MORE SIGNINGS FOR MAAM UNITED

IT SOUNDS like the perfect 'modern' royal away-day to please the People. The Queen is to tour a vast new housing devel- opment and drop in on a pub. This is not just any old pub, though, but one run by a former England soccer star. On top of that, she will drop in on a local butcher for a chat and visit an animal healing centre to watch vets trying to cure a sick cow.

The answer is none. Diana, Princess of Wales had not been born and Peter Mandel- son was five when the Queen carried out these enagage- ments in Stevenage in April 1959. It was six years after the Coronation rather than four years short of the golden jubilee. The royal visit to Stevenage attracted very ordi- nary coverage in the national press. No one sought to high- light the occasion as a ground- breaking step forward for the monarchy.

Compare that occasion to March 1998, when the Queen went to a pub in Devon. It was billed as a 'royal first', a response to 'calls for change in the wake of Diana's death'. It was not only Britain which became excited. I remember watch- ing this 'landmark' on television in Canada. Similarly, when the Queen's car hap- pened to park outside a branch of McDon- ald's during a July walkabout in Ellesmere Port (she never went inside), the event was raised to the status of a Major Modernising Moment.

The Queen's Windsor reception for lead- ing figures from the arts was presented as a royal replica of Tony Blair's show-business soirees at Downing Street. That identical royal receptions for other sections of British life — sport, the voluntary sector, education etc. — had been going on for years was overlooked. This was a case of the Queen learning from Tony and Diana and being more 'in touch' with the People.

Since the death of Diana, a vocal chunk of the population has been calling for a `modern' monarchy without any clear idea of what that means. Any evidence of the common touch from the royal family in general and the Queen in particular has been trumpeted as evidence that the monarchy has learned its lesson. What this sensationalism obscures is the real mod- ernisation process and the fact that it has been under way for much longer than peo- ple think. But, then, style makes a better royal story than substance.

Genuine modernising touches were to be seen during last week's state visit to Malaysia. The Queen signed a football as she met members of the Malaysian branch of the Manchester United Supporters' Club. Later, during a visit to a children's home, she sat down in the midst of an English lesson and took part in an exercise to teach a group of Tamil girls how to pro- nounce the letter 'h'.

'It is not a case of modernising the Queen but of enabling her to be more "engaged". Times change and she changes with them,' whispered one aide as we watched the Queen reciting, 'Horse . . . Hurry . . . Heavy . . .

The ball-signing made pictures and head- lines around the world. This had been the idea of the Queen's assistant private secre- tary, Mary Francis, who thought that sign- ing a ball would be an amusing variation on the usual diet of visitors' books. More interesting, though, was the situation.

It was during the pre-state visit recce that royal aides noticed the prevalence of Manchester United bumper stickers and shirts in Kuala Lumpur. Realising the extent of Malaysian interest in British football, the Palace team decided that this might publi- cise a novel dimension to the bilateral relationship. It would certainly make a change from yet another trip to a British- funded factory.

Among the CRU's methods is the moni- toring of the Internet. The visit to the Devon pub did not come about because someone thought that 'Queen pops in for a pint' would be a great headline. It hap- pened because one of the team, browsing on the Internet, saw a local newspaper report that the same family had been run- ning the pub for 101 years. Since the Queen was to be in the area, it seemed like an interesting stop.

Elsewhere, modernisation has been brisk in the management of the royal household. In 1990, Michael Peat, a former accountant with the firm KPMG, took on the impecca- bly modern title of Director, Finance and Property Services and has since been upgraded to Treasurer to the Queen. Under his stern eye, tens of millions have been shaved off royal running costs.

But for all this genuine modernisation, the view persists that the monarchy is remote and in need of change. And expos- ing oneself to scrutiny can work the other way. After opening up the travel accounts to public scrutiny this year, the Queen was quickly attacked for spending £11,800 on taking the Royal Train to the Derby. Wise- ly, perhaps, the government is not saying how much it cost for Cherie Blair to take the G8 summit wives on the Royal Train from Birmingham to Chequers.

Central to popular demands for a 'mod- ern' monarchy is the idea that the Queen and the royal family should somehow 'be more like Diana'. It went unnoticed that, in the years after the royal separation, the Princess undertook around 40 public engagements annually against her hus- band's tally of more than 500.

The point was that Diana 'cared', because we saw her doing so in the media, whereas the other members of the royal family 'did not care' because we did not see them in the media. And if they were not in It's an old photograph.'

the media, it was their fault for being bor- ing, worthy and unsexy.

Few of those calling for a modernised, Diana-style monarchy have a very clear idea of what they want because they do not have a very clear idea of what the monar- chy does anyway. The recent, much-hyped Demos pamphlet, Modernising the Monar- chy, echoes many familiar misconceptions. The Princess, the authors argue, was the first to promote real causes. The Prince of Wales's work is written off as an obsession with skylines and 'genetically altered car- rots', leaving one wondering which Prince it was who set up Britain's largest charita- ble network for young people, the Prince's Trust.

The pamphlet asserts that the monarchy is too political and then suggests a referen- dum to approve each King or Queen. The monarch's activities would be determined • by an advisory council set up by the prime minister and monitored by a Commons select committee on the monarchy. Noth- ing political there, then.

Demos proudly declares that its polling data show that 'a majority of 49 per cent believes the Queen's political powers should be removed'. Then the pamphlet's authors go on to say, 'Few people seem aware of the extent of the monarchy's political or religious powers.' If the 49 per cent do not know what they are talking about, why should we care two hoots what they are saying?

Wherever they appear — in think-tanks, newspapers or studio debates — these con- tradictions, misconceptions and errors all point to the monarchy's having failed to convey its message. It is with that in mind that the Queen has appointed her first communications secretary, Simon Lewis. Contrary to popular belief, his role is not that of a spin doctor but of a brand manager.

For the moment, the attention of the media (and, therefore, the People) remains fixed on the style rather than the substance. That, in turn, means that royal modernisa- tion will continue to be viewed as a succes- sion of stunts. What Mr Lewis will have to do is develop long-term strategies to ensure that people understand what the monarchy is about rather than simply focus on the latest random instalment of the soap opera.

Robert Hardman is a correspondent and columnist for the Daily Telegraph.