The Queen in a Soundproof Cage

Here’s a heretical question: why is it considered a good thing that we had no idea what Queen Elizabeth thought about anything? Well, that’s not precisely true. We know she loved horses and corgis. We know she was frustrated with her family now and then. We also know she thought it her duty, for the sake of the survival of the constitutional monarchy, not to express her opinions.

She did a good job, both at keeping mum and at not blowing up the monarchy. With the ratty ermine she inherited, stained by her kingdom’s brutal colonialism and worn thin by the feckless behavior of so many in her family, past and present, it was a remarkable achievement. Her people loved her. Like them, I too was sad to see her go. She had pluck. She did the job she set for herself about as well as anyone could. 

Tina Brown wrote about her recently, saying the Queen loved her job and proved once again, along with Elizabeth I and Victoria, that women are very good at it. So, what was her job, exactly? Brown called her the CEO of the institution of the monarchy. That’s a fair description, I think. She was the boss of the inner workings of royal public service and of castles, lands, titles and pageantry, the glittering trappings of the time when kings and queens actually ruled. Some think the English monarchy continues to survive because it is good for the economy. Disneyland needs a CEO, so no surprise the monarchy-as-tourist-attraction needs one too.

Fine, if that’s all we’re hoping for. But it seems to me that an opportunity is lost when a head of state, even a strictly ceremonial one, plants their head, crown and all, in the sand. There are politicians aplenty, so we don’t need more of those. Indeed, deference in politics is necessary for the monarchy to coexist side-by-side with a democratic government. But Elizabeth II was a queen. Her opinions could have mattered, could have been a positive influence, a steady guide through turbulent times. I know times were different then, but we knew the opinions of the other two great women monarchs Brown mentioned, Elizabeth I and Victoria. We even knew Bob Iger’s opinions when he ran Disney.

Elizabeth’s son Charles is king now. It will be interesting to see how he walks the line laid down by his mother. Since 1968 he has been a strong advocate for action on climate change. Will he now pretend that is no longer something he can talk about?

Perhaps the greatest lesson of the English monarchy is that to survive it had to adapt to changing times. So, too, we humans can't go on merrily plundering our planet, metaphorically chopping off the heads of those who displease us. Charles has our attention now, and he has the credibility of one who is the head of a once mighty institution that adapted to survive an existential threat. Whatever the evident merits of his mother's political abstinence, it is time now for Charles to lead by a new example, one that continues to embrace humility and perseverance, but which also nudges us to face the reality of the threat to our home.