Pearson PhillipsThe Life and Times ofQUEEN ELIZABETH II It was in South Africa in 1947 that Princess Elizabeth, asshe then was, used her twenty-first birthday radio broadcast to makea solemn dedication of her life to her people. It is remembered as a strangelymoving moment; no broadcast she was ever to make in the future was charged withquite so much emotion. What millions of people round the world heard was asacred pledge from the romantic figure of a young princess (who was shortly tobecome engaged to marry the man she loved) offering up her life “whether it belong or short”. Her life and reign has turned out to be long, rather thanshort. As the Queen prepares to celebrate her Golden Jubilee, that broadcastnow seems part of distant history. Its phraseology belongs to another world.What she actually pledged herself to serve was “our great Imperial family, towhich we all belong”. Like many another family, it has experienced its share ofructions and upheavals in the years since then. It has been succeeded by theCommonwealth, most of whose members are now totally independent of Britain andmany of which are republics, whose people do not recognize the Queen as theirsovereign – although she remains ‘Head of the Commonwealth.’ But that is far from being the only change in the status ofthe monarchy that the Queen has witnessed during her lifetime. When she wasborn her grandfather, George V, was on the throne. In his day the monarchy wasan almost mystical institution. The people revered their King and Queen asdistant, ceremonial figures. Little about their private life was known.Newspaper editors believed that their readers would disapprove of being offeredroyal tittle-tattle. The abdication of Edward VIII shattered that picture, butthe dogged, courageous reign of George VI and Queen Elizabeth, now the QueenMother, pieced it together again. They and their children represented in thepublic mind a carefully stage-managed image of the ideal, dutiful family,setting an example, showing us all the better side of ourselves. The public wasnot given close-up details, such as the King’s sudden outbreaks of temper orthe Queen’s habit of expressing frank political opinions, that might have madethe royal family seem less like symbols and more like human beings. Today the members of the extended family centered onBuckingham Palace are no longer seen as an ideal family whose job it is to providethe nation with a moral example. They are a flesh and blood family, like manyothers, whose lives are seen in close-up. At first the Queen distrusted the effects of television. She was infavour of keeping the cameras out of Westminster Abbey at the time of herCoronation. But popular demand forced the government to recommend that theyshould be allowed in, so that the ceremony could be shared by millions ofwatchers throughout the kingdom and the world. From then on the monarchy becamea media event. The royal family tried to control this new phenomenon by makinga carefully-produced television film of their own, with glimpses behind theroyal curtain. It only served to whet the public appetite for more. From thenon the private lives of royalty became circulation-winning material, a processthat led to the tragedy of Princess Diana. From all this the Queen herself has survived remarkablyunscathed. Her personal popularity rating remains much as it always was. Shelearned early on that all monarchies must adapt to survive. Her household hascertainly adapted – there is now even a Buckingham Palace website and anofficial on-line royal magazine, giving answers to frequently asked questions.The royal finances can be inspected and so can the royal diary. But the Queen herself, although batteredby a succession of family setbacks, conducts herself in much the same way asshe always did. The style of the monarchy, although modernised in detail,essentially has not changed. The Queen performs the same kind of officialduties in much the same way as she did when she first came to the throne.Although she no longer has a royal yacht of her own, it can be pointed out thatthis is less a downgrading of status than an acceptance of the fact that ocean-goingvoyages are no longer the way busy people choose to travel. Her constitutional role remains virtually unchanged, exceptfor one small but important detail. The appointment of a prime minister (she isnow on her tenth) was formerly a matter of the royal prerogative. The palacetook soundings and sent for someone who was likely to be able to form agovernment and command the allegiance of the House of Commons. The last timethat happened was when the Queen sent for Lord Home, to the fury and astonishmentof more democratic Conservatives, who suspected an old-Etonian plot. Now thatall parties elect their leaders by democratic voting procedure, the Queen haslost this last bit of power, much, one imagines, to her relief. The Golden Jubilee is a time to look back on the Queen’sparticular contribution to the enduring institution of monarchy. But it willalso, inevitably, open a debate as to what kind of monarchy is to follow. Notes by Pearson Phillips Pearson Phillips is a freelance writer and journalist, whois approaching his own golden jubilee as a feature writer for Fleet Streetnewspapers and magazines, including The Daily Telegraph, The Times and TheObserver. He has contributed studies of Prince Philip, Prince Charles andPrincess Alexandra of Kent. A book about Princess Anne was published at thetime of her first marriage and serialised in a Sunday newspaper. His worstroyal experience was to find himself lost and alone, roaming seemingly endlesscorridors in Buckingham Palace, trying to find the way out.