Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II passed away peacefully on the 8th September at Balmoral Castle, Aberdeenshire, surrounded by her children and family.
For ten days after Her late Majesty’s death, the United Kingdom was in mourning. During this time, leaders and dignitaries from around the world and across the political spectrum payed their respects, and millions, I dare say billions of people have delivered an outpouring of grief and sadness at the historic news.
Her late Majesty was lain in state firstly in Edinburgh, and later in Westminster Hall in London, where thousands of mourning Britons queued for hours, sometimes days to pay their final respects to their monarch.
After a state funeral in Westminster Abbey, she was finally laid to rest in St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle, next to her father, mother, husband, and sister.
Her late Majesty was surely one of the greatest monarchs in the history of the British Isles, perhaps the greatest.
Our great monarchs of the past have often been assessed by how much they increased British influence by winning wars, defeating enemies, or conquering territory. Elizabeth II did none of these things. In fact, the British Empire crumbled away to nothing under reign, so as far as territory goes, the second Elizabethan Era saw the most territory lost by any monarch.
Despite this (or as I see it, by this virtue), Elizabeth II is already being referred to as “Elizabeth the Great”.
There are very few times in history when a vow of lifelong service has been kept. When a twenty-one year-old Princess Elizabeth made such a promise to the British people in 1947, few could have predicted that seventy-five years later, after a seventy-year reign of unbroken and unfettered servitude to her people, that she would have kept her promise.
Her late Majesty served proudly, even appointing a new Prime Minister two days before she died. She was instrumental in the construction of the Commonwealth of Nations, and defined Britain’s place in a post-imperial world. She was the single greatest soft power tool our nation had at its disposal, respected by world leaders of every nation, admired by people across the globe, and almost universally adored at home.
I have been more effected by the death of Elizabeth II than I expected. It was an inevitability that all Britons had been expecting for a long time now, but that none were prepared for.
I only saw her in person once, during my time as an Army Cadet, but she was nonetheless an ever-present figure in my life. I admired and respected her greatly, and saw her as somewhat of a focal point for my Britishness, my patriotism. Being a woman so greatly respected in a time when women were fighting for societal parity gave another aspect to her impressiveness. She was one of the reasons I am so proud of my country.
She was the only monarch I knew, the only one a great majority of Brits had ever known. She was synonymous with the monarchy; she was the monarchy, and for many, especially those nations of the Commonwealth who still keep the British monarch as their head of state, the only person capable of legitimising the institution of the monarchy.
Now that the reign of King Charles III has begun, the relationship between monarch and realm is surely to be re-examined, both abroad, and here at home.
There has always been healthy debate in the UK on the subject of monarchy, and whilst republican viewpoints did not gain mainstream support under Elizabeth’s reign, there is now a significant minority of Brits who wish to see such change.
As I have said, to many people, she was the monarchy, and the relevancy she brought to the institution will have died with her. Doubtless, a string of Commonwealth nations will declare republics in the years following the coronation of Charles III, starting with Jamaica, in all likelihood.
The Commonwealth is a voluntary and mostly wholly uncontroversial institution, used primarily as a forum for historically aligned and politically likeminded nations to affirm relationships, form alliances, and engage in discussion.
The aftershocks of British Imperial rule have long plagued the relationships between the UK and its former colonies, but the Commonwealth attempts (and has been largely successful in) separating Imperial history from modern political relationships.
Nations are not legally tied to the Commonwealth, and all members of the association operate as equals. Whilst it is unlikely any Commonwealth members would withdraw following Her Majesty’s death, the amount of those who kept Her Majesty as their head of state will surely decrease.
In Britain, the debate has already started. The arrest of a few anti-monarchy protesters at state events across the country has placed a spotlight on the issue during the ten days of mourning, sparking argument over free speech in relation to the monarchy.
In any situation, the arrest of peaceful protestors is deplorable. The culture of free speech that has developed in the UK must not be jeopardised in this fashion. There is no such thing as ‘a right time and place’ to voice your opinions.
However, the firm majority of UK citizens still support the monarchy as an institution, and republicanism is still a minority opinion. Predictably, older, whiter people are more likely to be royalists, with the younger generations holding the most anti-monarchy sentiment in Britain. But even in this demographic, monarchists still outweigh republicans by a substantial margin.
The debate will undoubtably pick up substantial speed after Charles’s coronation, and I expect as republicanism is given more mainstream attention, more people will find themselves leaning towards the argument.
Personally, I do not believe Britain can successfully make the transition to a republic. I call myself a monarchist, but for more constitutional reasons than out of patriotism.
In the UK, everything is ‘His Majesty’s’: His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, His Majesty’s Driver, Vehicle and Licensing Agency, His Majesty’s Treasury, etc. Government cannot commence and Parliament cannot sit without the consent of the monarch. Even the name of the country, the United Kingdom, refers to the monarchy.
The job of constitutional re-writing and administration that would have to go into removing every trace of the monarchy from public institutions would be long and arduous, and not without considerable controversy. The military, for one, are unlikely to give up loyalty to the monarchy without some pushback.
Who would we then have as head of state? Create the sitting Prime Minister our new President? I would not trust any Westminster leader to do such a monumental task as head of government and head of state.
A new office of President perhaps, above the tumult of parliamentary governance? Britain already experiences low voter turnout at general elections, and even less at the council and local level. Adding another ballot for the people to cast their vote in would not help to increase turnout.
More than this, a new Presidential head of state would require a new type of election, and new election funding laws, a new class of politics altogether. I fear the corruption that could breed if such a class were to be formed in out current political climate of polarisation.
An apolitical, unelected, nominally powerless head of state such as a constitutional monarch is a far greater tool for political success than given credit. We have all seen the turmoil that can be brought when an entirely unfit president is elected, or if political leaders seize every drop of power for themselves.
Parliament, Government, the Prime Minister, all of them defer to the monarch. All owe loyalty to them, all swear oaths of fealty. A modern monarch should never involve their opinions with politics, but act only as a head of state and a spiritual and cultural leader. That is what Elizabeth did, that is what made her so great.
We know that truly, a monarchy is an outdated and anachronistic constitutional oddity, and that they hold no real power over us because all people are made equal regardless of birth. But Britain has had a monarch for over a thousand years, and the institution being such an integral part of our government, our culture, our way of life, tearing it down simply for ideological reasons seems ill-advised.
That is not to say it is perfect. The allegations against Prince Andrew, and his out of court settlement financed by his mother have drawn substantial attention and criticism, and the size of the royal grant is almost always in question.
The Britain I know is a monarchy. That is how we have always been, since time immemorial. Queen Elizabeth II showed us that monarchy is still relevant in modern life, and Charles will no doubt carry her example into the future.
Since the end of the colonial period, Britain has forged itself a place in the international order, and kept its unique identity and attitude throughout the years of change. The monarchy is partly to thank for this.
Although I must add, that as a Welshman, I have some reservations about keeping the Prince of Wales title and handing it down to another royal heir. The title has been historically used to subjugate and humiliate Wales, and there is significant protest against the title in Wales, especially after the death of Her Majesty. Charles would do well to take it into full account before the investiture.
The national period of mourning for Elizabeth II is now drawing to a close, but adjusting to this new normal, singing ‘God save the King’, will not be easy. I will miss Her late Majesty, not only the stability and direction offered by her reign, but the person herself, Elizabeth. She was a wise, good-natured, grand old lady by all accounts, and saluting her in person was one of the proudest moments of my life so far.
Life in Britain will churn on without her, with the new government setting out new plans and the new monarch facing new problems. But that is what she would have wanted.
stay safe
/e