Those twin bookends of national crisis — world war and global pandemic — speak to the scope and meaning of the Queen’s longevity.
The past half century of British politics has witnessed a shift away from the national tendency to define historical epochs by monarchs — the Plantagenets, the Elizabethan era, the Georgian Era, the Regency, the long Victorian Era, the Edwardians — toward a more American tendency to cast history in terms of those elected representatives whose policies shaped the socio-economic and political landscape. And so, historians talk about the Thatcher era and the Blair Years, emphasizing the radical changes between the 1980s and the early millennium.
In part, this reflects the pace and extent of change that took place on the Queen’s watch. In part, it reflects the declining political significance of the monarch, who remains the ceremonial head of state but has long ago ceased to function as a head of government.
But, if we step back and survey the seven decades of the second Elizabethan era, there is a coherence to her time as Queen which future historians will almost certainly appreciate. Queen Elizabeth II oversaw the transformation of the British empire into a commonwealth of nations, and the United Kingdom into a devolved but unified confederacy of nation states.
During her long reign, the shadow of past imperial misgovernance threatened to undermine the transition from empire to commonwealth abroad and poison efforts to foster a multiethnic British identity at home. Scottish nationalism and conflict in Northern Ireland risked the breakup of the United Kingdom.
Her father, George VI had reigned during the Second World War, when the British empire was one of the “Big Three” allied powers, alongside the United States and the Soviet Union, that defeated the Axis. In the decades after the war, Britain’s hard power declined considerably, as the bipolar politics of the USA v. the USSR came to dominated global politics.
The decline of Britain’s imperial power during the Queen’s reign was coupled with new roles for Britain shaped by her membership in the Commonwealth of Nations, Europe and the Anglo-American special relationship.
Not long after her coronation, Queen Elizabeth II began to witness the rising tide of colonial independence movements and the shift from a British empire defined by a metropolitan center and imperial dependencies to a commonwealth of 56 sovereign and equal nations united by a shared monarch. While based in Britain, the Queen was deeply committed to her role as head of the Commonwealth and spent much of her time on the throne traveling to other Commonwealth nations.
She was Britain’s head of state when the country entered the European Community (as the European Union was then known) in 1973 and when it voted to leave the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
She has formally appointed 15 prime ministers, including Prime Minister Liz Truss, who took office on Tuesday after traveling to Balmoral Castle in Scotland to meet with the ailing queen.
The youthful comments of both party leaders were in contrast to their dignified statements of concern and condolence on Thursday. While some might suspect the sincerity of party leaders’ sentiments, in light of their professed republicanism, they are perhaps better taken as evidence of the affection and respect that the Queen has inspired even amongst those not predisposed to support the institution of monarchy.
Even self-professed republicans (anti-monarchists, not conservatives), are willing to acknowledge that the Queen lived up to the obligations conferred by her hereditary privilege and served honorably as head of state. And they like her for it.
The message was straight forward: the Queen had played by the law that governed herself as well as her subjects. The former prime minister had disrespected the British people and broken the bonds of trust between leaders and governed by behaving as if he were above the law.
As Britons and Commonwealth subjects around the globe mourn the loss of the Queen, there are important questions about what lies ahead for the country and the Commonwealth. While a majority of Britons still support the institution of the monarchy, there is little enthusiasm in Britain for the prospective King Charles III.
The weeks and months to come will reveal whether or not the Commonwealth can outlast its longest serving monarch.
Correction: An earlier version of this piece misnamed the place of Prince Philip’s funeral last year.
