God save the King? Credit: Marco Bertorello/AFP/Getty

If the media coverage of the monarchy seems fawning now, it is nothing compared to that of the Fifties. Even the corgi āhad a smile on his faceā, gushed the papers, as they sought to describe one Royal appearance. The young Queen Elizabeth II was seen as existing beyond criticism, certainly beyond humour. The BBC vetoed Peter Sellars doing an impression of her on The Goon Show, and it was not until 1964 that a national newspaper ran a cartoon of her. She was treated with such po-faced reverence that the News Chronicle could call her in 1954 āthe worldās principal human beingā.
John Osborne, the worldās principal Angry Young Man, was incensed by that sort of talk. There was a ātrough of Queen worshipā, he raged, āthe National Swillā. And he described monarchy as āthe gold filling in a mouthful of decayā. His attack was only to be expected, of course ā thereās no point in having Angry Young Men unless theyāre working themselves up about something or other.
But other isolated voices of dissent were beginning to be heard, and some were harder to ignore since they came from within what had recently been dubbed āthe Establishmentā. There was, for example, Woodrow Wyatt, then a Labour MP though later a disciple of Margaret Thatcher. āMooning about the Royal Family is one of the main contributory factors to Britainās plight,ā he complained in 1956. āIt saps our dynamism. It makes us dwell on the past.ā
Or there was John Grigg, who could hardly have been more Establishment: Eton, Grenadier Guards, Oxford, Tory parliamentary candidate, latterly the 2nd Baron Altrincham. So when he said rude things about the Queen in his 1957 article āThe Monarchy Todayā ā published in the magazine he edited, the National and English Review ā it proved especially controversial.
He was no republican, Altrincham insisted, he was merely seeking to reinvigorate the monarchy, which was too remote, surrounded āalmost without exception by people of the ātweedyā sortā. But at the centre of his criticism was the Queen herself. Five years into her reign and she really needed to buck her ideas up. Her public persona was that of āa priggish schoolgirl, captain of the hockey team, a prefect, and a recent candidate for Confirmationā, while her āstyle of speaking is frankly a pain in the neckā. What was to become of her āwhen she has lost the bloom of youthā?
The article didnāt win him many new friends. It was roundly condemned by pretty much everyone, from the Archbishop of Canterbury (who hadnāt read it), down to the leader of the Conservative group on Altrincham Council in Cheshire, who wanted to distance the town from the man who bore its name. Nor did the abuse stop there. āAltrincham, if we ever see you in the street, weāll do you in,ā said one of the many letters he received. āYou go too flaminā far when you criticise our Queen.ā It was signed: āEight (loyal to the Queen) Teddy Boysā.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe