Seeing the mass of deleted comments, I'm somewhat hesitant to attempt to answer this myself, but I'm sure the mods will delete it if it's not up to snuff.

I think the key thing to bear in mind is that by 1952 the monarchy had undergone a serious image transformation since the ascension of Elizabeth II's great-great Grandmother, Victoria, at the age of 18 in 1837.

By comparison to Elizabeth, Victoria's claim on the throne was far more removed. Victoria was the only child of King George III's fourth born son, her three uncles, George IV, Prince Frederick, and William IV all died leaving no legitimate children. Victoria's father, Prince Edward had died in 1820, 17 years before Victoria became Queen.

When Victoria did succeed her uncle she was unmarried and, to make matters worse, owing to the laws governing the German titles that had been in her family since George I 1714, all the Hanoverian titles went to her fairly unpopular uncle, the fifth son of George III, Ernest Augustus creating a new German royal family. If there were any monarch of the last 300 years that would have faced massive opposition upon succession, it would have been Victoria, but even she was enormously popular in her early reign.

The thing about the (modern) Monarchy is only most legitimate choice succeeds the throne. There may well have been those concerned about Victoria becoming Queen, but what other options did they have? The only viable potential candidate left was the elderly Ernest Augustus, whose track record of conservatism and political agitation left a lot of people, including the Duke of Wellington, with a very low opinion of him.

Compare that to the succession of Elizabeth after the death of her father, George VI* in 1952. Her father, the second born son of George V, was not expected to succeed the throne, but after his elder brother abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson in 1936, he became King. George VI was a very popular king, and his prioritizing of his family meant they became very popular too. Whereas before the focus had been more on the King himself, George VI brought his family in to share the spotlight. As a result of this loosening of royal protocol, the royal family became much more like the one we see today, often photographed in more informal situations, compared with the ultra-formal attitude of his father, George V. You also probably know that the Royal family remained in Buckingham Palace during WWII despite the Blitz and often visited bombed areas in South London, further boosting their popularity. Princess Elizabeth also trained as an ambulance driver and quasi-mechanic during the war, boosting her image enormously.

After the War, Elizabeth went on to marry Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten in 1947. Philip was the former Prince of Greece and nephew of one of the most distinguished commanders during WWII, the former chief of Combined Operations, the former Supreme Allied Commander of South East Asia, and last Viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten, himself a grandson of Queen Victoria. Not only was the match a very well made one, but it came during a time of massive post-war austerity. Rationing was still enforced, and the genera mood of the country was depressed. The Royal marriage, as it so often does, provided a welcome distraction and a reason for people all over the Empire to celebrate.

By the time George VI died in early 1952, the Royal family was about as popular as they could be. When it came time for Elizabeth to ascend the throne the public had a little over 15 years of knowing she would succeed her father, so it was not as jarring as perhaps Victoria's was. She was the daughter of a very popular king, and a very popular Princess in her own right. She had a good husband, and two children of her own, Prince Charles and Princess Anne**. Again, the question must be asked, what alternative was there? The only other close claimant to the throne was her younger sister, Princess Margaret. George VI's younger brother, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester remained, but he had always been a private man, preferring the soldiers life to one in the limelight.

TL;DR

By the time Princess Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth, the Royal family was incredibly popular, she had a good husband, and the country had been prepared for her ascension for over 15 years.

*EDIT: From George IV to George VI.

**EDIT: Previously referred to as Anne, Princess Royal. She wasn't known as the Princess Royal until 1987.

Holy cow, what a graveyard.

I really like this question OP, and it's very timely. I'd also love to hear about how the Monarchy was regarded at this time (ie: Did people even really care whether the Queen was competent/qualified? Or was the role moving towards being a figurehead that, while having some cultural significance, is mostly politically irrelevant so it didn't really matter? How much political/social/cultural/international/economic damage could an incompetent Queen really have wrought, if Elizabeth had ended up being much less adept? Did major events like the initial escalation of the Cold War have an influence on the public's perceptions?)

Literally my only context for the Monarchy at this general point is from watching the King's Speech, which made the role seem incredibly important for the war effort (though I'm sure it was heavily editorialized for the sake of story).

Hello everyone,

In this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments, and as such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.

Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!

Updated: For those interested, at this time there are nineteen top level responses (and sixty-four total). Visible are an allowable expansion question and this one. Two were removed for lacking depth (two and three sentences respectively). Two were removed for only providing block quotes/links without any expansion. Thirteen were removed for either asking about the deleted comments, complaining about the deleted comments, or complaining about the mods (because of the deleted comments).

I tired to do a little research into the topic and the answer seems to be not really.

Elizabeth ascension to the throne came about at the end of WW2 in the early days of the post war era.

"The coronation was like a phoenix-time," recalled Princess Margaret of the postwar moment. "Everything was being raised from the ashes … and nothing to stop anything getting better and better." The trope of the times was clear: the young Queen offered Britain (but, first and foremost, England) another go at Gloriana. "It is our hope that Her Majesty may live long and happily and that her reign may be as glorious as that of her great predecessor, Queen Elizabeth I," announced Clement Attlee on behalf of the Labour party. "Let us hope we are witnessing the beginning of a new Elizabethan age no less renowned than the first."

By happy coincidence, and some deft media management, news of Edmund Hillary and Tensing Norgay's ascent of Mount Everest was announced on the day of the coronation service. "Be Proud of Britain on This Day," ran the Daily Express headline.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/30/queen-elizabeth-how-age-remembered

An estimated 27 million people in Britain watched the ceremony on TV and 11 million listened on the radio, The population of Britain at the time was just over 36 million.

Fact 32, official website of the British Monarchy I have no idea how they came to that calculation either, my guess is people watched and listened at the same time

The Science museum puts the figure at 20 million people with an average of 17 people watching 1 of the 2.5 million tv's in the country

Also The population estimate is way off, according to the office of national statistics the population in 1951 was just over 50M

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/online_science/explore_our_collections/stories/on_the_box

Its also important to note that they chose to retain the surname Windsor.

With Elizabeth's accession, it seemed probable that the royal house would bear her husband's name, becoming the House of Mountbatten, in line with the custom of a wife taking her husband's surname on marriage. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Elizabeth's grandmother, Queen Mary, favoured the retention of the House of Windsor, and so on 9 April 1952 Elizabeth issued a declaration that Windsor would continue to be the name of the royal house. The Duke complained, "I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II#Reign_.281952.E2.80.93present.29

Its also probably worth noting that at this point the British still had their Empire, Decolonisation was only just starting to happen and Britain was still a significant global power so people were optimistic about the future regardless of where you fell on the issue of Decolonisation.

I couldn't really find anything at all that suggested their were significant worries about her ascension to the throne, though I have to admit I was relying on internet sources and finding anything of any kind of significance was difficult, like I was able to find out that they chose to retain the Windsor name but not why they did it.

Maybe someone better read on royal history will be able to help but from what I could tell there was no real criticism or worries at the time of the coronation.

Edit: SirGuyGrand, The_Alaskan have both provided better written responses (that are also better researched) also 24carats provides some sources other members of the family were attempting to take control of the crown/more power.

If any worries were expressed, they were quiet and not popularly shared.

Any time someone asks a question that asks what the public impression was of a 20th century historical event, I tend to turn to newspaper reaction. For this instance, I turned to the archives of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune as well as third-party newspaper databases such as Newsbank and EBSCOSearch. I also consulted JSTOR to search for papers that discuss public reaction to the ascension of Queen Elizabeth II. I was unable to find any significant misgivings. Some may have existed, but they did not make a large impression on the historical record that I have found.

Why? Clifton Daniel's Feb. 7, 1952 report in the Times offers some suggestions:

"For years the British, watching Princess Elizabeth grow to womanhood and become a wife and mother, have known that she would some day be their Queen and they were manifestly happy that it should be so. ...

Three main factors seemed to have shaped Elizabeth's character as a woman and as a public figure:

• She was a member of a happy family circle.

• She was carefully trained from the age of ten for her regal duties.

• She had the good fortune so often denied to royalty to make a love match when she married.

Those facts are reflected in her private personality and her public appearance: She is a calm and happy young woman who has a capacity for fun and who in her official life displays a rigid sense of duty and discipline and an appreciation for the dignity of her high office. As a result of long training and serious application to her job she almost invariably does the right thing ─ as rightness is understood in this country."

That impression was followed up with other reports about the new queen. These charted her life, including visits to Canada and other Commonwealth nations. On Oct. 13, 1940, she addressed the British nation on the radio, saying that the children of Britain were "full of cheerfulness and courage. ... We know, every one of us, that in the end all will be well, for God will care for us and give us victory and peace."

Thanks to radio and mass newspaper attention, plus the fact that she was the heir presumptive at the age of 10 (in 1936), Elizabeth was a well-known and familiar figure. My study shows that Elizabeth was under media attention even before her ascension. During 1952 alone, the New York Times published more than 200 stories that mention her at least in part. Her trip to Kenya just before her father's death was of particular note, with the Times going so far as to write a short story saying that she climbed a tree to see animals.

While the popular press might be expected to be light in its treatment of the new queen, I was unable to find significant detractors even in the Soviet Union's treatment of the event. On the death of George VI, the Soviet president and the Soviet foreign minister offered a formal message of condolence. As the Times reported, "The main Moscow newspapers published on their inside pages a 10-word report on the death of the King. Another twenty-one word dispatch reported that Princess Elizabeth had been proclaimed Queen. No comment or pictures appeared. This treatment was in line with the handling of news of the death of royalty."

Yes, at the time there was concern that she was too young. Most of the controversy took place much earlier and centered around her wedding. I always got the impression that Prince Phillip was the Princess Diana of his time, could do no right in the eyes of the court/titled society/media. Also there were concerns that her husband's uncle, the Earl of Mountbatten^1, was angling for power and would wield too much influence behind the throne. The exiled Duke of Windsor made some half-assed^2 moves towards redeeming his rep post-abdication in the hopes of being established as a caretaker monarch^3. Nothing came of it.

Lizzie was a smart bird and made a formal announcement around the time of her marriage accession^4 that the line would remain the House of Windsor and not the House of Mountbatten. She was well-liked by the general public, and my impression was that she was seen as a breath of fresh air in the atmosphere of post WWII London.^5

1. Link

2.Link
3. Royalty Magazine: Windsor Plot
4. Accession and Coronation
5. Grandmother

Hello there, I seem to be a little late to the party so I would like simply build on the excellent comments from /u/yorkton /u/the_alaskan /u/24carats and /u/sirguygrand – mainly by offering a slightly different reading (of which I cannot possibly take credit for) and extra source of information – the ever wonderful Mass Observation.

I would like to turn the question around a little bit and point out how to many people – particularly amongst the political and royalist circles - her youth made her an ideal candidate. I think it is important to consider what was actually expected and/or desired from a monarch in the immediate post-war period. When one pays close attention to the rough criteria applied by the consensus (clearly there was not a uniformity in opinion on the role of the monarch) Elizabeth’s youth did not particularly count against her – indeed it could have been an asset.

The Ideal ‘Candidate’

George VI was not considered a bad king, he kept his tongue (his virulently right wing ‘gnashing’ against the Socialist Labour government under Attlee was prudently kept behind the palace doors) and appeared when/where he should and largely how he should (Though during the 1946 FA cup final his warm but decidedly unregal grey overcoat grew a mischievous and anonymous call from the stands that ‘even he has been demobbed’). However in places he could be stiff, though his cultivated stoic image was a source of respect he brought the monarchy little in the way of love. He was the paternalist-ish monarch who, in the words of Ziegler the consensus amongst the public was: ’the prince was amiable but dim’. He made missteps which young Elizabeth, receptive to advice of older ministers, would not – for example his highly expensive 1947 tour around Southern Africa during economic hardship at home invoked newspaper comment and 32% disapproval to 29% approval (much more negative than anything under early Elizabeth’s reign). Additionally his stutter was unfortunately not quite as cured as the film ‘The Queens Speech’ suggests. Though most tactfully ignored it (there is a wonderful Mass Observation report from a pub with revellers listening to the end of war king’s speech which reports: ’Whenever the King pauses, M22B (A young communist) says loudly, Ts, Ts, and becomes the centre of looks of intense malevolence from all corners of the room’ -[is there anything more wonderfully British than the scene from the Chelsea boozer setting, people politely ignoring the stutter to the ‘looks of malevolence’ registering extreme disapproval… but little else done] it is important to note the observer mentions she stood in reverence of the king’s message not due to any personal view of George VI but ‘because it felt like I should'. His stutter was a constant barrier to an easily personified and relatable monarch. A great example of the limiting effect of his stutter is his 1948 Olympic opening speech, in order to avoid embarrassment, lasted no more than 16 words.

Elizabeth was therefore not filling massive shoes. Yes she was young – a problem if she was a CEO of Britain but that was so far removed from the modern role of the monarchy it is an irrelevance. What the politicians and British people actually needed from a monarch meant that age and inexperience made little difference – indeed in Elizabeth’s case it probably helped. The Monarch of the early 1950’s needed to be a symbol. In part this meant symbol of stability, restraint, respect for social elites and a cultural touchstone for ‘Britishness’. Yet in the 1950’s it also meant a symbol of rebirth. I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with a previous commenter who suggested Britain in 1952/3 was economically miserable. From 1947 onwards Britain was economically up – something which was growing massively from the 1949 devaluation and subsequent spurt of exports – as well as the new welfare state paying off in terms of quality of life. When you look at the rhetoric of the time it is very much forward looking – proclaiming the birth of the new Elizabethan age. Britain at this time was positive – the shadow of the war was healing and the spirit of New Jerusalem and national rebirth had yet to be sullied by economic stagnation. A young, (female), more relatable yet deliberate monarch in the form of Elizabeth was ideal for this narrative. It would be wrong to suggest that this was a universal view of Britons, as we shall see later there is a variance of opinion, however it was the consensus.

There are legitimate concerns in places about Prince Phillip – his 3 surviving sisters were banned from the 1947 wedding as they were married to Germans (the war wounds were still fresh) and he annoyed the elite with his perceived mocking of George VI’s kilt in Balmoral. However there is little evidence from opinion polls or Mass Observation that Phillip was seen as an other. Other commenters have spoken at length about the retention of Elizabeth as ‘main monarch’ so I will not retread those well placed steps – however it is undoubted that this helped his acceptance.

Finally while Churchill did express concerns about her inexperience this is more Churchill being Churchill than fact. Firstly he was always vague about what she was possibly inexperienced at. As mentioned before her role was already proscribed and pretty much limited to being a functionary. She had shown little of any rebellious streak which would cause concern. His comment about inexperience is more about his very Churchillian approach towards her. By 1951 he was a shadow of his former self, ignored most government business and focusedo on grand ‘legacy’ projects which suited his statesmanlike (but tired) self-conception. As part of this he saw his role romantically as the mentor of the new queen, like Melbourne and Victoria. He took it upon himself to guide this ‘inexperienced’ queen out of a corresponding romantic sense of duty – regardless of any actual reflection of reality – very Churchillian! (Well trained and malleable, she went along with it)

Therefore I would argue that she was indeed the ideal candidate in many circles rather than being simply ‘not-terrible’.

View of the masses – evidence from the wonderful Mass Observation

In a slightly different guise one of the best (and thus yet unmentioned) pieces of evidence to test the nation are the copious opinion polls and Mass Observations taken. Mass Observation was a project of focus groups and passive observers which reported the public mood on a plethora of topics. They reflect a more grassroots opinion than newspapers, which at the time tend to be fairly conservative and establishment-focused. Indeed Örnebring’s study found that of 400 articles from mainstream press in the lead up to coronation only 15 were negative compared to 1 in 6 people having some form of negative opinion according to mass observation. Without listing exhaustively the growing acceptance of Elizabeth can be seen in the period between succession and coronation. There were extremely few examples of a political or personal objection to the new queen – the main source of discontent was the perceived London-centrism of the occasion itself and the cost. A nice summary of the sentiment from the Mass Observation is here:

Personally I think they’re spending too much money, I mean what chance is thereof the likes of us seeing anything –could you afford £10 for a seat? I know I couldn’t. It’s like all these things they go in for, it’s a rich man’s Coronation. If you can afford to dress up in all that fancy ermine. I suppose it’s all right but personally I prefer to clothe my kiddies. What ’s proper for one isn’t proper for the other. You’re not taken in by these things nowadays, are you? Seats are too dear for working class people.

There is certainly a class dimension to this grievance, but it is clearly not being linked to the Queen herself – she is Teflon! This attitude reduced over time: 5 Months before the coronation 40% reporting being unhappy about the cost with 40% happy, with 2 months to go this changed to 60% happy, and with a fortnight to go it changed again to only 29% unhappy. Indeed the consenus was so accepting by the coronation that when the left-leading Manchester Guardian published this it was forced by angry letters to publish this half-hearted apology:

We are sorry if they have felt offended, but surely these things have to be looked at in perspective. ...Wednesday morning was a little too near the emotions of Coronation Day to try to press home what, we are afraid, is the cold truth to which we shall all have to come. ... It was worth it, but on balance it probably set us back in our economic struggle more than it helped us

Overall however the attitude was clearly positive. Indeed there is no evidence that the cost of the coronation as blamed of the Queen. Instead it is linked with the general ‘rich’ – seemingly meaning the establishment. The young queen was not associated as part of these ruling cliques so largely escaped the smear – once again the result of her youth and inexperience working in her favour. This youth and inexperience (thus malleable nature) further endeared her as she quickly translated the role of royal family/princess which she had been trained at since birth: look the part, be humble yet regal, go where they tell you, do what they tell you and don’t give any opinion on anything to the role of post-war Monarch (i.e. exactly the same.).

Continued Below