ANALYSIS:LEAFING THROUGH the magazine and bookshelves of London shops this week, intending readers will find sheaves of publications extolling the virtues of Queen Elizabeth II.
In one, an editorial pays tribute to the 86-year-old monarch for “an extraordinary life well lived”, before it goes on to declare “genuine affection and admiration for all she has done for us”.
Nowhere, it seems, is there a discordant note. Republicans are brought out, for reasons of balance, to put the case for the other side, yet even they seem to do so in a lacklustre fashion.
Fifteen years ago, it looked very different. Then, in 1997, she faced public incomprehension, if not anger, following Princess Diana’s death. Today, however, all has changed.
Sixty years into her reign, Queen Elizabeth (86), dignified but usually silent bar pleasantries exchanged during a public engagement, stands high in British affections.
Perhaps, indeed, never higher – untouchable, yet seemingly blessed with a common touch even by those millions who have never encountered her.
A slew of polling figures about the attitude of the British towards the monarchy all offer the same answers, even if they shed little light on the most important question.
Why? Her public pronouncements, when they come, are infrequent and carefully couched and rarely, if ever, disturb the social or political dynamics.
Her most public speech, the Christmas Day message, earns clips on news-light TV bulletins, yet two-thirds never watch it nor do they look to her to offer national guidance.
In 1997 Tony Blair was the one who gave voice to British feelings about the sense of loss after Diana’s death. In July 2005 Ken Livingstone spoke for Londoners after the terrorist attacks.
From Friday night, much of the UK’s 60 million population will look forward to a four-day break called to celebrate her diamond jubilee, though most say they will not become directly involved in it.
Yet more will do so than now say they will, if the evidence of last year’s wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton is a guide.
In the days before, there was grumbling that so much TV time was being consumed by the nuptials, yet the Westminster Abbey ceremony and its aftermath drew a 24 million- strong British audience.
Her popularity does not reside in public self-congratulation or a belief that all is well in British society. If anything, the reality of public opinion is the reverse.
In a poll this week, just 27 per cent said they believed the UK had “changed for the better” during the years since her accession to the throne in 1952.
Men were in a slightly better mood with 34 per cent believing things had improved, while just 21 per cent of women thought so. On the other hand, 47 per cent said life has deteriorated.
The negative sentiments are not a one-off.
In February, a YouGov poll found that 43 per cent believe life has gone to hell in a handcart, while just 30 per cent thought it had improved. The flaws in the polls are, no doubt, obvious. The majority would not even have been alive when she came to the throne or were too young to have any useful opinion.
Equally, parts of it can be discounted because of the natural tendency to look back with rose-tinted glasses towards a past that, perhaps, never was.
Nevertheless, they say something about the British psyche.
“When I first saw these figures, I was startled,” says veteran pollster Peter Kellner.
“Adding in the 27 per cent who don’t take sides, how can seven out of 10 people fail to regard today’s Britain as an immensely better country?” he pondered recently.
“To my surprise, the people most likely to say Britain has changed for the worse are those, like me, who have lived throughout the queen’s reign – the over-60s.”
Those most likely to think Britain has changed for the better are the under-25s – the very people, it could be argued, who have less grounds for optimism.
The current high tide in the popularity of the queen, if not all of the other royals, intrigues those whose business it is to gauge where such tides will display themselves next.
What lies at its root is a successful freshening-up of the royal ranks along with a public eagerness to embrace tradition, argues Peter Chipchase of PR and marketing firm John Doe.
For him, the moment that Prince William and his new bride drove the short distance between Buckingham Palace and Clarence House marked the arrival of a new generation.
“They were down on a level with people, literally within touching distance of them, and it cannot be underestimated the way those two have changed the perception of the monarchy,” he says.
Faced with Prince Charles’s unpopularity, or at least the lack of obvious and wide-ranging public affection towards him, William offers the royals a new “brand” for coming years.
Chipchase says this was one way in which the newlyweds had managed to “create a brand between them” that had helped the monarchy “embrace modernity”.
Meanwhile, the British public is embracing tradition. “I saw the queen in GQ magazine and her style is being pushed out as the style that everyone is wearing,” he contends. Elsewhere, fashion-conscious youngsters have adopted Barbour jackets – once the preserve of aristocracy during shoots – as the must-have clothes.
Even the arguments about the cost of the monarchy – surprisingly, perhaps, during a time of difficulties for many – have waned, even if they have not disappeared.
Back in 1947, the establishment decided to offer as much pomp and pageantry as a war-ravaged country could muster to mark the wedding of Elizabeth to Prince Philip.
It took place before 2,000 guests in Westminster, the young princess having arrived at its door in an Irish state coach, after which she sent her wedding bouquet back to be laid on the grave of the Unknown Soldier.
Behind the pomp, however, there was scrimping, too, a trait that – for all of her possession of palaces and estates – has marked her six decades on the throne.
The two royal kneelers used during the service, although covered in rose-pink silk – were made from orange boxes date- stamped 1946, according to one of the magazines marking her jubilee.
Gifts of fruits, butter and sugar needed for the wedding cakes were sent in from home and the empire, while the gifts included a square of crocheted lace spun by Mahatma Gandhi.
Those days form images in photograph albums, yet there is something about the woman in them that soothes parts of the British soul that no other can reach. A recent Ipsos Mori poll showed that 80 per cent of Britons wanted to remain her subjects, even if none thought she should decide their lives.
Just 13 per cent wanted to live in a republic, the lowest number for at least 20 years, according to the BBC’s polling expert, David Cowling.
Researching his book Our Queen, Robert Hardman decided that she was “revolutionary”, having brought about “more change in the last few years than her predecessors managed in a century. For all our familiarity with her, the queen is not a celebrity in the modern-day sense; she does not do interview or reveal personal secrets or opinions.
“All of this means that she is the subject of constant fascination – and speculation,” believes Hardman, who was given privileged access behind the gates of Buckingham Palace.
“But she has understood more acutely than many of her predecessors the need to be visible and relevant. As she likes to say: ‘I have to be seen to be believed’,” says Hardman.
Looking back on her reign, some of those closest to her believe that it was a play of two halves – one good, one bad – which was unexpectedly given a third triumphant one.
For now, the desire for an end to the monarchy and the declaration of a republic is a minority opinion and it seems certain to remain so until the reign of Charles III begins, if it does, unless he stands aside for his son, which he is loath to do.
On Saturday, meanwhile, the queen will begin her diamond jubilee celebrations with a visit to Epsom for the Derby, moved from its traditional Friday slot.
In 1900 the race was won by a horse called Diamond Jubilee – one bought by the Prince of Wales and later King Edward VII as a tribute to his mother, Queen Victoria.
Despite having had 10 horses in her colours, the nearest she came to victory was in 1953 – the year of her coronation – when Aureole finished second. This year she has no entry. She will hardly mind.
Her detractors, such as Anthony Barnett of the OurKingdom republican group believe that she has failed to offer leadership, even in the areas where she could have done so.
“Heads of state can also achieve without being political. The problem with the queen is that she seems not to have done anything except like racehorses,” he said.
However, Barnett’s view will not be the one most widely shared over coming days, even if the hyperbole will, no doubt, overstate the respect for the institution, rather than the individual.
Sixty years in service, she fills a yearning for stability, for continuity, for dignity, for respect, for something that has never changed, yet she has changed sufficiently to survive.
