‘My people throughout the world’

By John Lloyd
December 23, 2013

This week Queen Elizabeth the Second, now 87, will give her customary Christmas broadcast. Every year she tells most Britons what they want to hear: that they are still great. And she is given much love for that.

That love is said to have been hard won. A few of the books written about Queen Elizabeth’s reign detail a marriage that went sour, at least for some years, because of her husband Prince Philip’s adultery. Nearly all books point to a disciplined life of unremitting travel, briefings, lengthy state occasions and unfailing courtesy. They also mention the constant explosions of sexual waywardness of nearly all of her four children and her (temporary) drop in popularity when, after Princess Diana’s death in 1987, she appeared to insufficiently grieve.

The British like to sneer at the claim of American exceptionalism — the “necessary nation,” as former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it in a TV interview in 1998. Britain has its own exceptionalism in the form of the Queen’s Christmas broadcast. In this sense, the Queen is a master propagandist.

The royal Christmas broadcast was the brainchild of Sir John Reith, the creator of the BBC, to be a mixture of the romantic and the puritan. It was conceived in 1932 as an address not just to the people of the UK, but to the British Empire at a time when it was being transformed.

The first speech, delivered by the apprehensive King George V, was written by the great poet and novelist of empire, Rudyard Kipling. Addressed to “all my peoples throughout the Empire,” it was a mere two and a half minutes long. The king offered a model of Britishness that his granddaughter has since followed. He said:

“It may be that our future may lay upon us more than one stern test. Our past will have taught us how to meet it unshaken. For the present, the work to which we are all equally bound is to arrive at a reasoned tranquility within our borders; to regain prosperity without self-seeking; and to carry with us those whom the burden of past years has disheartened or overborne.”

In her first broadcast 61 years ago, Queen Elizabeth invoked “the British Commonwealth and Empire, that immense union of nations, (which)…can be a great power for good — a force which I believe can be of immeasurable benefit to all humanity.” The next year, the word “Empire” was dropped for “the Commonwealth,” as an institution “of which I am so proud to be the Head, and which… though rich in material resources, is richer still in the enterprise and courage of its peoples.”

And thus it has continued. In 1955 the queen said, “we must adventure on if we are to make the world a better place. All my peoples of the Commonwealth and Empire have their part to play in this voyage of discovery.” In 1962, she found that “in spite of all the changes of the modern world… the feeling of a special relationship between the ordinary people of the older Commonwealth countries will never be weakened.”

In 1972, the year of her silver wedding to Prince Philip, the queen offered a reflection on marriage and the need for “a deliberate effort to be tolerant and understanding.” The remark was interpreted as veiled criticism of a husband whose aptitude for marriage had not “come easily.”

In later decades, the Commonwealth was no longer an inevitable part of the Christmas broadcast. But it could always be summoned back — as in 2009, when the queen said, “with continuing support and dedication, I am confident that this diverse Commonwealth of nations can strengthen the common bond that transcends politics, religion, race and economic circumstances.”

Every Christmas Elizabeth has given “her people” a vision of themselves as still mighty in a “land of hope and glory.” She describes Britons as wise, tolerant, generous and “undaunted,” no matter how stern the test. A skillful conflation of morality, Christianity, national mission and British courage are still a fine digestif after Christmas lunch.

Elizabeth is instinctively skillful; born into monarchy, bequeathed unlimited power in theory, and none in practice. She has served rather than ruled. Her smile, after nearly 62 years of being flashed around the world, is still warm. Her questions still apparently proceed from real interest and her speeches, usually brief, are devoid of anything that could give offense. She displays an image of the British as they once were, and as they would still like to think of themselves.

PHOTO: Britain’s Queen Elizabeth views the interior of the refurbished East Wing of Somerset House at King’s College in London February 29, 2012. REUTERS/Eddie Mulholland/POOL

More From John Lloyd
Ukraine’s future lies with the West, but there is much suffering ahead
No gimmicks, just 10 good reasons why Scotland shouldn’t leave the UK
In clashes over Ukraine or Iraq, liberty must be defended
Russian ‘realism’ is winning now, but will fail in the end
Germany’s renewed hegemony isn’t something Europe needs to fear
‘Braveheart’ they’re not. What’s Scotland’s problem with a United Kingdom?
Comments
8 comments so far

Some rumors say she is also the richest man in the world. While declared wealth is substantial it is through offshore trusts with vast shareholdings on the world’s stock exchanges. Sure, she does a good job, but I question whether it comes from a humble will to serve or from the desire to preserve the family’s wealth.

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive

The Windsor brand is a remarkable marketing feat, comparable to the top brands such as Apple and Nike and popular notions such as Swiss chocolate.

Posted by reality-again | Report as abusive

The intro to this article says “The British like to sneer at the claim of American exceptionalism. But Britain has its own exceptionalism in the form of the Queen’s Christmas broadcast”.

Whatever it was that either Stalin or Alexis de Tocqueville thought exceptional about the USA, it was not comparable in any obvious way to a speech given by one of several remnants of European monarchy.

Posted by Colmery | Report as abusive

I found the speech trite and backward.

Posted by cod37 | Report as abusive

Most of the Brits I know find irony in the fact that, although America is exceptional in many good ways, the claims of American exceptionalism made by the more jingoistic Americans usually relate exclusively to all the worst things that we deviated preevert pinko foreigners see in America – moral absolutism, for example.

The best Americans, like the best Brits, are genuinely modest.

Posted by Ian_Kemmish | Report as abusive

Most people who like to talk about American exceptionalism do not appreciate the extent to which America’s role in the world is to a great extent attributable to its position as the center of gravity of a cultural sphere that is largely defined as the set of all native speakers of the English language. (The United States has about 60% of all native speakers of English on the planet.) Obviously, Great Britain was the center of gravity of that cultural sphere for a long time, but that changed during the 19th century. And equally obviously, the importance and tenacity of British institutions continues to exert an influence on the rest of this cultural area (and beyond) far beyond what population comparisons would suggest. As far as the American Revolution and various American political institutions are concerned, I think that we overstate the importance of such political structures. For example, take Queen Elizabeth. She is not the queen of the United States; however, if you mention “the Queen” to an American, she is the person who is called to mind. That is because, while the U.S. does not have a monarch, it is specifically the British monarch that the U.S. does not have. There are many monarchs in the world, but the members of the British royal family are celebrities in the U.S. on a par with Hollywood movie stars, and no other royal family comes close to their high profile among Americans. There is a cultural sphere made up of native speakers of English, and this is often overlooked.

Posted by Bob9999 | Report as abusive

“we must adventure on if we are to make the world a better place”

If we venture on with egoists like this at the helm, and without suddenly realising it isn’t about seeing people like this as admirable, but rather as something to be pitied, we are not venturing anywhere. We have in fact stagnated since 4000 years with greed and war at the tip of human achievements.

Any attempt to be anything like this is what drives the world into a trap greed, difference and dislike.

Anyone in a sane state of mind will hear about ‘royals’, and dislike everything they stand for from the off-set.

Posted by J0D | Report as abusive

Mention of Philips adultery, but none of hers. Especially significant as there were “consequences” which have been covered up. Think Princes Andrew and Edward.

Posted by SandyW7 | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/