May 2012
If you want to believe in royalty, it's best not to know too much history.
I suppose it was logical. In those dark, far off, Prehistoric days, among the primitive groups or tribes, someone had to emerge as the boss, leader or chief.
Usually he would have been the biggest, strongest and most aggressive member of those around him. (to keep the gender balance fair, though it was much later, Boadicea/Boudicca turned out as a very exceptional woman.)
Having subdued just about everyone and gained their obedience and respect (fear, more like) some of the more successful leaders would get ambitious ideas about expanding their control and influence.
Exploring beyond their immediate 'settlement' (a few caves or mud huts probably) the chief and his most trusted followers would, sooner or later, come across a more attractive locality – such as a pleasant valley with a clean stream running through, cleaner at least then the muddy pools they were used to.
Trouble was, these desirable new locations were, very often, already occupied by another collection of struggling humanity, who did not exactly welcome intruders. When friendly persuasion failed (which it always did) violent conflict soon followed. As in all such encounters, might turned out to be right or, anyway, more effective. The weaker people would be either driven away or, if required, killed. Sometimes, though, the residents would be willing to join the newcomers and swear allegiance to the big man.
This process continued for a few hundred more years with even more extensive areas of the country coming under the control of one person and his band of loyal supporters and their descendants. To keep this elite group happy, or quiet, the boss would, from time to time, hand out rewards in the form of large areas of the conquered lands (later to be called estates).
But things could not go on like that for ever and it dawned on the brighter members that they would need to formalise and organize this embryo ruling class.
The Anglo Saxon period, between the departure of the Roman legions and the Norman invasion of William the Conqueror, is largely shrouded in mystery. What little we had think we know has been gleaned from a few ancient surviving accounts, and even these are an uncertain mixture of opinion, prejudice and a few fairly reliable 'facts'.
So, where does this leave us? To get to the point, eventually the strongest of the strong prevailed and, lo and behold, we had a supreme leader of the whole of what we now call England.
It is generally accepted (or argued over) that the first holder of this pioneering position was Aethelstan. At a loss to think of a unique title for this exalted personage, his group of Elders and advisers played safer and adopted the old and respected name of King.
To maintain an air of authority and security it was soon realized that the ever widening band of confidants, warriors, and general hangers on would, in turn, have to be provided with some impressive sounding new prefixes to their basic names. After much deliberation this self appointed assembly came up with a whole set of invented titles, such as: Baron, Duke, Earl, or Viscount and so on and on (titles which of course exists to this day).
Finally we come to what some describe as this glorious and jubilee year of her most gracious majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
With the frantic lead in to the myriad of celebrations nationwide, excessive deference and sycophancy will begin to rival super-celebrity hysteria.
There can be very little doubt that our monarch is very popular and well loved by the majority of the subjects, however popular opinion is not 100 % positive, as is demonstrated by this letter, recently published in the national press:
From: Jean Burley, Cardiff.
How odd to see letters complaining about an unflattering photograph of the queen. All I saw was an elderly lady dripping in jewellery and furs worth thousands of pounds, who occupies an unelected position which has allowed her to become one of the richest women in the country while I struggle to keep my job and pay my mortgage.