A look back at the life of Elizabeth II raises important questions not only about how the monarchy has changed, but also about how Britain itself has been transformed in the 20th and 21st centuries.
When Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952, only seven years had passed since World War II. The rebuilding of the country was still underway and the rationing of important products such as sugar, eggs, cheese and meat was to continue for another year or so.
But the frugality and curtailment of the 1940s gave way to a more prosperous 1950s. It’s no wonder, then, that the Queen’s succession was hailed as the “new Elizabethan era.” Society changed and there was a beautiful young queen who took over.
Seventy years later, Britain looks very different. Elizabeth II was to rule the fastest technological expansion and socio-political change in recent history. A look back at the life of Elizabeth II raises important questions not only about how the monarchy has changed, but also about how Britain itself has been transformed in the 20th and 21st centuries.
If Elizabeth I’s reign was a period of colonial expansion, conquest and domination, the “new Elizabethan era” was marked by decolonization and the loss of the empire.
When Elizabeth II came to the throne, the last vestiges of the British Empire were still intact. India had gained independence in 1947 and other countries soon followed in the 1950s and 1960s. Although it had been in existence since 1926, the current Commonwealth was formed by the London Declaration of 1949, which makes the United States free and equal members. The Commonwealth has a veneer of colonial power because it shares a history with the Empire, and continues to give the British monarch symbolic power.
The Commonwealth played a prominent role in the 1953 coronation ceremony, from television programs showing the Commonwealth celebrations to the Queen’s coronation dress adorned with the floral emblems of Commonwealth countries. The Queen continued to celebrate the Commonwealth throughout her reign.
The colonial history of the Commonwealth is reflected in the values of Brexit and related nationalist projects that suffer from what Paul Gilroy calls ‘postcolonial melancholy’.
The Queen was the living embodiment of British stoicism, the “Blitz spirit” and global imperial power upon which much of the Brexit rhetoric rests.
How will the loss of Britain’s longest-serving monarch affect the nostalgia that fuels contemporary right-wing politics?
Ahead of Elizabeth II’s coronation, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill reportedly responded to proposals to broadcast the ceremony live on television that “modern mechanical arrangements” would damage the crown’s magic, not “the religious and spiritual aspects”. presented as if it were a theatrical performance.”
Television was a new technology at the time and it was feared that broadcasting the ceremony would be too intimate an act. Despite these fears, the broadcast was a great success.
The royal image has always been mediated, from the monarch’s profile on coins to his official portraits. In the case of Elizabeth II, this represented a radical evolution: from the rise of television, via tabloid newspapers and paparazzi, to social networks and citizen journalism (democratization and participation processes). Because of this, we now have more access to the monarchy than ever before.
In my book Running The Family Firm: How the monarchy manages its image and our money, I argue that the British monarchy relies on a careful balance between visibility and invisibility to maintain its power. The royal family can be seen in spectacular (state ceremonies) or familiar (royal weddings, royal babies) ways. But the inner workings of the institution must remain secret.
The monarchy’s quest for this balance can be seen during the reign of the Queen. An example is the 1969 BBC-ITV documentary Royal Family. This audiovisual production used the new techniques of cinema verite to follow the monarchy for a year, in what we would now recognize as a reality show. It gave us an intimate look at domestic scenes, such as family barbecues, and the Queen taking Prince Edward to a candy store. Despite its popularity, many feared that the voyeuristic style would break too much with the mystique of the monarchy. Buckingham Palace pulled the 90-minute documentary so it wouldn’t be available to the public, leaving 43 hours of footage unused.
“Royal Confessions,” inspired by celebrity culture and notions of privacy and transparency, have haunted the monarchy for decades. Diana’s Panorama interview in 1995 was iconic. In it, she confessed to her interviewer, Martin Bashir, of royal adultery, palace conspiracies against her, and her deteriorating mental and physical health. More recently, during an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle spoke about what they described as The Firm’s racism (referring to the British crown), lack of responsibility and disregard for Markle’s mental health. These interviews exposed the inner workings of the institution and broke the balance between visibility and invisibility.
Like the rest of the world, the British monarchy is now present on all major British social media platforms. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Instagram account, managed on behalf of Prince William, Kate Middleton and their children, is perhaps the most egregious example of royal fame in the contemporary era. The photos seem natural, improvised and informal, so this Instagram account has been framed as the Cambridge “family photo album”, giving an “intimate” glimpse into this family’s life. But, like all real images, these photos are carefully staged.
Social media has given the monarchy access to a new audience: the younger generation, who are more likely to browse real photos on phone apps than flip through newspapers. How will this generation react to the death of the monarch?
Queen Elizabeth came to the throne during a period of radical political transformation. Clement Atlee of the Labor Party had won the presidency in 1945 in a sensational election that seemed to reflect the voters’ desire for change. The establishment of the National Health Service in 1948 as the central institution of the post-war welfare state promised to support the British from cradle to grave.
Winston Churchill’s Conservative Party resumed parliament in 1952. Churchill spoke of a different version of Britain: more traditional, imperialist and adamantly monarchist. These ideological contradictions were evident in the reactions to the Queen’s coronation in June 1953. David Low’s satirical protest cartoon The Morning After, published in the Manchester Guardian on 3 June 1953, depicted the party’s waste (streamers, bottles of champagne) and the text “£ 100,000,000 spree” (“A £100 million spree”) scribbled on the floor. The cartoon promptly drew 600 letters of criticism to the editor for having “bad taste” and drawing attention to the contrasting political ideologies.
In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government began a systematic dismantling of the post-World War II welfare state, emphasizing neoliberal free markets, tax cuts and individualism. In the years of Tony Blair’s Cool Britannia, at the dawn of the new millennium, Queen Elizabeth II was an elderly woman. Princess Diana was the famous “people’s princess” of the time, as her new breed of “authenticity” threatened to expose an “uncool” monarchy.
In 2000, three years after Diana’s death in a car accident in Paris, support for the monarchy was at an all-time low. The Queen was interpreted as acting inappropriately, not responding to public grief or “representing her people”. The Express, for example, ran the headline “Show Us You Care: Mourners Ask the Queen to Guide Our Grief.”
Finally, she delivered a televised speech that softened her silence by emphasizing her role as a grandmother, busy “helping” Guillermo and Enrique deal with their pain. We’ve seen this role of grandmother at other times as well: In her 90th birthday photos in 2016, taken by Annie Leibowitz, she was sitting in a home environment surrounded by her younger grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
This is the image of the Queen that many will remember: an elderly woman, impeccably dressed, clutching her iconic and familiar handbag. Although she was head of state during the seismic political, social and cultural changes of the 20th and 21st centuries, the fact that she rarely expressed a political opinion means she successfully circumvented the monarchy’s constitutional political neutrality.
He also ensured that he remained an icon. He never had a “personality” like other royals, who have entered into a love-hate relationship with the public because we know more about them. The Queen remained an image: in fact, she is the most represented person in British history. For seven decades, Brits haven’t been able to make a cash purchase without meeting his face. This everyday banality shows that the monarchy and the queen are woven into the skin of Britain.
The Queen’s death is meant to make Britain reflect on its past, present and future. Time will tell what the reign of Charles III will look like, but one thing is certain: the “new Elizabethan era” is behind us. Britain is reeling from recent collapses in the status quo, from Brexit to the Covid-19 pandemic to ongoing calls for Scottish independence.
Carlos III inherits a very different land from that of his mother. What purpose, if any, will the next monarch have for Britain’s future?
Article published in ‘The conversation’.
Source: La Verdad
I am an experienced and passionate journalist with a strong track record in news website reporting. I specialize in technology coverage, breaking stories on the latest developments and trends from around the world. Working for Today Times Live has given me the opportunity to write thought-provoking pieces that have caught the attention of many readers.
