Why should HM n get a bel peace prize ( . . . even if she’d much ( rather win the Derby!

Some winners — from the EU to Al Gore — were beyond satire. But now, says ROBERT HARDMAN, a truly worthy recipient is being discussed ...

Considering its track record, it is remarkable anyone still gives two hoots about the nobel Peace Prize. Former nominees include the Tsar of russia, Kaiser Wilhelm ii, Hitler, stalin, Mussolini, evita Peron (and husband) and the fake language of esperanto.

others who have also been nominated, but rejected, include Mahatma gandhi and the saviour of the free world, Winston Churchill (although he would, at least, go on to receive the 1953 nobel Prize for Literature).

Then let us turn to more recent nominees who have actually won the thing: ex-terrorist Yasser Arafat, U.s. vice-president-turned-eco warrior Al gore, the european Union...

so perhaps we should think twice before welcoming reports this week that the Queen may shortly be nominated for the nobel Peace Prize. There is no question that she deserves it, as we shall see. But has it not become something of a tainted bauble?

it is a debate that has been going on for years, long before the hilarious sight of european Council president Herman Van rompuy and his colleagues trotting up to the oslo podium in 2012 to accept the prize on behalf of the EU. At that very moment, greek crowds were rioting against enforced bankruptcy at the hands of Brussels.

Back in 1973, the American satirist Tom Lehrer made his famous remark that ‘political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the nobel Peace Prize’.

America and north Vietnam had just signed the Paris Peace Accords, but that ferocious, lopsided war was still raging.

Kissinger was awarded the prize jointly with his Vietnamese opposite number, Le duc Tho, who declined it.

When Kissinger later tried to hand his back, too, he learned that a nobel prize, once awarded, cannot be revoked.

Another dotty decision was giving the 2009 prize to President Barack obama for his ‘work for a world without nuclear weapons’. He was nominated after just 11 days in the White House. The man hadn’t had time to unpack his shoes, let alone save the world.

it was not just right- wing critics around the world who mocked the starstruck nobel judges ( five norwegian political appointees). even the guardian called the decision ‘ludicrously premature’ and acknowledged that Mr obama had received the award for ‘not being george W. Bush’. Mr obama did at least have the good grace to admit he did not deserve it.

ex-U.s. President Jimmy Carter was nearly 80 when he won the same prize for the same reason many years after being kicked out of the White House.

As the nobel website explains: ‘While the President of the United states, george W. Bush, was planning war on iraq in the autumn of 2002, former President Jimmy Carter was awarded the Peace Prize for undertaking peace negotiations’.

So, the Queen already has two qualities which should go down well with the achingly right- on oslo liberals who will assess her nomination. First, she is not george W. Bush. second, she is not donald Trump either.

it was in november 1895 that the guiltridden swedish arms manufacturer, Alfred nobel, decided to leave the bulk of his fortune to a series of prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace (plus economics, which would come later).

sweden would look after all but one. The norwegian government would have custody of the greatest award of all — ‘for the person who shall have done the most for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses’.

The rules state that all nominations must be in by February 1 each year and must remain secret for 50 years. so we won’t know the full story behind any royal nomination until 2069.

What we have thus far are reports that certain Commonwealth countries are quietly planning to put the Queen’s name forward and will discuss it further at their summit in London next week. As Head of the Commonwealth, the Queen will formally open proceedings at Buckingham Palace. it is expected to be the largest summit ever staged in Britain.

That in itself illustrates the regard the 53-nation Commonwealth has for the Queen. she has been very much more than a symbolic figurehead during her 66 years in charge. it is why her nobel nomination would surely carry great clout.

it was the Commonwealth which led the charge against apartheid. Hence, one of nelson Mandela’s first acts on being elected president of a free south Africa was to rejoin the Commonwealth and invite the Queen to visit.

it was the Commonwealth which averted all- out civil war in rhodesia and led to the creation of Zimbabwe. While the regime of robert Mugabe would eventually prove monstrously corrupt, resulting in Zimbabwe’s exit from the Commonwealth, all the signs point to readmission now that Mugabe has been toppled.

The Queen did not just sit and watch all this happen. she was in the thick of it at key Commonwealth meetings, keeping the peace as quarrels broke out over issues such as sanctions (usually with Margaret Thatcher on one side and everyone else on the other).

it is beyond question that without her quiet but firm diplomacy, the whole organisation would have imploded. Along the way, it has helped usher in democracy and avert civil wars in places as far afield as Africa and the Pacific.

Yes, it has numerous problems and some very dodgy members. But there have been so many other achievements at a human level via a vast network of Commonwealth organisations and charities which operate beyond the grasp of politicians and bureaucrats.

From medicine to education to freedom of the press, they all make a difference, ticking along on tiny budgets and a lot of goodwill, often with the active involvement of the Queen and her family. The Queen’s own diamond Jubilee Trust is currently using the funds from her 2012 celebrations to bring about an extraordinary achievement — the complete elimination of avoidable blindness across the Commonwealth.

she has been closely involved in all this from the day she took over in 1952, subsequently travelling millions of miles by air and sea. it was only three years earlier, with the London declaration of 1949, that her father created the modern Commonwealth out of the defunct British empire.

Back then, it had just eight members and was the only outfit of its kind apart from the United nations. Today, it is still going strong, spanning every continent and a third of the earth’s population.

That, surely, is a feat to equal the nobel-winning achievement of, say, Al gore in making a film — An inconvenient Truth — about global warming and then flying around the world to talk about it.

Quite apart from seven decades as Head of the Commonwealth, the judges might want to look at the Queen’s other diplomacy. even old IRA thugs such as Martin Mcguinness and gerry Adams grudgingly paid tribute to her handling of that historic state visit to ireland in 2011. she achieved more in four days than others had managed in four decades.

WHAT’s more, she has even made up for a serious omission by nobel. He never made provision for the geniuses who actually make things. so she has created the Queen elizabeth Prize for engineering, a global £1 million award regarded as the ‘engineers’ nobel’.

While the people behind the Queen’s nomination are at it, why not submit a joint royal proposal?

The duke of edinburgh’s Award has now helped change the lives of more than six million young people in over 140 countries. The duke was also a founder of the World Wildlife Fund, which paved the way for outfits like greenpeace and Friends of the earth. even Al gore must concede that this beats making a movie.

Unbeknown to the duke, he himself was actually nominated for the nobel a decade back, in recognition of a lifetime’s work for the greater good of mankind. Churchill was nominated many times, as was gandhi. Might the duke not be put forward once again?

The Queen will certainly not want to know the details of any nobel campaign on her behalf. i am sure she will find the whole idea excruciating and very un-her. it is said that the only prize which preoccupies her is one which has eluded her all her life: the derby.

But if the nobel committee want to restore the credibility of their great prize, they should seriously consider a world figure who was peacemongering long before they were all born — and is still at it.