Elizabeth II saw the sun set on an empire but rise on a Commonwealth, which anchored her jubilee celebrations
When she became Queen people talked rather pompously of a ?new Elizabethan age? and asked whether the Britain of the mid-twentieth century could surprise the world like the English of the age of Drake, Shakespeare and Bacon. The Queen put them right. In her Christmas broadcast of 1953 she said she did not ?feel at all like my great Tudor forbear, who was blessed with neither husband nor children, who ruled as a despot and was never able to leave her native shore?. Yet she went on to compare modern Britain, rich in courage and enterprise, with the poor, small but ?great in spirit? England of the earlier Elizabeth. The Tudors, of course, also reinvented themselves as a dynasty. In that, the Queen and the Windsors are more Tudor than mock Tudor. (Page 61)
Some books march in such perfect lockstep with the spirit of their times that it is really hard to judge them objectively, to tell if they will age in a year or remain credible into the next decade. Remember Andrew Morton?s Diana: Her True Story? It made worldwide headlines by upending an established fairytale and putting the British Royals squarely in the firing line. But that biography seems so suspect today, when the world has been hypnotised by the ravishing celebrations of the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II, soon to be followed by the greater seductions of the Olympics playing out in her Capital.
Andrew Marr?s The Diamond Queen paints a picture that couldn?t get more contrapuntal to Morton?s even if it stood on its head, but now its brushstrokes feel as du jour as Morton?s feel pass? and primitive. Now, the Queen?s personal popularity in her native land is at around 80%. And as the republican voices have retreated to the sidelines, so the Commonwealth has been expanding too. Even countries that were never a part of the erstwhile British empire have been getting affianced to this ?first multicultural identity? of the world.
Head of the Commonwealth, the title, was invented in 1949 to allow newly independent India to keep its association with Britain. Morton notes that the Queen thus owes this role to the founders of modern India above all, with our first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru being one of its notable champions. Of course, only 16 of the 54 members accept her as head of state, but what seems to matter is that everyone stays inside the old grouping. Where she remains head of state, many may be chaffing but generally not to great affect.
The book was written while filming an eponymously named three-part BBC documentary that aired in India and the world ahead of the Jubilee celebrations. Here the Queen?s Australian adventures capture a complex romance. In a 1999 referendum, Australians surprised themselves by sticking with the Queen by a 55% majority, because the republican movement is strong there and even the prime minister is a sympathiser. But you couldn?t really see this when the Queen visited last year; there was a garden parties galore, albeit surfeit with beer instead of the tea that the Queen prefers to serve. And a leading republican moaned, ?I wish she?d stop coming; she sets our cause back years every time she comes.?
In her 60 years of reign, Elizabeth II has visited 116 different countries. Meanwhile, there have been 12 British prime ministers and 12 US presidents, 6 Roman Catholic Popes and 6 Archbishops of Canterbury. (Notably, she first visited a UK mosque in 2004 and hosted the Buckingham Palace?s first women-only event that year too.) Not bad for someone whom chance put on the throne. Had some ancient battle gone the other way, had another marriage happened or one divorce not happened (remember Wallis Simpson?), then poof!
She spoke back in 1949, ?When we see around us the havoc that has been wrought, above all among the children, by the break-up of homes, we can have no doubt that divorce and separation are responsible for some of the darkest evils in our society today.? She has moved on, warmly accepting the Charles-Camilla marriage even if she didn?t attend it. Around the time of her coronation, around 35% of English people thought the Queen had been directly chosen by God. This was in continuity with the world view that prevailed in the time of an earlier Elizabeth; ?Such is that prince within his land which, fearing God, maintaineth right and reason?s rule doth understand, wherein consists his port and might.? That continuity of belief has been decisively broken. Except in the head of Elizabeth II herself. By all accounts, she still sees her vocation as called upon her by God. But how she has adjusted to a time when others don?t believe the same.
The man chosen to headline her Diamond Jubilee concert once sang famously: ?Her Majesty?s a pretty nice girl but she doesn?t have a lot to say. Her Majesty?s a pretty nice girl but she changes from day to day. I want to tell her that I love her a lot but I?ve got to get a belly full of wine. Her Majesty?s a pretty nice girl. Some day I?m gonna make her mine, oh yeah.? But the fading Beatle has been rehabilitated. Saying ?nothing? has turned out to be most politic. You can?t poke her but she is on Facebook. For that matter, Paul McCartney himself is hardly hip any more, but he kept the people swaying down the Victoria Memorial mall.
The woman for whom gush is not the default mode has attracted a lot of gushing. This reviewer is by no means alone in this affliction. ?Apart from the rain, nothing went wrong,? declared The Economist. ?When the Queen came to the throne the country still had an empire and the war hero, Winston Churchill, presided in Downing Street. Yet even as her realm has changed, the Queen has remained a constant,? genuflected the Financial Times.
Of course, the critics haven?t been bashful either. One moans, ?What are we celebrating? A singularly undistinguished family?s hold on the nation, a mirage of nationhood, a majestic delusion.? Another joins in: ?It?s not chosen by the people, doesn?t represent the people, and as an institution it isn?t fit for purpose.? They may be proved prescient in the times to come. Those of us who watched the celebrations enchanted when we hadn?t planned on being enchanted may be unveiled as weak-minded mugs.
What about the austerity drive? Nothing contextualises more than history itself. Just look back at her Coronation. Somewhat like the 1982 Asiad held in New Delhi, the event propelled a nation to television. Maybe 53% of the adult population watched, with a big proportion doing this at friends? houses or in public places such as cinemas and pubs. Britain was war-broken, tattered and frayed. An extravagant royal investiture lifted the spirits then. Maybe it will do so again. What an accomplishment that would be for a Queen who has reigned long and true over a nation in decline.