only when we moved into a flat of our own (well, technically we moved into a flat of his own, which is why I got to slept on the settee) that I made sure we took our mugs with us. Perhaps as a gesture of defiance I was determined to actually use it as a mug, to prove the point that it would be quite safe to do so. After all, why have a mug, even a commemorative one, if you aren't going to drink from it? OK, as it happens I did once drop it off the draining-board and the handle broke. But even that was a bit of a milestone - I repaired the thing myself, thus making the mug as it is today a gesture of both defiance and independence. True, if Dad had fixed it then there probably wouldn't be any sign of a crack at all, and there almost certainly wouldn't be a thin strand of superglue still adhered to the handle three years later. But nevertheless, the mug is still perfectly usable. For obvious reasons, since even I have a bit of propriety in me, I stopped using my Charles & Di mug when they split up - and now it would be even more inappropriate to use it.

I think, though, that despite my little Wolfie Smith moment in drinking from my 1977 mug, the general consensus seems to be that it is an item more for decoration than for practicality. It didn't start with the Silver Jubilee of course. My paternal grandparents for many years had a mug in their window sill commemorating 'The Great War' - I actually have no idea where it came from. Although they were both alive during the war, they were both only young children. Was the mug given to one of them at school? Or did it belong to a relative who fought in the war? How appalling, to be so curious now that it's too late to find out. My maternal grandmother has a mug (in her china cabinet, of course) which I'm fairly sure is the coronation of George VI. For that matter, my Mum's china cabinet also boasts a mug of Mickey Mouse from Fantasia. This last is clearly not a commemorative mug, or at least not one commemorating any important historical event. Its only significance is that I bought it for Dad when I was in America; but I never intended for it to be an item of decor, just something to drink out of.

Personally, I love mugs. I really, really love socks with things on them (I got Scooby Doo, Dangermouse and, most exciting of all, Hong Kong Phooey for Christmas, and hopes are high for my birthday next month) but not far behind, I also love mugs. I've got a Tasmanian devil one out in the kitchen. We have some terribly cheesy seventies-style glass cups, complete with glass saucers. There's a Mr Tickle mug, ones with cats on, a matching pair of 'Happy' and 'Stressed' mugs, Edd the Duck, Bagpuss, Cadbury's Dairy Milk... And there's also my daughter's Golden Jubilee mug, a present not from her school but from her grandma. It's not in a China Cabinet I assure you, it's just there with all the others in the cupboard above the sink, because unless I'm missing something...

It's a mug!!!

God Bless her and all who drink in her.