The Jubilee and the Legacy of the Empire

[Túrin Turambar]

It’s the Queen’s Birthday public holiday today, and I went out to take advantage of the sales to buy some things I needed for the apartment I’m in the process of making habitable. Aside from the regular sales, a few shops were advertising ‘Jubilee Sales’, the only sign I’ve seen so far around here away from the TV and the internet that this year’s holiday is different from the usual ones.

For the first time since 1897, and only the second time in history, Her Majesty’s realms and dominions are celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of a sovereign’s ascension to the throne. The Queen was clear at the start of the year that she didn’t want people to be compelled to celebrate, nor did she want the British taxpayer to have to foot the bill, but in the end she was, by all accounts, touched by the way that people in London took to the streets to celebrate. People here seem to have mostly stayed indoors and remained quiet, but then the Queen’s Birthday public holiday was designed to fall at the start of the summer rather than the start of the winter.

Recent polls suggest that the popularity of the monarchy here has reached twenty-five-year highs. I can see some of the attraction – it is nice to feel a moment of kinship with the British, Canadians and others with whom we share that bond of kinship through the Crown and Commonwealth, even though they are on the other side of the world from us.

I am an unashamed fan of the complete cultural package handed down from the British Empire – from parliamentary democracy, common law and the scientific discoveries of the likes of Newton and Darwin to cricket, rugby, afternoon tea, English literature and fish and chips. I suspect that, when celebrating the Jubilee, that is a lot of what people are celebrating. The Queen’s longevity is undoubtedly a cause of happiness to many, but the legacy of the Empire is what brings about for us far more real and tangible benefits even today.

In 1897, 46,000 troops from all corners of the Empire marched down Pall Mall, led by Lord Roberts on the charger he rode at the head of his victorious army into Kabul. In 2012, we have a concert of comedians and pop musicians. Some people read social progress into that comparison, others imperial and civilizational decline. As someone with a sense of history I have been mulling on the significance of the Diamond Jubilee for a few weeks, but it was probably this article by Mark Steyn in the conservative British magazine The Spectator which has probably come closest to the type of analysis that I’ve been leaning towards.

The Empire could never have lasted forever, but its impact remains. What significance the monarchy is to that is, I think, an open question. It has always struck me as an inhumane institution for those forced to participate in it, but it seems to provide symbolic value that nothing else can match. With that in mind I need to go get some cleaning things and take my vacuum cleaner over to the apartment.

[Impenitent]

I admire Queen Elizabeth for her dedication to duty and the hard yakka and sacrifice that goes with it. She has always behaved decorously, without taking advantage of her position.

I am not, however, a monarchist. I find the idea of that kind of inherited, privileged political role abhorrent. That does not negate my opinion of the queen as an individual who has done a difficult and demanding life-long job honorably and well.

I think the current popularity of the monarchy has a lot to do with her personal approval rating. While die-hard monarchists support the institution regardless of the individual doing the job, I suspect most Australians won't feel as supportive of the next monarch.

[axordil]

For all his flaws, I feel sorry for Charles. Waiting for your mom to die so you can get a promotion has got to be an unhealthy position, psychologically. Assuming he wants it at this point.

How many people would be happier--and alive--if they'd just let him marry Camilla to begin with, back in the 70s when they met?

[vison]

It wasn't that "they didn't let him", or so I've read. Apparently he liked her and everything but he was quite the fella with the gals, and he had plenty of time and she got tired of waiting. I have also read that Charles thought it was his personality and charm that attracted so many women. It might have been a better marriage, Camilla is nothing like Diana, but anyone who thinks Charles would have been faithful forever is a person who reads too many romance novels.

He'll be king eventually, of course. And everyone finally seems to have a soft spot for the poor dork. Imagine his life! All that luxury and entitlement never saved him from one embarassing moment.

As for the monarchy? I was brought up when Canada was a British Country and by george the monarchy was a given. No one questioned it. But Canada is not a British Country any more and the fondness demonstrated for Elizabeth II is not going to move automatically to Charles, at least not at the same intensity. Not because we don't love Charles! But the queen has been around for almost everyone's whole life.

I think the British Empire left many good things to the world. But . . . did the good outweigh the bad? I can't say.