Queen Elizabeth: A Portrait of Duty

This week I'm writing about Queen Elizabeth. I'd envisioned myself writing the first of a three part series all about her idyllic childhood that was cut short by her father's accession to the throne and by World War II. I'd looked forward to writing it for several reasons. One being the respect I have for her and another being my belief that her cloistered childhood sheds much light on her views about royal protocol, privacy, dealing with her subjects and the public in general. I wanted this first article to set the stage for a life lived with duty first and personal happiness second. I haven't been able to write that article. This whole Patrick Jephson book hoopla has struck me that deeply.

First, it has forced me to remember that the greatest source of information we have about Queen Elizabeth's childhood came from her governess of seventeen years, Marion Crawford, Crawfie. That book, "The Little Princesses", which describes in detail those small moments in childhood where Queen Elizabeth showed the characteristics we know her by to this day. The story of two lovely princesses growing up with only each other as playmates, as companions, as friends, as siblings, as cohorts, as classmates - they were all each other had. It was a book whose stories set the stage for the sense of duty that Her Majesty displayed from a young age. Her sense of duty kept her from welcoming her Uncle David back into the firm and into his country. Her sense of duty that again arose as she offered her sister, Margaret Rose, the choice of being a princess in the House of Windsor or marrying Group Captain Peter Townsend, a divorcee, and leaving the firm. Her sense of duty that delayed her from making her unprecedented speech about the mother of her adored grandson's, William and Harry, upon the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. With Elizabeth, it is always duty and protocol before personal feelings.

Every time I would take pen to paper an overwhelming sadness would over take me. Why? Because I am forced to remember that Marion Crawford betrayed the trust of the royal family and was ostracized for it. That she wrote other books about the princesses and even had a column in a woman's magazine for a while. It was a magazine article that shattered her image as an insider who spoke the truth. For due to the time it took to print color magazines in the 1950's, Ms. Crawford's deadline was six weeks before the magazine ever hit the newsstands. It all caught up with her in 1955 when Marion Crawford turned in an article to "Woman's Own" magazine regarding Royal Ascot and Trooping the Color, the Queen's birthday parade. Since both events were cancelled due to a rail strike, it was proved that the stories she wrote of her pleasant encounters with the royal family were quite untrue. A veritable fantasy, if you will.

Queen Elizabeth has never confirmed these stories, for unlike the younger members of her family, she, like her mother, has never allowed an interviewer to probe into her personal life. The closest she has ever come to admitting that her life was anything other than a life filled with duty, purpose and service to others was when she admitted that 1992 was not a year that she would look back upon with undiluted pleasure. This was all she had to say about a year that saw the separation of all three of her married children - the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Duke and Duchess of York and Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips. There was also the fire that caused irreparable damage to nine rooms at Windsor Castle, which she considers her residence and many exploits by other members of the royal family that kept the tabloids very busy. She dubbed 1992 her "Annus Horribils".

She is in her seventies now, an age when most people would be enjoying their retirement yet she carries on her public duties and receives her red dispatch boxes every day of the year. She has worked hard to maintain the dignity and usefulness of her family. She has managed to change to appease the people without giving up the essence of who she is and what she so resolutely believes she represents. It is her faith that her life is in service to her people that keeps her going. It is the people's faith in her unwavering devotion to her duty that have kept her from being voted out as the head of state in Australia and Canada - and even in her own country. For whether or not people believe in Monarchs, they believe in her. She has stoically represented an ancient institution to the best of her ability.

She may have a castle for every season, a hefty paycheck from the civil list and access to priceless jewels, but the trade off is a great one. She suffers a lack of privacy, inability to trust very many people and the burden of being Queen 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year for the rest of her life. These books don't just betray her. They betray the institution that she has for so long devoted herself too, in the best way she knows how - the institution that is her grandson's, William, future.

No matter what happened in Diana's life, she was never disrespectful to the woman with the "top job", Queen Elizabeth. The Queen had earned and kept Diana's respect throughout her very public though short life. In speaking out against Mr. Jephson and his betrayal, I believe that Queen Elizabeth has shown that Diana has earned her respect as well.

As for me, I respect both women whose lives certainly took different paths, who were both stripped of their privacy, who both did what they believed best whether it be Diana who led with her heart or Queen Elizabeth who rules with her head. I've long believed that actions speak louder than words. It is the actions we see or have seen these two remarkable women display in life that speak volumes over the books that have been written by "insiders" who betray their confidences. Their actions will continue to be the source of my "inside" information.

All the best,