Yesterday, at age 96, 70 years of which she ruled as the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II died. She had an extraordinary life–The Telegraph once wrote that by her 90th birthday she had covered at least 1,032,513 miles and 117 countries. For all of my life, when anyone said the Queen, most of the world thought of her, the head of the world’s most famous constitutional monarchy.
As she aged, her popularity rose and the weeks to come will be rife with stories about her remarkable life. The new King, Charles, is nowhere nearly as beloved as his mum. He’s 73 years–one wonders what he will do with throne he’s waited for his entire life. (And, no, he cannot step aside for his son.)
As I read some of the immediate responses on Twitter yesterday, I was struck by how strongly so many felt about her. Those who loathed her as a representative of the monarch posted as did the many who are devastated. I’ve never been a monarchy watcher but I am interested to wonder what will happen now.
Charles is passionate about climate change–will being King change what he can do to effect his ecological agenda? He had said he will not be an activist King but what does that even mean in 2023? Will the monarchy lose support from its people? Will Charles use language that is more inclusive than did his mother? I have no idea but I’m curious.
Rest in peace, Elizabeth. We will miss your colorful wardrobe, your wonderful hats, your commitment to public service, and your marvelous calm. You were truly a Queen.
Impenitent social media enthusiast. Relational trend spotter. Enjoys both carpe diem and the fish of the day.
I thought this interview with a historian on the Queen’s role in Britain’s colonial policies was interesting.
tl;dr The government ministers are much more to blame, both parties, going back decades (centuries, really)
https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/13/23349267/queen-elizabeth-british-empire-colonialism-violence
You chose some great pictures for this post Dabney. As a Canadian, who used to sing God Save the Queen in school, all the changes to come will be interesting. (In Manitoba, we have a ‘Court of Queen’s Bench’ which has already been renamed the ‘Court of King’s Bench’). I think Queen Elizabeth lived a full and productive life, and I’m sure she was missing her husband in the end; her death doesn’t come so much as a shock based on her age, but a reflection for all of us who have grown up under her reign of our own mortality. I too enjoyed her different outfits and hats! I was fortunate to see her once, when she came to open a rural costume museum nearby my home town when I was 13 (1984) – my family drove out to see her along with many others who lined the driveway to the museum. I plan to watch the funeral, just as I watched Diana’s, the Queen Mum’s, and Philip’s.
That’s amazing she came out to open a rural costume museum in Canada!
I think Queen Elizabeth should be highly respected for a long life of public service that she carried out with great dignity. Certainly the role of the monarchy has changed over 70 years and I think it will be interesting to see what Charles does with it. I have heard talk that some feel Charles should abdicate in favor of William and I absolutely don’t think he ever would and nor should he. He has been raised his whole life to be King and even if it is only for 10 -15 years, it is his right and his time. I suspect it is a tricky balance between being progressive and adhering to the traditions of the monarchy – let’s see what he does with it. And in fact, that will only give even more time for William to mature into his future role!
As a proud Scot ( though not a proponent of Scottish nationalism) I would point out that she was the Queen of all the nations of the United Kingdom not just Queen of England. In fact she was a descendant of the Stuart monarchs of Scotland, James VI of Scotland having acceded to the throne of England after the first Elizabeth died childless thus becoming James I of England. I was born the year she became Queen and the older I become the more I appreciate a Head of State who understands duty rather than self aggrandisement. One of the contributors to this thread states that she resisted giving countries independence but I do not think there is any evidence to support this allegation and the statement that she never tried to make amends for the looting of the former colonies misunderstands her role. As a constitutional monarch it was not her role to publicly take a political stance and in fact she was a great supporter of the Commonwealth and the many nations that following their independence became a part of it.
Well said, Kate. The role of a constitutional monarch is entirely a-political. The Queen never had any say about independence of former colonies as that was a government (parliamentary) decision. She did so much to support the community of nations in the Commonwealth to the degree that countries that were never colonies have asked to join it.
I think it’s also worth honoring her life of service. In an era where so many are focused on their individuality, it’s, to me, worth emulating her belief that a great life is lived for others.
With respect, the royals are not quite as a-political as the public would believe. The Guardian has reported on how the Queen and Prince Charles (as he was then known) have vetted more than 1000 laws through a secretive procedure before they were approved by the UK parliament. The Queen, in the 1970s, successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law to hide her private wealth from the public. After the results of a successful law suit, a series of public memos between Prince Charles and senior government ministers have been released, which demonstrates the extent of Prince Charles lobbying in political areas. I understand why many British people mourn Queen Elizabeth’s death as it is their right to do so. However, as someone who is from a colonized country and who also has Indian heritage, I find myself unable to do so. She has directly benefited from wealth that was procured through the exploitation of Brown and Black people.
I believe everyone has the right to process the news of her death in a way that works for them. My son lives in India and there, there are very complex feelings about the monarchy.
I completely agree!
Exactly.
that’s the monarch’s job – to vet the laws, and to give the PM advice. Nothing secretive about it. The kicker is that they have no power to pass the law on their own, introduce a law or veto one.
The Prince of Wales is in effect a private citizen. He has no constitutional role, and can say what he wants, as the king proved when he held that title. He can lobby, the same as everybody else can. But not as monarch.
The Cabinet can ignore everything the monarch says if they want to, and they frequently do.
The new PM is shortly to reintroduce fracking, something the king has adamantly and vocally been against. If the monarch can really do what is claimed, this will be the test, won’t it?
No, they don’t have the power – as you describe it – but I’d be hard pressed to think of a more influential family – anywhere. And, without being political, when the Queen and the royal family had the opportunity to be a model of acceptance for the UK … they fell pretty short.
I’ve been struck by how absolutely stunned the British people have been by her death. People keep saying well she was 96 and showing signs of decline so we were preparing ourselves. And yet… well, for example, I thought one of the British anchors was going to start crying on air when she had to relay the announcement. I am so sorry for the British people at this time.
I fall between the adulation and the loathing. Queen Elizabeth was a complicated and often flawed individual. She had to have a lot of strength of character to live the life she was born to, but she also was a product of a very different time, with prejudices that I’m not sure she ever overcame in her private life.
I tend to prefer not to overpraise individuals when they die. Yes, she was an amazing woman, but we shouldn’t whitewash the fact that she resisted giving countries independence and never tried to make amends for the looting of the former colonies.
Is it really within her scope to make amends? I know she is supposed to be completely apolitical. It was Tony Blair that finally apologized for the actions of England during the great famine in Ireland. If she wanted to is she allowed to do the apologizing? I could see William and Kate willing to embrace that kind of action if allowed. Either because of their age and relative distance from it or just their generation its likely easier for them I can see them doing it.
She could definitely have been more vocal. She could have pushed. I mean, we’re praising her for all the things she did in her life because she had the will to do them. I don’t see how we can have it both ways. Was she a strong woman and monarch with a lot of influence on public thoughts and action, or wasn’t she? I’m willing to look at all the ways she showed strength of character and purpose, but I can’t do that without wondering why she didn’t make the call restitution and amends part of her reign.
She’s someone who was clearly a strong person who lived through wars, spent her whole life living up to the example she was supposed to always set: calm, poised, reassuring and steady.
She was supposed to be the bedrock and never show the cracks. Never seem nervous, upset or angry. Never express political opinions and be the living symbol of an eternal England.
When you look it up it says “ The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.”
The job doesn’t allow for personal expression, ideas or even feelings a lot of the time- which is why people who aren’t born to it have a hard time adapting to some pretty hard rules despite the benefits.
She wasn’t a politician or a partisan. She wasn’t allowed to represent one political side or another because she was supposed to represent the entire Kingdom.
I think you have to judge her by the job she had.
As she was a constitutional monarch she definitely could not have been more vocal on these issues. Had she done so she would have been accused of interfering in political matters and that is not part of the role of the monarch in the United Kingdom. She lived a life of duty and carried out her last major constitutional duty only two days before she died. In my view it is better having a head of state who is not politically partisan and pushing a particular agenda. I suspect many elected heads of state do not understand the concept of duty in the way she did.
so this woman who worked with 15 Prime Ministers from different sides of the political spectrum was supposed to take sides? How do you think that would have worked out?
I am entitled to my opinions, which are shared by much of the world.
I didn’t say you weren’t because of course you are. But you didn’t answer the question.
I didn’t bother answering the question because I already had. I think they should speak out. Otherwise they are just puppets. What would happen if the Queen, or now the King, decided to break tradition because they felt strongly about something? Would the world fall apart? Would they be fired?
The royal family has very strict codes of behavior they are raised to accept. We’ve seen in my lifetime how well that goes not only for a royal that doesn’t tow the line, but for the spouses. It’s archaic. I honestly feel badly for them. Sure, they are rich beyond what I can imagine, but they have very little say in their lives and are “handled” all the time: what to wear, what to say, what’s forbidden to say, who to speak to, what causes they can support.
I don’t let my country slide, either. I think we owe apologies and reparations for what we did in the Middle East. It’s disgusting. We are not immune from the need to ask forgiveness and stop with the America First attitude. We are all part of an increasingly smaller world and we need to learn to make real amends, build real relationships based on trust, and help countries we have harmed by our past actions.
In America statues of Confederate soldiers are coming down because they are painful reminders to our black citizens of the harm our country did. I think for many former colonies, the British Monarchy is a painful reminder, even if the royals of today are not the one who took the actions.
Replying just to fix my name, ignore.
I struggle mightily with judging those from another era by our mores. I think she was a product of her times and, for those times, a remarkable woman.
Queen Elizabeth lived 96 years. I think saying she’s a product of another era is wrong. She didn’t get stuck in the early 20th Century. She had decades to grow, learn and change, which in many cases she did, but not all. She chose not to address certain issues.
I think we just see this differently.
If you think the monarch has any power to give anything back, you don’t know the British Constitution. You honestly think she had the power to give countries their independence, or even had any say in it? Really?
One of the last acts of the Queen was to apologize formally on behalf of the nation to the Maoris of New Zealand. So what you want is happening. It’s just not going to happen all at once, with a finger snap.
Everything you are talking about was done by the British Parliament, not her.
The British Empire lasted from the late 19th century to the end of the Second World War – less than a hundred years. It’s true that Britain had a lot of influence in many countries, and at times behaved badly, shamefully. It is doing its best to make amends, unlike the USA, who has yet even to acknowledge the atrocities it committed in the Middle East in the name of fossil fuels.
The treasures countries want returned belong to the people, or the institutions (like the British Museum). She can’t order them returned. Even the Crown Jewels don’t belong to the monarch, they belong to the people. (That’s the point of the Coronation – the Crown Jewels are symbolic of the trust the people are giving her. Since 1691 “the people” ie Parliament, has the power to choose the next monarch. Not that those lickspittles would do anything like that.
On the flip side, Britain was the first country in the Western world to abolish slavery in modern times. Again, nothing to do with the monarch. Done by Parliament.
If the royal family is forbidden to speak out, or have any opinions, then they more like a family of very expensive puppets (or mascots?). How incredibly sad for them. There lives are all symbolic with no real substance or ability to change things for the better.
the ones who hold public office, the working royals, yes of course they are.
They do a huge amount of charity work, like the Prince’s Trust, the Duke of Edinburgh sceme and so on. I doubt Charles will give up all his charities, and he won’t lose interest in the studies that are taking place in the Duchy of Cornwall on plant propogation and preservation.
What they can’t do is take political sides, espouse political causes. If you think of the President of the USA, it’s as if it’s split into two. The monarch does the time-consuming, boring stuff, the state dinners, the visits to all and sundry, schools, churches (of all denominations), factories, supermarkets. And the tours abroad. The PM goes to the dinners, does a few factories and so on (Boris was famous for scuttling off to those when the wicket got sticky), but not as many, and usually, only at election time.
This is only for the monarch and working royals. The rest of them can do as they please, but most follow the Queen’s example and stay neutral. Mostly.
Her death feels very sad because she did represent a whole era. People are so used to her and her role that now it is quite a loss. I’m not British so not the same of course, but here the TV stations keep showing images of her youth and the things she saw and lived through and there is indeed something strangely emotional about imagining someone who lived for so long on a public sphere now gone, in such a definitive way, after touching the lives of so many even if not directly…
Although I’ve lived in the United States (and been an American citizen) for decades, I was born and raised in London. The Queen has been a foundational fixture of my life; in fact, for anyone under the age of 70, she’s the only monarch they’ve ever known. My sister (who is younger than me and whose memories of England are far hazier) was devastated, she kept saying that she felt that the last thread connecting her to the old country had been severed. It’s strange, but now the Queen has died, I’m thinking that—outside of family members I’ve known all my life—Paul McCartney is probably the touchstone who has been with me the longest.
Rest In Peace, Your Majesty.
I’m out of the country on holiday with my daughter – who works at one of the Royal Palaces – and I was completely shocked when the news alert popped up on my phone as we were eating dinner yesterday evening. I’m ambivalent about the monarchy in general – but Her Maj was special. Yes, she lived a life of luxury, but she also lived a life that was rarely her own and performed her duties with extraordinary dedication.
As for Charles not being an activist king – I, too, have wondered for a while whether he’d manage to maintain his mother’s renowned ability to stay impartial because he has some very well-known causes that are close to his heart that are politically… sensitive.
Writing in The Guardian today, Jonathan Freedland says:
It really is the end of an era, and I suspect change is on the way. Charles has previous said he wants to “slim down” the number of working royals and I imagine there are more changes to come.
It will be interesting. Even the idea that Freedland puts forth is subject to change. Elizabeth defined the crown for 70 years–she’s a product of an utterly different time.
I was struck by the part of that article which reflects on Britain’s proud memories of its defiance in WWII, and how the Queen was the last prominent person who lived through that time. The photo of her in uniform on the Buckingham Palace balcony with Churchill on VE Day is rather poignant. It makes me think of the unparalleled historical perspective she must have brought to her meetings with modern world leaders and her own PMs, and how unimpressive many of them have been in comparison with her.
I think it is easy to latch onto a mental picture of who Queen Elizabeth was, particularly, as several articles I read pointed out, because she lived in the age of television. I suspect we will wait a long time for a complete picture, however. My favorite photo of her is from her military service, standing beside a vehicle that she might have driven or worked on as a mechanic — and then, after the war, she married and had a family as so many women of her generation did. I have often wondered what her perspective on global events might be. It will be a long time before there is another woman of such international standing.
Queen Victoria’s son waited a long time to take the throne, although less time than Charles has, and I will be interested to see if there are other parallels between the two. I think the age of the new king will make him less adaptable, mostly because I see some limitations creeping into my life. (I am only a couple of years younger than Charles.) But what really surprised me about Charles is that he is King Charles, and not King George or some other name. I have read too much history and too many historical novels, and so far, I think of the ill-fated Stuarts every time I see the name.
I confess it never really occurred to me that he would be anything other than King Charles III, and I suspect the same is true of most Brits. It was only yesterday, really, when it was mentioned on the news that he had yet to choose his regnal name that it clicked. I did briefly consider he might go with George… but tbh, the Stuart association isn’t something that will be on the radar of many English people – different in Scotland possibly – it’s not even been mentioned on the news as far as I’ve heard.
I think, like his mom said when asked what she wanted to be called, it’s his name.
Wel, yes, but George IS one of his names (he’s Charles Philip Arthur George -imagine if he’d gone with Arthur!)
But it’s not the one he’s called. Elizabeth opted for what she was called too!
Queen Victoria was Alexandria Victoria. Her son, Albert Edward, became Edward VII. King Edward VIII, who abdicated, was known as David in the family but was named Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David (note the last four — George for England, Andrew for Scotland, Patrick for Ireland, David for Wales). His brother, known as Bertie, was Elizabeth’s father and was named Albert Frederick Arthur George.
There is more than a century of choosing different regal names than the first name — and three generations — before Elizabeth took the throne. That precedent is reason enough to speculate, I think.
*regnal*
My spellcheck doesn’t have a large enough vocabulary. Sigh.
I agree!
Well Charles II did alright. I think it’s more auspicious than James at least. It will be very interesting to see how Charles fares. I always think of him as someone behind or outshined by women. His mother, his sister and his wife all seem to have stronger, more likable personalities than he does. The only one attached to him who is probably seen as less likable now is Camilla.
A royal expert yesterday gave a very simple reason why he might’ve decided to use Charles that hadn’t even occurred to me until I heard it articulated – he’s 73 years old, that’s what he’s always been known by and to change at this point would just confuse everybody. Don’t know if that’s it but it kind of makes sense.
I, my husband, our friends and neighbours are just devastated. My sister in WA state and old friends in California sent thoughtful and kind messages to us last night. My DH went up to our 12th century parish church after the announcement to lower the flag on the tower and then we watched the BBC for a few hours, had a quiet toast to HMQ then finally and sadly went up to bed. Regarding Charles, I believe the jury is out. He comes to the throne in entirely different times than did his mother and in the full glare of mass and social media. Some will never accept his wife or they feel uncomfortable with her bearing the title of Queen. He needs to be circumspect, thoughtful and keep his personal opinions quiet. He has family issues that must be dealt with: Harry and Meghan, especially her, are a bit of an open sore on the monarchy. And, finally, many question the relevance of monarchy at all in the 21st century. This is the biggest challenge for Charles III. “Best of British” (luck) as the saying goes and Keep Calm and Carry On. RIP HM Queen Elizabeth, soon to join your beloved Philip. Your dedication and service will most likely not be seen again. You will be deeply, deeply missed.
Now that Prince Harry and Meghan are no longer working royals, I’m not sure whether it will be as much of an issue as you suggest. I would argue that Prince Andrew is more of an open sore on the monarchy…
This was the opening sentence in a snarky article in The Cut (New York Magazine) about the problematic position that Andrew is in:
“The U.K. got its first new monarch in a lifetime yesterday, following the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the passing of the crown to the Charles formerly known as Prince.”
https://www.thecut.com/2022/09/what-happens-to-prince-andrew-now-that-the-queen-has-died.html
I had no idea Andrew collected teddy bears. The more I read about him, the more childishly immature he sounds. Sigh.
Thanks for the article – a fascinating read on Andrew’s relationship with the different members of the royal Family. I too did not know about the teddy bears, he is a very strange individual.
Andrew has more or less been “shut down”. Not so the Sussexes with a forthcoming book from him and her podcasts. Two somewhat loose cannons. Time will tell. The Windsor walkabout was interesting and a surprise yesterday.
I think the Harry and Meghan situation will die down. They haven’t actually done anything wrong, just their behaviour has been a bit iffy. Andrew, now – he’s dreadful. That interview was disastrous, showed everyone what he was. But his mother loved him. His nickname around these parts is Fredo.
It would be nice if all the rabid scrutiny of Harry and Meghan would die down. There’s a real double standard on social media. When William and Harry both went to Balmoral, their wives stayed behind with the children. Kate was praised for being supportive of her husband and a good mom: Meghan was criticized. During one of the memorial services, Harry and Meghan held hands, and there was a lot of snarking about it. One of the other grandchildren — maybe Princess Anne’s daughter? — held hands with her husband, and social media was silent.
When the white women get a pass and the not-white woman gets all the scrutiny — well, I am not impressed. I don’t know how much of the griping about Meghan is racism, anti-Americanism, or misogyny, but it is certainly a distasteful mix.
I don’t follow royal or celebrity news. The fact that I am aware of the problematic coverage of Harry and Meghan in the press, the tabloids, and on social media means that the problem is very visible and recurring. There are a lot of people who need to do some serious self-examination about their opinions regarding the Sussexes.
Well said. I don’t follow the royals either, but you can’t help seeing it in the press all the time. Harry and Meghan sound like people who decided they have a right to their own lives and opinions, and if they give a true picture of what life is like for a royal, then more power to them. We need to remember real royals are not like Disney Princess movies and the restrictions on their lives are legion. I don’t blame anyone who leaves it behind.
And yeah, the backlash against Meghan is troubling on many levels.
There’s a group of people, mostly American, who hate Meghan with a passion verging on madness. There is some dislike in the UK, but the hatred is generally reserved for Andrew. Meghan and Harry are “meh.” Meghan did make a few mistakes, but she’s gone now, and we’re not paying for her, so meh. Not racism, more classism.