Blog

In the summer of 1957, a seismic tremor shook the foundations of the British monarchy. John Grigg, the 2nd Baron Altrincham, published a scathing article in his magazine, the National and English Review, that dared to criticize Queen Elizabeth II and her court. The piece, titled “The Monarchy Today,” ignited a firestorm of controversy, with its author branded a traitor by some and a visionary by others. Far from a republican agitator, Altrincham was, as he later told journalist Robert Lacey, a “passionate monarchist who believes that the constitutional monarchy is Britain’s greatest invention.” His critique, rooted in a desire to preserve the institution, would ultimately reshape the monarchy’s public face.

A Voice in the Wilderness

At 33, Lord Altrincham was no stranger to challenging the establishment. The son of Edward Grigg, a former Times journalist and Governor of Kenya, he had inherited the National Review and transformed it into the National and English Review after his father’s death in 1955. A graduate of Eton and Oxford, Altrincham had already criticized the Conservative government’s handling of the Suez Crisis in 1956, calling for Britain’s withdrawal from Port Said. But it was his August 1957 article that thrust him into the national spotlight. “When the Queen entertained the Commonwealth Ministers at Windsor during the recent Conference (June 1957), the new pattern of our monarchy was exhibited more vividly than ever before,” he wrote, noting the shift from vassals to friends. Yet, he argued, the monarchy’s presentation was failing to keep pace with a changing Britain. “The Coronation induced a mood… which of its very nature was superficial and impermanent,” he warned, cautioning against complacency about the monarchy’s hold on public allegiance.

Altrincham’s primary target was the Queen’s court, which he deemed “too upper-class and British.” He advocated for a “more classless and Commonwealth court” to reflect the post-war, post-empire nation. His most provocative remarks, however, were personal: “She will not… achieve good results with her present style of speaking, which is frankly ‘a pain in the neck.’ Like her mother, she appears to be unable to string even a few sentences together without a written text.” He likened the Queen’s public persona to that of “a priggish schoolgirl, captain of the hockey team, a prefect, and a recent candidate for Confirmation”. These words, reprinted widely in the national press, were deemed scandalous in a Britain still basking in the glow of Elizabeth’s 1953 coronation.

A Nation divided

The reaction was swift and fierce. “Lord Altrincham, whose criticism of Queen Elizabeth II has inflamed British public opinion, was assaulted tonight after a television broadcast,” reported The New York Times on August 7, 1957. As Altrincham left ITN’s Television House after an interview with Robin Day on the program Impact, Philip Kinghorn Burbidge, a 63-year-old ex-soldier and member of the far-right League of Empire Loyalists, slapped him in the face, declaring, “Take that from the League of Empire Loyalists!” Burbidge later told the court, “Due to the scurrilous attack by Lord Altrincham, I felt it was up to decent Britons to show some resentment”. He was fined £1 and boasted to reporters, “I did what Prince Philip wanted to do, but couldn’t.” The press, including The Daily Mail and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, condemned Altrincham’s remarks as disloyal. Altrincham Town Council issued a statement: “We… most strongly deplore the article written by Lord Altrincham and wish to completely disassociate this borough from the comments and statements contained in that article”.

Yet, not all voices were hostile. A minority, including The New Statesman and The Spectator, found merit in Altrincham’s call for reform. The Suez Crisis of 1956 had already dented Britain’s imperial confidence, and, as historian Robert Lacey noted, “by 1957, the national mood had shifted… because Britain had been through this trauma of the Suez Crisis, an arrogant military adventure overseas that ended in disaster, and caused a great deal of soul searching”. The advent of Britain’s first independent television network, ITN, gave Altrincham a platform the BBC denied him. During his Impact interview, he clarified, “You have no choice but to criticise the boss. Only the boss can get rid of bad servants. She hires them and she alone can fire them”. He expressed regret if he had hurt the royal family’s feelings but stood firm: “I did not wish to apologise or retract what I had written, but… my aim had been to bring about a change in the atmosphere which surrounded the Queen and the Monarchy”.

A Monarchy Transformed

The outrage masked a deeper truth: Altrincham’s critique resonated with a nation grappling with modernity. Within days of the article’s publication, he was invited to discuss his views with Martin Charteris, the Queen’s assistant private secretary. Whether he met the Queen herself remains uncertain—The Crown dramatizes such an encounter, but no definitive evidence confirms it. Regardless, the monarchy began to act on his suggestions. The Queen’s Christmas Message was televised for the first time in 1957, where she expressed a desire for her subjects to feel closer: “I very much hope that this new medium will make my Christmas message more personal and direct… It is inevitable that I should seem a rather remote figure to many of you”. By 1958, the tradition of debutante presentation parties was abolished, replaced by more inclusive garden parties at Buckingham Palace.

Royal historian Tracy Borman reflects: “It’s interesting—and I think quite admirable—that rather than just be affronted by this criticism, the Palace invited Lord Altrincham to a meeting with Martin Charteris, who basically used him as an advisor”. Charteris later acknowledged, “You did a great service to the monarchy and I’m glad to say so publicly” (Writings on the British Monarchy, 2019). Altrincham’s six recommendations, as dramatized in The Crown, included opening Buckingham Palace to ordinary people and spending time with “real people, average people, working people”. These changes, from televised addresses to informal lunches with diverse subjects, helped the monarchy adapt to a post-war Britain craving equality over deference.

A Monarchist’s Legacy

Altrincham’s critique was not a rejection of the monarchy but a plea for its survival. “They have to perform the seemingly impossible task of being at once ordinary and extraordinary,” he wrote, emphasizing the delicate balance the royal family must strike. His actions bore fruit, as historian Robert Lacey observed: “The palace later conceded that Lord Altrincham did as much as anyone in the 20th century to help the monarchy”. After the controversy, Altrincham continued his career, marrying Patricia Campbell in 1958, adopting two sons, and writing a multi-volume biography of David Lloyd George. In 1963, he renounced his peerage under the Peerage Act, becoming John Grigg, and died in 2001 at 77. The slap in the face Altrincham endured was a fleeting moment of violence, but his words left a lasting mark. As The Telegraph noted in 2017, his vision of a monarchy that was “a normal affectionate human being” is evident in today’s royals, from the Cambridges to the Sussexes. His 1957 article, though initially reviled, proved to be a catalyst for a monarchy that learned to listen, adapt, and endure.

Original Article of Monarquias.com – Sources: The Telegraph, The New York Times, Town & Country, Radio Times, Express, Vulture, Writings on the British Monarchy, National and English Review