There are, not many, but there are those who have responded to the death of the Queen of England with screams about what they see as the barbarity of investing a few million of the public treasury in the British monarchy. These are the old rockers of the thunderous left, the one that lives obsessed, like all good Marxists, by money. Those who, moving through life with the soul of a hamster, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Let me see. If the British monarchy disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn’t give a damn. But I am not a typical subject of his majesty. The vast majority, and especially the working class, have felt admiration and respect for Elizabeth II. No other public figure has aroused so much affection. Don’t ask me how (who can explain the mysteries of the human brain?), but it strengthened the collective identity of its compatriots, provided them with subtle but palpable emotional support, made them feel safer and better – in the case of country, better than it was–.
And this, how much does it cost?
But there is another reason why Elizabeth II could have been paid ten times more than she was paid and it would still have been a good investment. The Queen was an ambassador for her country without parion, an incalculably valuable marketing tool. When he came to the throne in 1952 he reigned over 70 territories; today there are 16. If the United Kingdom managed to preserve its image as an important country in the world, despite being less so with each passing year of its reign, it had a lot to do with the dignified and diminutive figure, globally respected, of Elizabeth II. It was the varnish that covered the national shortcomings, which have never been as visible as they are now.
If you want to see the extent of where the United Kingdom has fallen during the seventy years of Elizabeth II’s reign, you only need to compare the first prime minister he met with the brand new head of government who visited her at the last public event of his life, two days before he died. Let’s talk about Winston Churchill and Liz Truss.
Churchill had his detractors, but what no one questions is that he was a titan of the 20th century, a political genius with a gigantic ego – needless to say – but who devoted himself fully, when most needed, to defend the sovereignty and well-being of their nation. Liz Truss is a dwarf next to him. I find it empty, dull, banal. But don’t take my word for it. Look at what a columnist from the venerable Times of London, pillar of the British establishment, named Matthew Parris, said about her a few days ago. A bona fide Tory, Parris was once an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and a Conservative MP.
“The problem with Truss is not that she believes so fiercely in herself; it’s that he doesn’t believe in anything else”, wrote Parris, “…it’s a massive ego built on a couple of cheap statements”. Parris notes the striking disproportion between Truss’s self-esteem and the minuscule talent he possesses. And she ends it by stating that “she is crazy”, and cites as proof of this her strong opposition to Brexit during the 2016 referendum and the fierce antipathy she exhibits today – with the fanaticism of the conversation – towards the European Union. And on top of that he says that the way to rebuild Britain’s collapsed public health system will be by cutting taxes on the rich. You will need luck.
If the Queen were still alive, covering her back, Truss could have concealed a little the political, economic and moral decrepitude into which the country is falling, and which his rise to power exemplifies. Now that the queen is gone, Liz the empress is left naked. The new king will not give him much protection.
Going from Elizabeth II to Charles III is like going from Churchill to Truss, from Lionel Messi to Memphis Depay. From the sublime to the ridiculous. During the long decades warming the bench, Carles did not understand that the secret of his mother’s success started from not expressing opinions and not revealing anything about her private life. Charles has talked too much, even to the plants, and will drag to death his entanglements with Diana and the imperishable story of his wife Camilla and the tampon.
What Elizabeth II had that her eldest son does not have is class, the quintessence of class, a virtue that is difficult to define but that everyone recognizes when they see it. She demonstrated it in all her public appearances and even in the transition of one colony after another to independence, passing from imperial hard power to the gentleness of the Commonwealth, of which she was head with the approval of the leaders of countries such as Kenya, South Africa, India and Trinidad and Tobago.
Say what you will about the savagery of the British Empire, as of all empires since ancient Greece and beyond, but Elizabeth II oversaw the handing over of power to almost a quarter of humanity without complaint, without seeing its aura of majesty dashed or diminished. It was not, as the loss of the Soviet empire was for Putin, “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”. She accepted the historical reality with dignity and kindness, not seeing the need to send troops to a neighboring country.
well Obviously not. He had no political power. Zero. But, almost without doing anything, he did have the power of persuasion inside and outside his country. If the fourteen presidents of the United States who passed through his reign continued to understand their relationship with the United Kingdom as something more or less “special,” it was partly because thirteen of them received invitations to the unbeatable honor of spend the night in one of its palaces. Photos taken with the Queen won them more votes at home than any other photo with any other head of state. The photo with Charles III will, unfortunately, have neither the same appeal nor the same electoral utility.
The value that Elizabeth II had for the United Kingdom will be seen in the fact that with Charles III the country will not be what it had been. Neither does the British monarchy. Will it disappear? Not yet. Not yet. But after losing the pillar that supported it for seventy years, it is more fragile today than it was three days ago. In addition, the story offers a couple of facts that can make you think. The name Charles in a king of England has hitherto been a curse. Charles II had to go into exile. Charles I was beheaded.
