(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Augusta Press.)
Martin Kettle, THE GUARDIAN: “Do not underestimate the upheaval in British life that this dynastic moment will trigger.”
The death of Queen Elizabeth II is a profound moment. With unmatched dignity and patience, she presided over her country and the Commonwealth of Nations for 70 years. This quiet but complex lady was the only chief of state almost anyone in Britain can recall, and she was also the last major living link to the event that defined modern Britain – World War II, when Britain was the sole country holding out against Hitler. Elizabeth was in uniform, having joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service, where she acquired her skill in car repairs.
But before we go any further, let’s be honest; does any of this really matter to us?
It does. Let’s look at what the monarchy was and is, and what its future really means.
MORE: Queen Elizabeth II dead at 96 after 70 years on the throne
Opinion
The future of the monarchy
Imagining Britain without a monarchy is almost impossible. For over a millennium, Britain and its monarchy have been inextricably linked. Elizabeth could trace her lineage to Alfred the Great (r. 871-899). The monarchy endured this long because it was at the same time immensely powerful but never absolute. Unlike many other European countries, the medieval upper-class meetings known as the “Estates” gave birth to the institution of “Parliament,” a body that had strong but hazy powers based more on tradition than on law. Two events led to Parliament becoming the supreme lawmaking institution in Britain, which obviated the need for a revolution. First, the English Civil War (1642-51) led to a Parliamentary victory over King Charles I, who lost his head as well as the war. Second, the death of Queen Anne in 1714 without living children led to the throne being inherited by her cousin George, ruler of Hanover (in Germany), whose lack of knowledge of England and English left much power in the hands of others.
The monarchy continued through the industrial revolution, possibly the most cataclysmic change in modern history, as well as two world wars, not to mention the vast social changes thereafter. In the early 19th century, the idea of abolishing the monarchy did gain some steam as three consecutive rulers became known as “an imbecile, a profligate, and buffoon,” and things might have been different had not the throne come to the young Princess Victoria, who reigned from 1837 to 1901. (In fact, her reign was exceeded in length only by Elizabeth II.)
So, the monarchy survived the good and the bad. Why? Of course, one reason was that the one time that Britain did not have a monarchy – in the 1650s – the country degenerated into a military dictatorship headed by Oliver Cromwell, and this is hardly something to ignore today. With people in Britain and many other countries losing faith in their democratic institutions, and with the rise of charismatic authoritarians in a long list of countries, the average Briton was in no hurry to trade a popular queen for an uncertain presidency. If the American venerates the Constitution (I hope), the Briton venerates the monarchy.
But will this continue? Will Charles III receive the kind of loyalty, let alone the adoration, that his mother did? Well, we know the answer: he won’t. But what will this mean for Britain – and us?
The Future of Britain
There are two ways in which Elizabeth II was significant; as an institution and as a person. The monarchy and what has grown out of and around it is, in one sense, Britain’s constitution. The monarch does not run the day-to-day government, but s/he is the chief of state. In America, we combined those two offices in the presidency, so we don’t think about the two separate offices that the queen held; one as a mother/father (or in Elizabeth’s case, grandmother) of the nation, the other clearly partisan and able to push for specific agendas. This is particularly important in times of crisis when people are prone to turn toward the Palace as a symbol of the unity of the country.
And then there was her individual role. Elizabeth’s religious faith was genuine. Her commitment to her role as monarch was also genuine. She exemplified the oft-quoted and rarely followed ideal of “servant-leadership.” She might have had a retinue of servants, but she regarded herself as the servant of the nation – and the nation knew it. She kept her deepest feelings to herself and labored faithfully for 70 years. Her personal charm was not that of the politician, but of someone who really cared. This is why Britons all across the ideological spectrum and across the lines of social class felt so warmly toward her. Even many British Republicans shared these feelings.
Perhaps this explains why so many pundits from both the British Right and Left have expressed concerns about the future. Britain is not especially stable. Unrest is growing and has been for a number of years. If the government were strong, that might not be much of an issue, but let’s face it. Liz Truss is no Winston Churchill, nor is she a Maggie Thatcher. A strong monarchy created a sense of unity and certainty that Charles is unlikely to be able to replicate. The death of a monarch in the good old days might precipitate a dynastic crisis. We are centuries past that particular problem, but this royal death has created a different kind of crisis.
OK, so why does it matter?
Actually, it’s not too hard to see all this as a real problem beyond the islands. Britain’s monarchy is now weakened and may get weaker still. Britain is our most consistent and most important ally, bar none. We were on the same side in World War I, World War II and the Cold War. We have been on the same side in the current troubles in eastern Europe. So, even without going into specifics, if Britain has internal troubles, they will touch us.
How? Well, if a country is having severe internal disunity, that can be reflected in unstable governments as well; it won’t be as bad as Italy, but you could see severe fracturings of the foreign policy consensus, which could affect Britain’s reliability as an ally. One thing that slowly dawned on me in my 35 years of teaching American military history was that we tend to do better in wars in which we have allies; it’s not just a question of numbers but of having to listen to opinions other than our own about strategy. (And if you ask why that dawned on me slowly, well … take your pick.) So, there would be visible and invisible costs if we are unable to count on British assistance and counsel.
Britain is also a bridge between us and Europe, and that will continue, Brexit notwithstanding. The Biden administration labored to maintain a strong pro-Ukrainian alliance in Europe. Whether that would have been possible without strong British assistance is not clear to me.
There is a good possibility that more members of the Commonwealth will ditch the British monarch as their chief of state. Many withheld this step because of the popularity of the late queen. Whether this will affect our ties with those countries is very unclear, but I doubt that it will be helpful. A weaker Britain will be a weaker NATO member, however, and that could have consequences for that alliance – our most important alliance – and for the conflict in Ukraine.
Perhaps the concerns of British pundits like Martin Kettle – and Americans like me – will turn out to be smoke without fire and we can all breathe easier.
But I doubt it.
Hubert van Tuyll is an occasional contributor of news analysis for The Augusta Press. Reach him at hvantuyl@augusta.edu
