The House of Windsor's secret of success Why "Windsor"? Pretty much just because it sounded ancient and English, and was the name of the family home. And he knew it would play well to his people. Like so many innovations regarding the monarchy, the reason for the change had a little to do with precedent, but a lot to do with public opinion. In changing his name, the present Queen's grandfather was cutting himself off from the network of European relations from whom his family had sprung. He took this to extremes the following year by refusing to allow the Romanovs to come to Britain to shelter from the Bolsheviks. This, as it turned out, condemned them to being shot in a Russian cellar. It was a jettisoning of old associations that showed a ruthless, if low-key, dedication to survival. It's intriguing to note how journalists, barometers of public opinion, have shaped the modern monarchy. Most people have a vague notion that Walter Bagehot, author of The English Constitution (1857), somehow wrote the rules for constitutional monarchy. He came up with the striking phrase that British monarchs have only three powers: to be consulted by their governments, to encourage and to warn. In fact, Bagehot was making it up as he went along. A polemicist at heart, he was describing how he thought things ought to be. Yet the Royal family seemed to listen, and to adopt something of the self-denying spirit he advocated. A similar - and similarly significant - shift took place in the 1970s, with the emergence of the modern notion that the monarch has two separate roles: head of state (ie representing us to other nations) and head of the nation (ie representing each individual member of the nation). This latter, newer role may well create more work for the monarch if the current trend away from the traditional political parties persists. In countries with proportional representation, the monarch has to work harder, persuading people to put aside their differences in order to find a prime minister. This distinction between head of the nation and head of state is enshrined on the Royal Household website. But where does it originate from? Surprisingly, it was put forward in the commentary of a TV documentary, Royal Family, written by Antony Jay in 1969. Constitutional monarchy is a consensual business, and the only thing that could put the Windsors out of business is losing their common touch. The Windsors have also never made the mistake of being too chic. Charles I and George IV are acknowledged to have been history's stylish sovereigns, and were connoisseurs who acquired the best of the Royal Collection. Yet both of them, aloof and remote from their subjects" concerns, were pretty useless as kings. What George IV did give us was the most spectacular coronation of all time and the second-best-known skyline of Britain after the Houses of Parliament: Windsor Castle, ranged along its rugged hilltop. Something of his spirit survives in the Ruritanian splendour of guards and coaches and crowds on state occasions. This pageantry is essential to the brand of Britain abroad, and the Windsors turn it on, as if from a tap, whenever the cameras are rolling. It's the ultimate expression of the monarchy's still-formidable "soft power," the power to influence rather than to command. In the words of Roy Hattersley: "If you can't fight, wear a big hat." And yet the most successful members of the House of Windsor show personal frugality. The dynasty has even been lucky in the self-restraint of its consorts. While parsimoniousness hardly comes to mind in connection with the jewel-loving Queen Mary (spouse of George V) and the horse-loving Queen Elizabeth (spouse of George VI), they shared a certain stoicism. "Now I can look the East End in the face," said the latter, after Buckingham Palace was bombed. One early indication that the future Edward VIII was going to go off the rails was his interest in sartorial matters. In our collection at Historic Royal Palaces, we have his self-designed safari suit intended to be worn on holiday in Africa. It has adjustable sleeves and legs: rather ingenious, rather natty, but the conception of a man more interested in fashion and leisure than in government. Edward's clothes caused ructions with his father, George V, who couldn't understand how his son could have tea in his hunting outfit, or go hatless. It showed, in the king's prescient opinion, a dangerous lack of devotion to duty. George V was also responsible for setting up what's sometimes called the "Welfare Monarchy," an institution concerned with benevolence and support for disadvantaged people. In doing this, he condemned his successors to a lifetime of opening hospitals and eating dinners for charity. But his actions, motivated by a fear of socialism, made the monarchy a much more taxing target for the Left. Compare George V's public image as a gruff ex-serviceman, for example, with the popular impression of Edward VIII (a man devoted to pleasure) and Queen Victoria (a woman devoted to grieving for her husband). They seem self-absorbed, even selfish, by comparison with the founder of the House of Windsor. How have the Windsors educated their offspring? Edward VII had suffered from failing to live up to the intellectual ambitions of his father, Prince Albert. So, instead of hothousing his own sons with tutors, he sent them off to the bracing atmosphere of the Navy. When he became king, George V was heard to say that he regretted the fact that he knew nothing except how to sail a ship. He may not have learnt much French - or experienced much openly expressed parental affection in early life - but it made him a tough, if taciturn man. So he too sent his sons to sea. The other huge advantage that the Windsors currently seem to possess is health and long life. Historically speaking, after the danger of dying in battle, childbirth and dangerously addictive behaviour are the biggest risks to royal well-being (Edward VII, George V and George VI were all killed by tobacco). But the longevity of figures such as Queen Elizabeth and the present Queen is a boon to a dynasty. The stability provided through a lengthy reign comes to outweigh the individual actions of a king or queen. We see that in all three monarchs to reach the 60th year of their reign: George III, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. Any earlier unpopularity is forgotten in the celebration of simply having survived. The greatest danger to the monarchy came from within itself, in 1936, when Edward VIII abdicated. But the crisis was resolved when the Royal family closed ranks, and his brother stepped forward to wear the crown. This concept of a "Royal family," the idea that Britain has not just a king or queen but a whole family firm, was the creation of Prince Albert. Through it, he was able to identify a role for himself in supporting his wife. And here the Windsors beat the Stuarts and the hyper-competitive Tudors hands down. They are numerous, and they work as a team. If one should prove a dud, he or she can be replaced. At this moment in history, it seems almost inconceivable that the House of Windsor will not sail on safely - albeit with continued careful tweaks of its tiller - at least until the new Prince George of Cambridge inherits the crown. Dr Lucy Worsley is chief curator at Historic Royal Palaces, and presents 'Tales of the Royal Bedchamber" on BBC Four at 9pm on August 5