Her first decade on the throne, the 1950s, was a time of turbulent upheaval – socially, politically, culturally. For Elizabeth II it coincided with her 30s, when many of her subjects were enjoying new freedoms and a surge of new ideas and opportunities. The Queen, meanwhile, was raising a young family and also fulfilling the kind of royal duties that many of us thought must be a chore. She was aloof, affluent, settled into a life of country pursuits and official events. However, for those of us who lived through that time, it was her very stability as a constitutional monarch, representing continuity, reliability and duty in a dizzying world, that anchored the change we enjoyed and celebrated. The 1960s began with a family celebration: the wedding of her sister Princess Margaret to Anthony Armstrong-Jones, who, despite his elegant connections, was headlined in the newspapers as a “commoner”. It was good to see the princess fit in happily after the 1950s heartbreak of her relationship with the Group’s Captain Townsend. It was also a time when the Queen as head of her family saw her values affirmed and celebrated. He believed in family life, its rules and values. During her reign these values have changed and changed. Her own children were about to divorce. But somehow the importance he had given to these values continued. As I began my career, “times were changing” … and not just among the giddy youth. An enlightened Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, saw into law a whole series of changes that promoted values of tolerance that became the hallmark of the more enlightened world we know today. The Queen has graciously supported the values that underpin our way of life, our governance and our place in the world Divorce became easier, homosexuality was decriminalized, hanging was abolished. the whole mood of the times hastened the changes. But these changes happened successfully because of a secure sense of national identity and continuity marked by the Queen’s constant presence in public life. Without a deep faith in the resilience of our national institutions, such a change would be bitter and hard. In her 70 years of reign, the country has shifted from a buttoned-down, conventional world she inherited to a much easier place, where emotions were freely expressed, joys and hurts given public voice. The world of the internet, social media, selfies and reality TV, invites us to bare our thoughts and flesh. On more serious issues of how we treat each other, and those who are different from ourselves, legislation is now being invoked to avoid offending minority sensitivities and to consider the most vulnerable. All this has been paralleled by a more approachable monarchy, happy to move around, at ease with those he meets, indifferent to protocol, while somehow managing to maintain dignity and power. In my three meetings with Her Majesty, this authority was clear. Shake hands with the queen and you knew who was in charge: she only took your fingers, instead of grasping the palm, and a gentle push signaled in the politest way that the conversation was over. The same in the world in general. Britain liked to see itself at the forefront of movements for greater freedoms and change. The gradual retreat from empire and the emergence of independent countries proceeded with relative calm: South Africa and Kenya leave behind a turbulent history of conflict and violence. It is difficult to know what the Queen thought of such events. But it is certain that he would have followed all this with knowledge and concern. It has welcomed leaders from countries both enlightened and tyrannical. In her hospitality she has not judged. Instead, it has gently upheld the values that underpin our way of life, our governance and our place in the world. He has done it consistently on our behalf as well. No wonder the grief over her loss is so great. Joan Bakewell is a writer and broadcaster
