Giulia Guazzaloca - 31/05/2012

     Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was 26 years old and visiting Kenya with her husband when her father, George VI, died suddenly in his sleep on 6th February 1952. The coronation in Westminster Abbey would not take place until a year later, but straight away Elizabeth stepped into all the functions of her title. She became the fortieth sovereign in some thousand years of English history, head of the Commonwealth, supreme head of the Anglican Church and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Sixty years on, she now celebrates her long reign’s Diamond Jubilee. Only Queen Victoria achieved as much, in 1897. The British are getting ready to celebrate the occasion in style with a programme of festivities culminating in June (2nd-5th).

     As the nation pays tribute to its sovereign, there will be a succession of concerts, parades down the Thames and in the London streets, religious ceremonies, photographic exhibitions, bonfires by night, musical and dance entertainment. And not just in London, not just in June. The diamond jubilee will see events and celebrations throughout the year in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth countries. In all likelihood, the pomp and circumstance will outdo the homage to Queen Victoria over a century ago – that pinnacle of idealization where Victoria became the symbol of a nation and an empire. Much has changed since then, needless to say. The glorious British Empire has dissolved, Great Britain is no longer the first economic and military power in the world, her dynastic and family connections affect international politics less and less.

     The monarch has lost all the prerogatives of political influence that Victoria still partly retained. In short, the present jubilee hardly compares with the 1897 accolade to Victoria, especially in political terms. The question arises: do Her Majesty’s subjects still feel that “sense of devoted attachment” to the monarchy that the Times sensed within the crowd that thronged to mark sixty years of the Victorian reign on 22nd June 1897? It would appear they do, even if the anti-monarchists are thicker on the ground than the few thousand paid-up members of the British association Republic might suggest, and despite the fluctuations in the monarchy’s popularity ratings in recent years. According to a Guardian survey last year at the time of the royal wedding, about two-thirds of the population consider the monarchy relevant and fundamental.

     The number of devout monarchists had dropped to 44% three years after the tragic death of Princess Diana when public support for the monarchy reached an all-time low – possibly because the Queen had shown reluctance to mourn in public. Even earlier, though, in 1994 the authoritative Economist came out with the headline “An idea that has had its day”, in which it suggested holding a referendum on the monarchy in the hope it might be abolished. Despite the fluctuations and the political and family squalls that have beset the Royal Family, the symbols and emotional impact of the Crown have remained intact. To a traditional-minded people like the British, much attached to their roots, the monarchy represents and underpins national unity; it personifies the indissoluble link between past, present and future.

     Besides, these sixty years on the throne have shown Elizabeth to possess political shrewdness, a strong sense of duty, firmness in keeping her undisciplined family in check, courage in tackling thorny political issues, as we saw when she toured Ireland last May, heedless of risks and controversy. Ironical and a good communicator, she has travelled tirelessly and been appreciated by leaders and heads of State throughout the world. She has tried to update the image of the monarchy (for example, by holding garden parties in Buckingham Palace for ordinary people, and setting up a Facebook page on the royal family). At this time of crisis she has publicly cut her expenditure by 14% (2012-13), has forgone state appanage and is quite prepared to turn up to official ceremonies wearing clothes she has already appeared in.

     “A long reign without a single mistake”, wrote the Times of late; maybe one there was, after Diana died, but if so, the people were quick to forgive her. With her track record – she has received twelve prime ministers (not so many in sixty years if compared to Italy, but that’s another story), seen twelve presidents of the United States and even six Popes; she has ferried her country from cold War to globalisation and come unscathed through the frequent intemperance of her own family – Queen Elizabeth offers the best guarantee today that the British monarchy is holding. She has preserved its myths and mysteries, somehow passing off ancien régime rituals on a modern world.

     While she stays on the throne (and she told Parliament she will serve her country as long as she lives), the republican sentiments lurking amid public opinion will be kept at bay and the British will go on enjoying their fairytale. Who knows? one day Elizabeth II may be remembered as the last truly majestic and genuinely regal figure to have occupied the British throne. For the moment, as Jeremy Paxman wrote in his book On Royalty, the sight of a gloved royal hand waving from a gilded carriage or acknowledging from a balcony will reassure people that “all’s well with Great Britain”.

Giulia Guazzaloca
(Bologna University)