Amid sound and fury of British politics, the quiet triumph of Elizabeth II

Thailand’s acquaintance with the British royals is longstanding and profound. Elizabeth II hosted their Majesties the King and Queen at Buckingham Palace in 1960, and the favour was returned in 1972 and ’96 when the Windsors visited Bangkok. In between times, Thai business tycoons have been pictured occasionally playing polo with the lanky princes.

Our special affinity with Elizabeth II has grown as a result of her being friendly, consistent and unpretentious. “The relationship between our two countries, which has lasted over 400 years, has become even stronger during Your Majesty’s reign,” read the message she sent on the 70th anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol’s accession to the throne last month. 

Aside from her nearly 400 public appearances last year and more than 130 trips abroad during her long reign, the queen has reached out to the public via her Twitter and Facebook accounts. She’s now the longest reigning – and longest living – monarch in British history, surpassing Queen Victoria.

Given her enduring appeal, what does Elizabeth II stand for in this rapidly changing world? 

Over the last six decades, the British monarchy has offered an image of stability and lent the state a friendly-family face in the eyes of many British historians and authors. 

Elizabeth II knows full well that as a female monarch, she is expected to encapsulate family values. 

She sees the importance of her role as a married woman and a mother – though never a housewife, Ben Pimlott observes in “The Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth II”. She was strict in raising her children: “not very tactile, tough and totally unsentimental”. 

James Thomas, author of “Diana’s Mourning”, sees the monarchy’s symbolic role as “the family of families”. Elizabeth II also sits at the head of the “the Commonwealth family”.

The queen’s domestic virtues permeate her speeches and press briefings: “A married relationship needs to mature with the passing years. For that, it must be held firm in the web of family relationships, between cousins, aunts and uncles. … If I am asked today what I think about family life after 25 years of marriage, I can answer with equal simplicity and conviction. I am for it.” 

But the “ideal family” has been gradually undermined by changes in public attitude towards the monarchy that began in the 1950s. 

The immediate aftermath of the 1956 Suez Crisis saw Britain relinquish its superpower status, leading to an identity crisis for the royal family in its relations with the Commonwealth. Amid the dying embers of the British empire, the crisis prompted the monarchy’s departure from the role of “remote ‘Emperor’ to that of a bourgeois mater familias [the female head of a family]”, observes Pimlott. 

The residual power of the monarchy was also checked by a combination of a domestic crisis – Princess Margaret’s divorce, which destroyed the conventional image of royalty – and its lavish grandeur amid a faltering economy of the 1970s. 

The next transition was hastened by domestic problems of the royals themselves: the marriage breakdowns of three of the queen’s children, including Prince Andrew and Princess Anne. But it was the Charles-Diana marital disaster that was most damaging, insists Thomas, as it saw the “model family” image spectacularly implode.

“The monarch’s domestic problems became part of its evolving image: no longer the ideal family, but an all too common one. Three failed marriages out of four children was above the national norm,” Pimlott asserts, with faint sarcasm. 

“They are just like us in some ways,’’ writes fellow author Tom Nairn in “The Enchanted Glass”. 

The queen has fulfilled her role impeccably, however. 

She has gained much praise for her philanthropy. Frank Prochaska, author of “Royal Bounty: The Making of a Welfare Monarchy”, theorises that the queen and the princesses have united in efforts to develop of the crown’s role in welfare, which is rooted in the concept of “noblesse oblige” – the notion that privilege comes with social responsibilities.  

Her ability to get on with people from diverse backgrounds has also been well documented, along with her excellent memory for facts and faces. She’s seen many prime ministers and other heads of state come and go, and many have reported positive impressions of the monarch. Winston Churchill, her first PM, was said to be protective of the young queen – even dotty about her. But she has never been easily swayed. When David Cameron recently let slip remarks about rampant corruption among leaders in Africa and the Middle East, the queen maintained a dignified silence.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who saw her for one-to-one meetings once or twice a year, found her to be sharp and perceptive.

“She’s been unfailingly kind, understanding and supportive. I found in the queen someone who can be friendly, informal, extremely funny in private – not everybody appreciates just how funny she can be – who is quite prepared to tease and be teased and who, while retaining her dignity always, doesn’t stand on her dignity in a conversation,” said Williams. 

Above all she remains the “big boss” of what Buckingham House insiders refer to as “the firm”, steering her family safely through the storms of her later reign and into calm waters as the figurehead of British constitutional monarchy. With Prince William and his children now the focus of the happy-family image on the balcony, the institution appears to have bounced back from trying times and secured its future as a symbol of hope and continuity for Britons facing stormy waters of political and social change.