From the death of Prince Albert in 1861 to the Golden Jubilee in 1887, the Queen was largely invisible. A strong republican movement grew up. Her sometimes hysterical behaviour imperilled her position and that of the monarchy. A succession of devoted prime ministers – notably Disraeli and Salisbury, but also Gladstone, to whom she was wickedly ungrateful – shielded her excesses and caprices from public gaze. That our Queen is nothing like her great-great-grandmother is a high compliment.
The country has sometimes ill-treated her. The convulsion of national self-righteousness on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales was shameful, and the Queen conducted herself magnificently throughout it – and no thanks to the politicians of the day, who strove repulsively to make what capital they could from it. Similarly, the cry for her to pay income tax conveniently ignored the huge amounts already remitted to the Exchequer by the Crown Estates under a deal made in 1937. The relative frugality in which the Queen lives is almost embarrassing, given how hard she still works in her 90th year.
I have never seen why Walter Bagehot should be the ultimate authority on monarchy, with his definition of the three rights to advise, to encourage and to warn. He was a journalist expressing his opinion, like Dr Starkey and me. Dr Starkey quoted him again, saying the Queen has developed a fourth right, which is to be silent. But silence is logically implicit in the correct exercise of the other three rights: the minute the Queen enters politics, as David Cameron stupidly had her do with his account of her alleged joy at the outcome of last year’s Scottish referendum, her stature is compromised.
Our system works perfectly. To have a Head of State with nearly 64 years’ experience is the greatest boon to the Kingdom. To have a Head of State not of the stamp of Barack Obama, or George W Bush, or François Hollande, or Nicolas Sarkozy is a prize worth protecting. But for the Queen we might be saddled with an absurdity such as “Chris” Patten or, worse, Neil Kinnock as the figurehead of our nation. Never mind her dignity and blamelessness: the lifelong disinterest in politics the Queen brings to her role is priceless; as is her understanding of the subject, and of its practitioners.
One thing that has changed since 1952 is the end of any vestige of deference towards our elected leaders: that is their achievement. Relative to them, the Queen is titanic in her moral standing: that is hers. That gives her massive authority, and should make wise politicians careful in case she threatens to exercise it. We are infinitely better governed because of her than we would otherwise be. Reflect, and rejoice: God save the Queen!