A quarter century ago, when satellite television had just about come to India, I watched a documentary on Queen Elizabeth II. I don’t remember the channel on which I saw the film, but it mentioned two remarkable features of her personality that made a great impression upon me. The queen, according to the documentary, herself switched off the lights of the palace she thought wasteful and penned down official notes on the blank side of used official papers, two hangover habits from World War II, when Britain, along with other parts of Europe, went through extreme hardship at all levels.
In a way, this defined the queen and her quiet individuality, but she did not make a show of it or, of anything. A woman of great poise, she had an appeal to the mind’s eye more than to the eye, flashiness being the stock offer of all royalty.
For my generation of the 60 plus Indians, bred in a democracy and mindful of our power to change our leaders every five years, the royals anywhere do not hold any attraction, the British monarchy, even less, because they turned out to be more common than most commoners.
The family’s emotional troubles, the attendant rifts and terrible tragedies have reduced most of its members to soap opera subjects, largely, to be pitied. The late Princess Diana’s experiments with feminism were interesting when they happened, but before and after, hers was an emotionally conflicted and tragic life that left scars on the entire family, scars that are still visible in her son, Prince Harry.
The queen’s second eldest son, Prince Andrew’s dalliance with a convicted pedophile added a criminal twist to the royal story. It not only seriously threatened the future of the monarchy, but was a seismic jolt to the queen, personally. Media reports, quoting royal family watchers, suggest she had a special corner for him.
But did the queen betray any emotion over this or any other crisis the family faced during the last four decades? Did she cave in to the trying times she faced as a mother and grandmother, beginning with Diana’s revolt against the palace, her tragic end and the shocking story around Andrew? Did they dent her commitment to her duties? Did she ever play victim? The answer is a resounding “no”.
The young queen reportedly faced infidelity of her husband, Prince Philip. Yet, their marriage and love story are the stuff of legends. That is because of the queen’s old school view that true love can endure and overcome all. It is this love that she felt for Prince Philip till the end of his life last year. Although she was by his side when death came on April 9, 2021, she was all by herself and, even at the funeral, she sat alone because of Covid restrictions. Still, she remained steady and the only thing the world got to know about her emotions was a song that inspired confidence in her: “That mischievous, inquiring twinkle was as bright at the end as when I first set eyes on him,” she said about her “beloved Philip” in her Christmas broadcast last December.
Even given the fact that the royals, as a rule, have to cultivate and display dispassion and detachment in their public behaviour, the queen was an exceptional example of it. Throughout the turbulent times for her and the royal family, the queen remained a picture of stoic strength. Such was its impact that her grandsons, William and Harry, would remember it for life. It was she who shielded them from a maddening media gaze and took care of them in the immediate aftermath of Diana’s death in a car crash; they recalled this with gratitude and love in a documentary on Diana on her 20th death anniversary in 2017.
It was the queen’s intrinsic commitment to her personal and public roles that kept her going in good health and cheer during her reign of 71 years and 214 days, a record unlikely to be matched by any mortal in her position. It is as though God himself was on her side until a quiet end. A good death, like a good life, is also a great blessing, and the queen deserved both in the divine scheme of things.
It is thanks to the queen that the monarchy has survived the many quakes that hit it, that the transition of the throne to King Charles III has been stable and that the British public still overwhelmingly supports the monarchy. She was a force, not just for her family, but also for her nation, with many describing her as the nation’s grandmother.
Even in that role, she was unique, a working and cheerful grandmother for the world to see until two days before her death. The queen’s stable walk in heels (she started using a walking stick only 11 months ago), a smile flashing her own teeth at 96 and a healthy crop of silver hair, not to forget the polo practice in the Buckingham palace grounds in her 80s, are images to cherish for eternity. As per traditional wisdom, an able mind and body till the end of such a long life are divine gifts, only given to the most deserving. Queen Elizabeth II was, indeed, among the worthiest people who walked this earth.
Tailpiece: The value of the monarchy for the British, perhaps, outweighs its cost as evident in the masses that continue to throng her funeral procession. There are skeptics and realists talking about the huge cost of the funeral itself but their voice seems drowned in the din of supporters for whom the royals are a priceless emotional investment. The emotion drew the public to a queen who saved pennies by switching off the unnecessary palace lights and using recycled papers–even while making it spend millions of pounds on sustaining the monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II was truly “an anchor for our age” as the former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon once described her.
Discussion about this post