38656356325923

fact the same as had motivated Osborne and Muggeridge: dismay at the mindless
adulation of the monarchy which had developed since the death of George VI and the
crowning of his daughter.
Something uncomfortably akin to Japanese Shintoism was in the air [he later wrote]. After the Second World
War the monarchy reverted to its prewar routines almost as though nothing had happened, and virtually no
changes were introduced by the Queen when she succeeded her father in 1952. At the same time public
attitudes towards the monarchy were marked by a degree of blandness and servility quite alien to the British
tradition. There was much fatuous talk of a new Elizabethan age, though the age was, in fact, as unlike that
of the first Elizabeth as the young Queen herself was unlike her illustrious predecessor. Britain seemed to be
compensating for loss of power in the world by lapsing into a state of collective make-believe, in which the
hieratic aspects of the monarchy were grossly exaggerated and the healthy habit of criticizing office-holders
was ceasing to apply to the monarch. 21
Significantly, for all the indignant talk of horse-whipping and cries of ‘bounder’, a
Daily Mail poll found that its younger readers between the ages of sixteen and thirty-four
agreed with Altrincham and among all age groups a majority thought that the court
circle should be widened. The image of the young Elizabeth as the prisoner of a circle of
elderly men and outdated attitudes, reinforced by the myths surrounding Macmillan’s
appointment, was a powerful one. For the first time the spotlight was turned critically
on all areas of Elizabeth’s life, both public and private.