Will the British monarchy survive the death of Elizabeth II? The question, at first, may seem unreasonable. In the last hundred years alone, the UK has experienced the greatest war in human history, the stagflation of the 1970s, the neoliberalism of Margaret Thatcher, the founding and divorce of the European Union and, perhaps most importantly, a long and traumatizing decay.
The decolonization of British territories in Africa and Asia led the once largest empire in the world to be, today, just one great power among many. All this the British monarchy survived. Why, then, would it be the death of a queen —in theory a purely symbolic figure— that would bring it about?
It turns out that Elizabeth II was not just any queen. It was the closest you can get to unanimity in the age of mass communication. She took the throne when television was in its infancy. As the new media took over the world, however, Elizabeth learned to break with tradition precisely to the extent to satisfy public opinion’s demand for more exposure — without, however, ever breaking her sense of continuity and stability.
The most dangerous moment for the monarchy in recent history was during the days following the death of Diana, the only royal figure whose popularity rivaled Elizabeth’s. The queen’s reluctance to speak publicly and declare official mourning ignited a republican impulse in many Britons. But, again, Elizabeth knew how to react in time. An official statement of regret was enough for her to be pardoned.
The latest YouGov public opinion poll indicates that three-quarters of Britons approved of the way Elizabeth did her job. It matters little that it was ritualistic. In an era when everything seems to be in constant crisis, Elizabeth represented stability.
Stability that the now King Charles III will hardly be able to reproduce. The new monarch is a much more polarizing figure. Firstly, because several of his political views —his environmental activism, for example—are already well known, and in theory the king should not be politically manifest in a constitutional monarchy.
Secondly, because an important part of the electorate never forgave him for the countless marital crises with Diana and for his marriage to Camilla, now queen consort. Hardly, therefore, the son will reproduce the popularity of the mother. And the popularity of the monarch, as an individual, is that of the regime.
The UK has the most stable political regime in the world. It follows more or less the same model for more than three centuries. The British have a deep attachment to national symbols. Anyone who doubts that need only rewatch the opening of the 2012 London Olympics.
It is undeniable, however, that the monarchy is too heavy a symbol, too old-fashioned. It costs the British government £104.4m, at a time when most citizens can barely pay their monthly bills.
The United Kingdom is currently experiencing the biggest crisis since the end of the Second World War: rampant inflation, strikes, unfinished Brexit and a change of prime minister – the appointment of Liz Truss was one of Elizabeth’s last steps on the throne. Will it also support a change of monarch? At first, national mourning will certainly translate into support for Charles. It remains to be seen whether he will be able to maintain his popularity after the patriotic fever wears off.
Charles, by the way, was brave to keep as king the name by which he was already known. The precedent is not good. Charles I was beheaded in 1649, and his execution was followed by 17 years of republic, the only period without a monarch in the history of England. These days, fortunately, are less bloody and kings don’t usually have their heads cut off anymore. But if he doesn’t want to live up to his chosen name, Charles III will have the herculean task of copying his mother and assuring the British people that a historic relic still deserves to be preserved in a country in crisis.
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
