Written By Aarav Anand (Grade 8)
Queen Elizabeth II is one of the historic individuals who reshaped not only the British monarchy but the world as well, due to her 70-year reign. She had witnessed decolonization, political change, and social transformations. While her approach to such issues was sometimes based on tradition and stability, their choices helped the process that brought the monarchy into the modern world.
During Queen Elizabeth II’s accession to the throne in 1952, it was a time of dissolving the British Empire, and most countries were at that time wanting to acquire independence. She played a highly influential role in transforming the empire into a family of independent nations that shared a historical connection to Britain. Instead of holding on to all the powers, she let most of those countries enjoy a peaceful transition to independence. This helped Great Britain sustain amicable relations with the erstwhile colonies while opening up a new chapter of diplomacy and international cooperation.
She lived through over a dozen prime ministers, guided them quietly through moments of crisis, and saw them all – from the Cold War to economic strife and debates over Brexit. She was the very embodiment of stability. She was, indeed, politically neutral: standing well above the dust of politics and representing unity within the nation.
Another way in which the Queen impacted history was through having the royal family appear more accessible. For example, she allowed her coronation in 1953 to be televised, which was an enormous shift at the time. This allowed millions to feel closer to the monarchy and engendered a greater emotional relationship between the royals and the public. Over the years, she adapted royal traditions to maintain pace with time, yet always making sure to balance this with deep respect for tradition.
The Queen also brought in her influence through diplomacy by visiting over 100 countries and helped to ease bad international relationships. Visits by the Queen often played a big role in healing some of the past wounds, such as the visit to Ireland in 2011; this made her the first British monarch after the country gained its independence. That was the greatest and powerful reconciliation symbol for the two countries.
If I were Queen Elizabeth II, I would have discussed family private issues openly, especially when public scandals arise. For example, during the breakup of Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s marriage in the 1990s, the monarchy maintained a silence by simply saying “no comment.”. This was meant to protect the dignity and privacy of the family but presented them as not knowing anything about the public interest in the issue. If the Queen had assumed an open-minded attitude, if accompanied with frankness about public’s issues at an earlier stage and compassion for both Charles and Diana, it would have been easier on public criticisms made against the monarchy and the family.
I would also have harnessed their influence more proactively on the part of the monarchy to create social progress. Most of her reign was spent in avoiding controversial subjects from the Queen so as not to be seen as biased. The monarchy could, however, have been a much bigger advocate on controversial and sensitive issues of mental health, gender equality, or even environmental concerns. While the Queen did support many good causes, if she had been a bit bolder in speaking out, her position might have shown monarchy was more than frock-coat-and-coronet; it was an evolving social institution.
If the Queen had spoken out more forcefully on controversy and become a social activist, perhaps then she would have received respect and made the monarchy relevant sooner. For instance, by being more open about Charles and Diana may have helped the public see the royal family to be less human and understanding, thus possibly avoiding some of that criticism that harmed the image of the monarchy at the time. It may even have set an example for other royal families around the world to follow the same pattern in the way they handle personal matters publicly.
If the social causes had been pushed more aggressively, then the Queen and then the monarchy would have been able to herald the change rather than merely being symbols of tradition. This would have made the British royal family appear to be closer to the lives of ordinary people and the issues they deal with, thus strengthening their position in the modern world. These reforms, carried out at the time when relevance of a monarchy was being questioned by everyone around, might have further intensified public support for the monarchy and decreased demands for reforms or abolition of the royal family.
Ultimately, Queen Elizabeth II will go down in history as dedicated to duty and flexible in small but telling ways. However, if she had been less cryptic and much more forthcoming, and if she had definitely promoted social change, the monarchy could well have done greater good had it rebranded itself in a far more modem role that broke out of tradition and out of an envelope that signified rather loudly a voice for progress.
Featured Image Courtesy – Britannica
