The death of the Queen has been met with so many fulsome and wholly justified tributes that I hesitate to add to them. But this is such a momentous event in our country’s story that I don’t feel I can just pass it by. Since this Meeting House was opened in 1700 no less than fourteen monarchs have occupied the British throne, including Charles III, but for most, if not all, of us the only one we have really known, or known very much about, is Elizabeth II.
I can’t claim to have had much in the way of personal contact with her, although I have been in her presence, so to speak, on three occasions – at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday in 1997 when I was President of our Unitarian and Free Christian denomination; at a royal Garden Party at Buckingham Palace; and at the royal Maundy Thursday service when it was held in Bury St. Edmunds cathedral in 2009.
I was four when she succeeded her father, George VI, and my first memory of anything royal – and pretty much anything at all - was her coronation on a wet day in June 1953. So she has always been there which is why her death has had such an impact on so many people. She was not just our head of state, not just the face on stamps, coins and banknotes, she was the personification of an era and a symbol of stability and continuity in our fast-changing national life. And, amazingly, she changed with it, not dramatically or sensationally, but carefully and gradually. To see and hear her over the years was to be aware of someone who knew that her country had been transformed out of all recognition since she became Queen but who never seemed out of touch with what was going on. The upper class 1950s girl with the cut-glass accent became more, not less, attuned to the society over which she presided with unfailing grace, dignity and humility. And her encounters with James Bond and Paddington Bear at the 2012 Olympics and her Platinum Jubilee showed her to be remarkably at ease with popular culture, and endowed with a wonderful sense of humour.
In her role as constitutional monarch she showed just how the system should work, and why it is probably the one most suitable for this country. It combines several things. Firstly, it acknowledges our long history and the sense of rootedness that this gives us. Our long line of monarchs is all the more fascinating because of the variety of its personalities – the good, the bad, the mad and the ugly – but we can enjoy this thousand years of royal soap opera because the constitutional monarchy we have now protects us from the excesses of the past. Secondly, our monarchs no longer have power, no longer entertain claims of ruling by divine right, no longer presume to open windows into our souls. They may, as in the case of the Queen, have influence and knowledge based on experience, and so be a source of wise advice, but ruling the country rests firmly in the hands of democratically elected governments as it most certainly should – even bad ones!. Thirdly, we have a non-political but still very visible head of state, something we should be thankful for when we look at countries with presidents who are either divisive party-politicians or obscure figures who no-one’s ever heard of – not to mention the tin-pot dictators and the deluded fanatics. And fourthly, our monarchy gives us the excuse for plenty of historically-based and entertaining pageantry, not to mention rock concerts in the Mall, which we do rather well!
But although as a conscientious constitutional monarch the Queen stayed above the political fray, she most certainly knew what was going on, not only through her weekly meetings with a succession of suitably respectful prime ministers, and not only through her contacts with a bewildering variety of suitably impressed world leaders, but also through the charities she patronised and the many ordinary people she encountered in her thousands upon thousands of visits and engagements, not least those garden parties at Buckingham Palace. These really do bring together a wide cross-section of British society as guests of the monarch. Since her death I have heard several commentators say that the Queen suppressed her own ideas and opinions, but this wasn’t altogether true. It’s just that she expressed herself with tact, with courtesy and with subtlety. If you listened to what she said when she spoke for herself, as in her Christmas broadcasts, or in causes and campaigns with which she clearly sympathised, you got a pretty clear idea of what mattered to her.
Both in her beloved Commonwealth and in her royal duties in this and other countries, we saw a woman who was deeply committed to a multi-cultural society and a world free of racism, sectarianism, extremism and bigotry. She worked for these ideals more effectively than many who make the most noise about them. She took her own Christian faith very seriously, but she extended profound respect to other religions too – an attitude that grew in importance as this country became ever more diverse, not just ethnically but religiously too. She was more aware than most commentators, politicians and assorted ‘experts’ in our secular society that religion is important to many people in this country and probably to the majority of people in the world. She was also deeply concerned about the natural environment and the need to repair the damage we’ve done to it and to protect what’s left of its wonders and riches. And the fact that her son and successor is deeply committed to these causes too must surely owe something to the Queen. And this bodes well for his reign.
If we look for a downside to her reign the responsibility probably lies with others, not least the sometimes dysfunctional sections of her own family who must have caused the Queen much heartache, irritation and embarrassment. It is unfortunate that monarchy does involve a fair number of hangers-on, as it always has, and it is to the Queen’s credit that she has been quietly ruthless in cutting a bloated institution down to size. There are fewer be-medalled mystery-men men in fancy uniforms on the balcony these days! And those who are there look more like a family that, to some extent at least, we can relate too.
The Queen’s family has, of course suffered great personal losses, real crises and terrible tragedies too and, as far as we can tell, she has responded with wisdom, courage and compassion – unlike the hysterical tabloid press whose concern is too often about selling newspapers and inciting the mob. The Queen has had problems in her family from the start – the toxic legacy of her uncle, Edward VIII – the controversial love-life of her sister, Princess Margaret, and other more recent examples, but she didn’t allow them to derail her reign. If anything they demonstrated the sheer humanity of the royal family, stripping away the bogus mystique and revealing just how like the rest of us they really are. And that is something for which the Queen must be given some credit too.
What did she enjoy above all else? The simple answer, I think, is horse-racing and anything else to do with horses. Her delight in all things equine was touchingly evident. This was an interest she shared with her ancestor, Charles II, but as to whether it is as pronounced in her successor, Charles III, I can’t say. But having the Queen as his mentor and example has surely had the effect of preparing him well for his own reign. I hope so and join with all people of goodwill in wishing him well. Our country, not to mention the wider world, is sorely in need of wise and principled leaders. The Queen was one. We must pray that the King will be another.