ROYALTY ain’t what it used to be. What does the Queen have in common with Edward I, “the Hammer of the Scots”, and psychopathic Henry VIII? Where is the resemblance with bloodthirsty Mary I or hard-hearted Elizabeth I? Apart from a luxurious residence, more money than she can possibly spend and the power to make minions quake, it’s hard to find common ground between our matter of fact, studiously diplomatic and dutiful Elizabeth II and previous occupants of the throne.

Not so long ago, the monarchy decided the fate of the country and of individuals, often on a whim. God help the poor soul who fell foul of the crown while they were nursing a hangover. A twitch of a finger, a whispered command, and somebody’s fate was sealed. At best you’d find yourself thrown into the dungeons. At worst, your severed head would stare, goggle-eyed, from a spike on London Bridge, until the ravens had pecked it clean.

The measure of how dramatically royal behaviour has changed comes with the recent proposal that the Queen be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Advocates of this original suggestion would like it to be conferred in recognition of her dedicated service for 65 years as Head of the Commonwealth. Personally, while I’d rather live in a republic than as a subject of the House of Windsor, I wouldn’t begrudge the Queen any honour or praise. None, that is, except this.

By almost every standard, she is an exceptional individual, the most reliable and sensible head of state imaginable. Throughout the swiftest period of societal change ever known, she has kept abreast of modernity without losing her dignity or that of her position. The single possible blemish on her record is an old-fashioned aristocratic chilliness as a mother, and for that we are reliant on hearsay, rather than documented fact.

So when Frank Field, MP, endorsed offering the Queen the highest accolade for promoting accord between nations, who could object? Apparently it is the talk of the locker-room among high commissioners, and has gathered support from a raft of government ministers. As Mr Field observed, she would be a deserving winner for her “determined diplomacy in keeping the Commonwealth alive and functioning”.

No-one, certainly, should underplay her part in holding together this uneasy coalition, a relic of imperial dominion. Using a powerful blend of steely charm and artful understatement, the Queen has welded together a geographically, socially and economically disparate and occasionally fractious community at a time when its purpose has frequently seemed unsure, its existence an embarrassing anomaly. Without her commitment to its preservation, it’s easy to see this awkward alliance of competing interests withering and dying. But, as the shock waves of our impending split from Europe make plain, it is better to maintain fellowship with other nations, and to preserve historic links, rather than set ourselves adrift. Perhaps Mr Field, an ardent Brexiter, is beginning to have second thoughts?

Yet to add the Queen to the roster of Nobel Peace laureates would be to sully her name. You need only think of previous winners to see why. The credentials of some recipients are not what you’d call pacific. Putting aside the bellicose Henry Kissinger, are Yasser Arafat or Menachim Begin and Aung San Suu Kyi the sort of people she should be associated with? Even well-intentioned Barack Obama’s nomination provoked ridicule, best summed up by Noam Chomsky when he wrote, “we might say that the achievement of doing nothing to advance peace places Obama on a considerably higher moral plane than some of the earlier recipients”.

Unfortunately for Mr Obama and other holders of the prize who are honourable individuals, the job of president or prime minister inevitably involves tough militaristic decisions. However justified they might be, confrontational actions do not sit well with the pursuit of peace. To be admired as a model – Gandhi-like – of turning the other cheek is not, sadly, the purpose of our leaders unless it happens to be in the country’s best interests.

This is where the Queen stands apart. As an apolitical figure she, more than most Nobel candidates, cannot in future years be accused of hypocrisy, or of betraying the principles of the award. More importantly, however, she should not be reduced to the level of those vying for credit or decoration, whose grip on power and the limelight is transitory. Unlike theirs, her role is for life. Since there is no title in the world higher than monarch, other perhaps than Pope, is it wise to pull her down to the level of everyone else? Is that not like clipping her wings?

I don’t, of course, believe in the divine right of kings and queens but none of us can seriously doubt that the Queen’s reign has been committed to fostering unity rather than conflict. Prizes, however, are for those who compete. Elizabeth II is like the lonely long-distance runner, in a race all by herself that won’t end until she drops. She needs no endorsement or flattery, least of all from a discredited and much-mocked institution.