Elizabeth II: The Passing of a Queen, and the Passing of an Age

With the passing of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8, 2022, the United Kingdom has come to the definitive end of an unrepeatable period in its long chronicle, a period in which Britain dealt with its share of setbacks, but also achieved many worthwhile things. For any British person whose life happened to unfold during the reign of Elizabeth II, which began in 1952 and endured for span of seventy years, her passing is an undeniable milestone, prompting deep waves of memory and reflection.

It can be stated, with the fullest degree of confidence, that the citizens of the United Kingdom are unlikely to ever have such a singular monarch again. Through seven decades as Queen, through good times and bad times, Elizabeth II was perceived, within Britain itself and abroad, as representing the essence of the British spirit. She was the only British monarch that most people alive today have ever known. Britain is witnessing both the passing of a Queen, and the passing of an age.

Elizabeth II supposedly exemplified what it means to be British, but not all British people are highborn or affluent, and few of them dwell in grand houses. She did, nevertheless, exemplify a certain kind of British person, posh and stuffy, a kind that is widely known to the rest of the world as a result of frequent portrayals, usually comic, in films and on television. Still, in fairness, allowing that she did not actually choose to be a monarch, perhaps judgment can, to a charitable extent, be reserved.

Over the course of the Queen's reign, as Britain changed back and forth between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, between moderate socialism and extreme capitalism, Elizabeth II was seen to be a source of impartial steadiness, a dependable bulwark against the coming and going of fifteen Prime Ministers. On the business side, the Queen served as a useful tool for British corporations, obligingly assisting them in marketing the United Kingdom as a lucrative commodity.

The Queen's defenders are prone to making much of her "good works," but in doing so, they conveniently forget that the Queen, given the depth of the royal coffers, had it within her power, if she had chosen to give up the greater part of her riches, to alleviate the poverty and hardship that is suffered by millions of British people. Instead, she kept all those riches to herself, living an easy life of unimaginable luxury that, in effect, cast mockery on the deprived lives of her more needy subjects.

My own response to this moment in British history is closely informed by the particulars of my lineage and experience. I am a British citizen, born in the United Kingdom and possessed of a British passport, who has lived in the United States for most of his life, but in spite of any physical distance from the culture and traditions of Britain, my native connection to the country of my birth has remained intact. The United States is where I reside, but I regard the United Kingdom as my true home.

As to the Queen herself, although I am strongly inclined, as a matter of principle, to view all monarchies as vile repositories of unearned wealth and undeserved advantage, I never felt any ill will toward Elizabeth II as a person. She appeared, on the whole, to be a figure of dignity and dedication, a woman who always carried herself with an element of poise and humility that was, unfortunately, noticeably lacking in many of those who surrounded her, including members of the royal family.

The Queen's eldest son, Charles, who has spent his entire lifetime diligently preparing for his hereditary duties as sovereign, will now reign as King Charles III, but he will reign over a kingdom that has fallen into desperate straits, with a new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, who basely embodies the greedy motives of capitalist double-dealing. Unless adverse conditions of inequity and corruption are radically addressed, the outlook for the United Kingdom will be starkly bereft of hope or promise.