HM the Queen and I are close contemporaries. Memories in her name reach back to babyhood. My nannie related with the greatest possible pride that one day, when pushing our Silver Cross pram in the park, I was taken for the young Princess Elizabeth. It must have been my bonnet - an early intimation that clothes were to become the very mark and signature of the Queen's public image. That episode ended my heads-up in sartorial royal history, as our tidy day wardrobes parted company - hers towards Norman Hartnell and Hardy Amies, mine towards Jean Muir and Jil Sander. Nor was there a link in the everyday. My understanding is that HM has not been seen about her business in a catalogue of items that are pretty well basic to my kit, and arguably belong to our generation: black tights, jeans, poloneck sweaters, shirt-and-skirt combos, T-shirts with graphic images, pull-on woolly hats, trainers. On the other hand, it's fair to say in this context that no living woman has appeared in a greater array of sartorial effects than has Queen Elizabeth II. And where fashion is concerned, it's interesting that these include many pieces that are said to be royal no-nos, such as off-the-peg dresses, culottes, streetwise long boots, dark shaded sunglasses and black for evening.
Read more: Queen Elizabeth II: Style File
HM is now the longest-serving monarch in the nation's chronicles, marking her 90th birthday on April 21 this year. One can speculate whether she will be our last female sovereign. Males are in line for the throne for the next three generations, and we don't know what or who comes after that. In the meantime, the number-crunching of HM is impressive: 266 overseas visits to 119 countries. Last year her diary encompassed 341 official engagements, counting private audiences. Throughout she has communicated a sense of dedication that has shown no sign of waning. I metaphorically raise my hat to her - no matter that our generation is the first in modern times in which a woman could be considered well dressed without one.
Much of the Queen's public life has been bound up in sartorial considerations. A factor that will be brought into focus in this year's exhibition by the Royal Collection Trust, Fashioning a Reign: 90 Years of Style. Equating to a grand historical lookbook, the display covers the Queen's life and reign and is the largest ever shown. It makes clear that decisions over the decades range from satisfying her often-aired belief that people who come to see the Queen ought to be able to do so easily, without being frustrated by her chosen form of outfit, to the more complex question of selecting forms of dress that communicate with the audience. Diplomatically, culturally and socially, the royal wardrobe has an obligation to be booboo-proof, well able to function in the light of a sartorial hotchpotch of tricky sensitivities and trip-up issues. Few would question that the clothing of the Queen has constituted a big help in enabling her to play the part of Her Royal Nimbleness.
How has the style of dress that goes with the royal role come about? One answer is through intensive prepping, personal dedication and learning on the job. Underlying any review of the Queen's attitude to dress is her apparent lack of vanity. Normally, a young woman as good-looking and well-placed as was Princess Elizabeth would have developed some fondness for vanity's self-regard. But we never spot HM glancing at herself in a looking glass, or indicating that she is aware of people's flattery. Even when she dons those magnificent royal jewels, it seems to be more out of a sense of duty than any wish to show them off stylishly. A contra observation relates to her jolly touch on the make-up box. From the beginning she was partial to lipstick, a bright red being a signature. She has been seen in public repairing the shine. An enduring photograph of HM by Cecil Beaton depicts her bearing sceptre, orb and Imperial state crown. She is shown in a luscious lip tone, a nod to the duality of her role as sovereign and woman. (Latterly, the Queen has upped the tone of the blusher on her cheek, and a blue shade enhances her eyes.)
My first recollection of the power of royal dress was the wedding of Princess Elizabeth to Prince Philip. In the midst of postwar austerity and coupon-ridden frugality, it might be thought that the sheer lavishness of the nuptial gown would have struck an inappropriate note. Not a bit of it! The populace lapped up details of Norman Hartnell's creation: the yardage of delectable ivory duchesse satin, the number of seed pearls and crystal beads in the embroideries, the deep folds in the full skirt. All the pageantry seemed to satisfy a hunger long denied.
Once into her reign, an independence of spirit emerged in relation to her clothes that was spot on the generational mood. It applied to many of those of us who came to fashion post-World War II. Allowing for the fact that both mother and daughter were dressed by the London couturier Norman Hartnell, it's clear that the successful formula of floaty chiffons and theatrical effects he had created for the Queen Mother was way off the mark for the young royal. Hartnell's biographer Michael Pick confirms, "the sleek lines of the young Queen's wardrobe differed from her mother's established look." One wonders whether the 2007 photographs of the Queen taken by Annie Leibovitz, which depict her in a stately long gown with shoulders widely enfolded in fur, fully caught on to the sitter's more modern approach to dress. To my mind, they echo the parental generation, or an even earlier period.
Diplomacy is stitched into the royal wardrobe - detail is key. Embroidery, for example, has highlighted relationships between nations and regions. Her coronation dress boasted British and Commonwealth emblems. When the Queen visited Ireland in 2011, her robe for the state banquet at Dublin Castle was embellished with more than 2,000 hand-sewn shamrocks. Colour is more than a shade. Its symbolism may govern options. Take the instance of the blush-pink gown worn by HM at her spectacular James Bond-inspired entrance to the 2012 Olympic Games. Care had to be taken to select a tone that was not associated strongly with any of the participating nations.
Read more: Angela Kelly On Dressing The Queen
Staying within the margins of conservative dress, HM began to find her own style in the Sixties and Seventies. For one thing, the Queen's silhouette, with its full bosom, appeared to change. It was widely rumoured in my day that the Queen had undergone a bust reduction. But bodies do alter shape through natural causes, and that could have been the explanation for the reduced curves. Whatever the background story, the proportions of the Queen's body appeared trimmer and sleeker.
For royal attire, read jewellery. The massive collection of royal gems fulfils different, sometimes overlapping functions, representing regal status and personal adornment. Distinct from the Crown Jewels is the Queen's personal assemblage - which includes, for instance, pieces given to her by Prince Philip. If ever there was a pearly girl, it is the Queen. Among many, many strings of pearls in her collection is a double row given as a wedding present by her parents, George VI and Queen Elizabeth. She also received a diamond tiara from her grandmother, Queen Mary, who had been presented with it on the occasion of her own nuptials in 1893. Known as the Girls of Great Britain, the piece is said to be a favourite, and is the lightest of the Queen's tiaras.
Read more: The Queen Of Brooches
She who had had no training for the job became a true professional, and with experience came up with a working wardrobe that suited her singular responsibilities. Much of her clothing could be regarded as costume, custom-made for performance. For instance, necklines on coats and dresses are cut to avoid risking restricting the Queen's freedom of movement. Hemlines may be weighted to guard against untimely gusts of wind and mishap. Hats are fashioned with a fair size crown to give extra height and brims are styled off the face to be friendly to viewers. Many trusted props are apparent. The proportions of an outfit from childhood days of a short jumper and kilted skirt have found a place in her adult wardrobe in myriad forms.
Allowing for fine textiles and custom-made origins, the actual style of her typical daywear on parade is not so radically different from outfits in high-street windows. The easy to wear suits and coats with chiming dresses by and large conform to a look that many of her subjects would be happy to see themselves in. It's transparently clear that the Queen's clothes are not intended to intimidate or overwhelm. As Roger Scruton has written, "the emotion she inspires is unbelligerent tenderness" - and who can doubt that her wardrobe speaks of that? Worth saying on this point is that the fashion-conscious among us had distinct reservations about certain aspects of the Queen's dress. The expressed view was "they never cracked daywear". In contrast, the Queen's formal evening looks were greatly admired by one and all. Fashion editors and social diarists purred over her "fairytale" dresses. In truth, the elements of small bodice and commanding long skirt, the beautiful silks and satins, the splendour of royal jewellery and the pomp of royal regalia did come together to form a theatrical tour de force. Norman Hartnell, who designed the evening gowns that spring to mind, channelled Winterhalter's paintings of Queen Victoria. It was often observed that when the Queen dressed formally for an evening occasion and was entertaining visiting ladies who perhaps represented some competition in the apparel stakes, HM's ensemble could be counted on to score for the home team.
The picture of royal dress familiar to most of us was created by her principal designers. Each contributed their own expertise. Norman Hartnell and Hardy Amies, both of whom were knighted for their services, worked in association with each other where royal patronage was concerned, or at least to some degree. Hartnell wins critical accolades for ceremonial robes and exquisite embroideries. Amies, known for absorbing Parisian couture trends without slavishly following them, introduced brighter colours, sophisticated prints and patterns, smaller hats. However, he stayed by the rules explaining in his biography that the changing length of dresses would be considered "so that no more than a minimum of knee would show". In the miniskirted Sixties he wrote beneath a photograph of the Queen "as short as we dared". Ian Thomas, who was assistant designer at Hartnell, took over in 1970 and under his own label dressed the Queen in the understated elegance that was his hallmark. Stewart Parvin, graduate of the Edinburgh College of Art, followed. Since her arrival in 2002 as the royal dresser, Angela Kelly - now appointed the personal adviser and senior dresser to the Queen - has been interpreting the royal dress code at the dressers' floor at Buckingham Palace and has 11 people in her team.
Read more: Inside Holyrood's New Royal Style Exhibition
An exploration of the significance of what amounts to the Queen's soft armour underpins the forthcoming exhibition, the flagship show of which opens at Buckingham Palace in July. Caroline de Guitaut, the curator, emphasises that "clothing has been influential in establishing a relationship between the Queen and the nation."
Looking at the sweep of the story of the Queen's reign from my own standpoint, it's the current phase that tells. Neither she nor I (yet) uses a stick. The Queen's straight-backed unwobbly action of walking backwards down the steps of the Cenotaph last year evoked admiration among my age group and undue peering at her 2in-heeled court shoes. At the time of writing, it was said by some I talked to that the Queen was looking particularly bonny these days. Happening at a period when oldies are snuffed out of public gaze in so many different aspects, how good is it to have the Queen on side. Besides, we are seeing more of her smile.
"Fashioning a Reign" is at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh from April 21, Buckingham Palace from July 23, and Windsor Castle from September 17.