On the slight chance that you are unaware, Elizabeth Windsor died this week… I says slight chance because for the past 2 days it would be possible to assume that nothing else had happened on the face of the planet.  People from all over the world and all walks of life have all taken the opportunity to publicly remember, honour and celebrate her life.  It is hard to gauge my personal reaction to this public show of affection, and I wonder how much of it is truly sincere – especially when we see remarks such as “I thought she’d live forever“, or the generalised platitudes of national leaders claiming that all of their citizens feel “an emptiness” at her death.

I am sure that her passing is likely to be a source of pain and upset to any and all whose life she touched, either directly or from afar.  I am not one of those people (despite being raised in the United Kingdom). We had never met, and she has had no influence of my life other than being a focal point of a political system which I abhor.  I therefore feel no desire or need to join in with the public lamentation of which there seems so much… can she really have touched so many people’s lives?

For those of us who are neither constitutional nor monarchy experts – the role of the British monarchy is basically symbolic… they decide nothing, they are responsible for nothing and other than a charitable function here and there they may occasionally open a bridge or something somewhere…  in addition to which, they have to remain neutral when it comes to political matters. One might (were one cynical) therefore, wonder whether or not Elizabeth possibly could have touched so many lives – given the little that she actually did… or whether or not there is another reason for all this sh…ow of affection.

The British parliament yesterday cancelled all parliamentary business so that 2 days could be set aside to allow MPs to ‘pay tribute’ to Elizabeth.  Are all 660 MPs going to stand up and say the same things about her?  Are her achievements so numerous and so large that we need 20 hours of speeches? Just how many bridges did the woman open?  In truth, it doesn’t actually matter what Elizabeth did or did not do, what matters here is tradition.  In the first parliamentary speech on this, the Prime Minster Liz Truss described Elizabeth as “one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known” and that “she was the rock on which modern Britain was built”.

Can Elizabeth really be described as one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known?  A woman in whom no political power was vested? A woman who was restrained from making her feelings known publicly about anything at all? How does such ‘leadership’ compare to figures such as Nelson Mandela, or Ghandi?

The reality seems to me to be that we say these things simply because it is expected, and the rest of us nod along in agreement (as the parliamentarians all did for the Prime Minister’s speech) for fear of being the one to be singled out. In doing so however, we maintain a facade of lies, exaggeration and expectation – we uphold a system which demands and values insincerity as a response and we deny ourselves the chance to openly debate and discuss the issues from a platform of impartiality.  How can the United Kingdom possibly begin to assess the validity of having a constitutional monarchy for as long as every single political and public figure continues to proclaim loudly that Elizabeth was a wonderful lady and that without her we wouldn’t be where we are today..?

We as a society should say and do things because they are sincere and believed, not because we expect that they will generate a certain reaction.  Individuals and society cannot judge anything honestly if we cannot even tell ourselves the truth of the situations.  In her speech, the Prime Minister said that “the United Kingdom is the great country it is today because of her” – really?  Did the UK join (and then leave) the European Union because of dear old ‘Liz?  Is Elizabeth responsible for the privatisation of Britain’s utilities and transport sectors?  Certainly she cannot have been responsible for the National Health Service as she only ascended to the throne 4 years after it was introduced…  What about all of the teachers who have educated the generations of children since 1952?  What about all of the doctors and nurses?  What about the miners and the bus drivers?  What about those that arrived from the Caribbean or the indian region to contribute and shape British culture?

For my part I may well be unfairly underestimating her contribution to society.  I honestly do believe that she may have brought comfort and support to many people around the world, and perhaps she deserves many of the accolades she received for having fulfilled her role is the manner in which she did.  In which case, let us be realistic about what she did and did not do. Let’s not paint this woman – who lest we forget was born into her role and did not gain it through any other form of merit – as a paragon of all that is good in the world.  In fulfilling her role, Elizabeth tacitly agreed with all that is wrong and abhorrent in a constitutional monarchy, and as a participant she was complicit in the abuses of power by the governments under her.  The presence of both her and a monarchy have supported an anachronistic and unfair class system in the United Kingdom.

We should reflect her entire influence and not just those bits that are easy to digest… tradition prevents this and it is this shackle that needs to be broken.