As the Dear Old Queen celebrates her Diamond Jubilee, I find myself wondering what all the fuss is really about and whether it means anything. Yes, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor has been our head of state for 60 years but in all that time what has she actually done that deserves all of the 'hype' and general hysteria that's been blowing around this year ?
Elizabeth was already Queen when I was born and could well still be Queen when I die. She lives in a world of such luxury that it's hard for any ordinary person to comprehend; she, and the rest of her family, receive medical care that is guaranteed to eke every last second out of their lives without ever having to rely on the NHS. None of this was expected when she was born, in 1926, as it was her uncle and not her father who was expected to succeed old George V but, of course, events changed all that. One has to wonder what might have happened had the establishment not determined to force Edward VIII to abdicate; he would, presumably, have been King until his death in 1972 and the surrounding history would undoubtedly have been very different. His heir would, most probably, still have been Elizabeth, although she would not have succeeded until in her mid-40s rather than her mid-20s. This year, we would have been celebrating her 40th year on the throne, her silver jubilee having been destroyed by the mess that the family made of the events surrounding the death of Diana - or perhaps not. No one can know what would really have happened had Edward not given up the crown for the woman he loved.
In the past, our monarchs had great power and held their positions because of this. When they showed too much frailty, they were swept aside, often brutally, as in the cases of Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI, and others considered more powerful took their places. The intrigue and infighting led to major civil wars 3 times in the last 1,000 years - in the 12th, 15th and 17th centuries. After the last, though, things changed. Although Charles II was a fairly traditional monarch, the failure of his brother James led to the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 when William of Orange and his wife Mary, daughter of James, were invited by Parliament to take a joint throne. This was the second and last time in our history when Parliament has directly intervened to select who should be our head of state, the other having been the deposition and execution of Charles I. The years immediately following the accession of William and Mary saw other changes to our constitution which ensured that all future monarchs had to be Protestants and also gradually reduced the power that they were able to wield.
In 1714, the crown passed to a German-born descendant of James I, George, the Elector of Hanover, simply because he was the senior Protestant in the line of succession. George had no interest in England and, apparently, couldn't speak English; it also seems he was a rather unpleasant man. The subsequent generations saw fathers and sons constantly at war with each other, culminating in the utterly failed relationship between George III and his son, the Prince Regent who ultimately succeeded his father as George IV in 1820. By this time, the Royal Family had become so dissolute and wayward that there was no obvious successor to be found and brothers of the Regent were required to give up their various mistresses, some of whom had several, or even many, children, in order to marry sutable princesses who might be able to produce an heir.
In the event, a new princess was born in 1819 being the only child of the Regent's 3rd oldest brother, the Duke of Kent, and this child was later to become Queen Victoria. Victoria's reign had its own 'ups and downs' and was nothing like the period of perfect splendour so often portrayed in the media.Victoria was, of course, our only other monarch who lived long enough to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee but she also had a horribly disaffected son, the future Edward VII, waiting in the wings. Edward had a colourful life with assorted mistresses and dubious friends and yet, during a short time on the throne, became much loved by the populace. By this time, the power of the monarch had been reduced to little more than a cypher and yet Edward seems to have been able to influence his Prime Ministers to good effect.
Edward's successor was another who was not expected to come to the throne. George V was only the second son of his father's marriage but became the heir when his elder brother, the Duke of Clarence, died in 1892. Clarence was another of the Royal Family's 'better forgotten' characters, with rumours of homosexuality and other misadventures surrounding him; it was even suggested at one time that he may have been 'Jack the Ripper', though this seems to have been more mischieve-making than anything else. George V, born to it or not, was a man who made the best of what life gave him and also became a respected and even beloved figure; the one blot on his personal record was the shocking refusal to allow the Tsar and his family to come to England in 1918, a decision that led to their murders. George celebrated a Silver Jubilee in 1935, but died in the following year, whereupon the 'Abdication Crisis' got under way. The upshot was that another second son became King in December 1936, as George VI, and it is, of course, his daughter who now sits on the throne.
While it is said that it was George VI who chose Winston Churchill to be Prime Minister in 1940, the monarch's power was really very limited by this time. Since WW2, that power has diminished to virtually nothing and the Queen can do nothing of any real note, without the agreement of her government. Any attempt to act in the absence of such agreement would almost certainly lead to a constitutional crisis and threaten the continued existence of the monarchy. Nonetheless, the Queen has been head of state for 60 years; she has done almost nothing, magnificently. She has toured the world, meeting other heads of state and has represented the United Kingdom wonderfully well; she is a revered and loved figure in many countries, both within and outside of the Commonwealth which she also heads. She has worked tirelessly and, as far as we can know, without complaint and has put up with a dozen Prime Ministers, at least some of whom must have tried her patience sorely. She has hosted dinners, made speeches, opened buildings, bridges and bazaars, launched ships and done a thousand other things without ever contemplating retirement. Throughout her 60 years, she has been accompanied by her husband, the nonagenarian Prince Philip, whose own ecentricities have endeared him to many, while causing others to despair. To see these 2 elderly people continuing to perform numerous public duties at such advance ages is a clear signal to those who seem to believe that retirement at 60 or 65 followed by a life of sybaritic idleness is the way to go.
There have, of course, been moments during the Queen's reign when things were not perfect. The difficulties over Princess Margaret's liaison with Peter Townsend was probably the first major problem, but the later choices and behaviour of the Queen's own children has been far from ideal. Three failed marriages ending in divorce, Prince Charles relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles and the death of Diana, the embarrassing behaviour of the Duchess of York and so on. Of all of these, it has to be the disastrous decision to marry Charles to Diana Spencer in 1981 that eventually caused the greatest distress. It seems certain that Charles would much rather have married Camilla, but she was considered to be an 'unsuitable' wife for a future King, precisely why we can only guess at. The subsequent events, culminating in Diana's death in a Paris tunnel in 1997, resulted in a confused response from the Royal Family that totally failed to come up to public expectations. Had there not been a hurried rethink on their part, the monarchy might well now be on its way out but, to their credit, they did go some way to restoring their credibility and have worked hard over the succeeding years to continue to repair the damage. The one person who has seemed oblivious to the likes and dislikes of the people has been Prince Charles, whose general attitude remains one of supreme aloofness and self-absorption.
Where does all of this leave us at this time of national celebration ? Firstly, irrespective of the loss of power of the throne or the dubious path that has led Elizabeth II to be sitting upon it, she has served this nation, unstintingly, for 60 years, and continues to do so; she has constantly placed the duties of her office above those of her own self-interest. She has not been a monarch in the mould of her namesake, Elizabeth I, and has not overseen a period of expansion and effective world domination as did Victoria. She has, however, presided mostly effectively at a time of international instability; she has seen the British Empire replaced by the Commonwealth, an organisation of which she is titular head and which is a major force for good in the world. The experience of her advisors goes back to Churchill, a man born in 1874 and who fought in Egypt in the 1890s and the Boer War before becoming an MP while Victoria was still Queen. Her own experience ranges from the depression of the 1930s, through WW2 and the 'Cold War', into the space age. Put together, her expereinces must be greater than those of any other current world leader, making her a most valuable asset to this nation.
The Diamond Jubilee celebrations are well merited for this woman who has done everything asked of her over 6 decades. She is a much loved and much respected figure both at home and abroad and one can only hope that she doesn't see these current events as simply another round of public engagements in which she has to join and that she does see them as a genuine expression of the feelings of the country towards her. Whether the country's feelings towards the monarchy will be the same after she has gone is, sadly, another matter.
