OPINION:
One of my few regrets of 50 years in journalism is that I never met the Queen - never got an assignment that would have given me even a glimpse of her at a distance. It is not a great regret because I feel I knew her anyway.
We
Queen Elizabeth II dies: John Roughan - I admired her stiff upper lip
Subscribe to listen
Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen.
Already a subscriber? Sign in here
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech.
Queen Elizabeth II meets guests as she attends the Royal Garden Party at Buckingham Palace on May 29, 2019 in London, England. Photo / Getty Images
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Consider how remarkable that is. For seven decades, day in, day out, she held the most public of positions – probably the most public in the world – meeting new people wherever she went, conversing with them, making a speech, performing rituals that must often have been tedious or amusing, invariably with reporters nearby, and not once saying anything untoward, for 70 years.
She is the only monarch I have known. I don't know whether such strict avoidance of controversy is vital to the institution's survival. We might soon find out. Charles, as Prince of Wales, has not always kept contentious views to himself.
But Elizabeth II never allowed herself opinions or emotions in public unless they were carefully scripted for her Christmas broadcast.
Sometimes I thought her reserved to a fault. The opening of the Auckland Commonwealth Games in 1990 comes to mind. The city had been preparing for the games for years, as host cities must, and there was palpable excitement on opening day.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
The midsummer sun was shining, a crowd filled the new Mt Smart athletic stadium and the Queen was here for the occasion. But those present, and all of us watching on TV, heard her declare the Games open in a tone as flat as the track.
She was very English, very Germanic, and I am not. My heritage is mostly Irish, I'm prone to Celtic sentiment but I usually admired her stiff upper lip, never more so than in the days following the death of Princess Diana.
Diana I did see, briefly, at Parliament with Charles on their New Zealand visit. I noticed her eyes checking the position of cameras. She became the doe-eyed victim of a regretted marriage and was being pursued by paparazzi on the night of her fatal car crash. A public outpouring of grief went on for weeks. The Queen obviously found it excessive, showy, not quite true and decidedly not the England she knew.
She resisted it for long enough to make the kind of important statement she often does with actions that speak louder than words she cannot use.
She made another such statement nearer the end of her life, at the memorial service for Prince Philip, when she entered Westminster Abbey on the arm of Prince Andrew, his out-of-court settlement with a woman alleging sexual assault when she was 17 still fresh in the public memory.
Predictably, the incident inspired another spate of snide comment by clever writers who never miss an opportunity to decry the Royal Family and vent their resentment of its wealth and privileges. They blamed Andrew, not the Queen.
According to the Daily Mail, "The shamed royal insisted on accompanying the Queen from Windsor Castle to the thanksgiving service," a wish that senior royals had "reluctantly accepted". I didn't believe it.
At 95, the Queen looked frail but still mentally strong. Her voice was as clear as ever in that jubilee year. It may have been Prince Andrew's request to escort her that morning but the decision, I bet, was hers.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
She was making a profound statement, as she often did, with a simple gesture. She was saying, "I am a mother and when all is said and done, he is my son." It was a statement all parents understand.
The clever commentators who labour their dismay at a "dysfunctional" family seem unaware of the vital service they perform for the modern monarchy. They may be disgusted that a Royal Family contains messy relationships, flawed characters and failed marriages like any other. Their readers do not mind.
The focus on the "Royal Family" is a work of English genius, without it the monarchy might not have survived the 20th century. It is hard to imagine the United Kingdom, let alone the Commonwealth, continuing to maintain a monarchy that did not offer something more than a hereditary head of state.
The family humanises the monarchy, letting people recognise themselves in its ordinary problems as well as the joys of weddings and births and the dignified sadness of deaths. It is not for nothing that the Queen always mentioned the year's family events in her Christmas broadcasts.
British history is largely signposted by its monarchs. The second Elizabethan age will be recorded as a long period of relative peace following two world wars, a post-imperial age for Britain and increasing independence for its former colonies, many of which became republics.
Generally though, they stayed in the Commonwealth, an organisation that probably owes its survival to the Queen. From the beginning of her reign she worked hard for it, forming a relationship with those who retained the monarchy that was subtly different from her position in Britain
The Queen never argued with nations that wanted to replace her with an elected head of state, making it clear the monarchy is there if we want it. There have been times when I didn't want it, but not for a long while.
The Queen's successors, Charles and, in time, William, impress me as men of her class – capable of maintaining her standards of stability, sound judgement and good taste. We often don't fully appreciate a person who has been a pillar of our existence until suddenly she has gone.
