The death of a king is a premeditated and protocoled event, with a solemn formality that has been incorporated into the ritual of dynastic succession. However, it is also a difficult event, in part for the simple reason of courtesy, to anticipate precisely at any given moment.

The death of Queen Elizabeth II at Balmoral left the country poised, but, nevertheless, shocked by the news. It is important that the busy political life and wounded civil society in Britain deal with it as calmly and calmly as possible, as this event will have political and constitutional repercussions for years to come.

Queen Elizabeth II spent so many years on the throne that, through no fault of her own, she made this process difficult. He reigned longer than any other monarch in British history, and by a sizeable margin. It is the only one that has ruled for more than 70 years; something that probably won’t happen any time soon. As of this Thursday, he is the only monarch most Britons know: You have to be at least 75 years old to remember George VI’s reign. This is a historic moment for England.

He pioneered a way of conducting monarchy that seems timeless, but is actually adaptable and distinctive. Her endurance and ability to keep her distance have left her with a model of monarchy that Charles III would not easily imitate, especially if, as it may have been, he failed to win the wide esteem enjoyed by Elizabeth II.

The signs of this Thursday are suddenly unpleasant. It is unusual for Buckingham Palace, which is usually very secretive and uncommunicative on such matters, to offer the kind of candid statements about the king’s health concerns that it has issued. It’s even more unusual for scattered and sometimes feuding members of the royal family to flock to the queen’s bed at Balmoral.

However, this is the moment the new king has been preparing for a long time, and it will be marked by change as well as continuity. However, it is a process of change in which many institutions of British society, and not just the palace, have a voice.

The evolution of the monarchy

Even monarchies developed, albeit slowly. It flourished under Elizabeth II, as it did under George VI. This was bound to develop further with Charles III, who was determined to reduce the number of active royals and who was also likely to cease to be head of state in many Commonwealth countries. However, beyond the palace walls, it seems that collective taboos emerge when discussing the future of British life without Queen Elizabeth.

A chilling but revealing example of this custom occurred in January. During the most tense moment of the controversy caused by the parties Boris Johnson convened during his confinement, opposition leader, Labor Keir Starmer, stood in the House of Commons and drew a contrast between the lax attention to rules to stop the pandemic at Boris Johnson’s Downing Street. and the careful and moving tribute to the rule by the Queen Dowager at the funeral of her husband, Prince Philip, in April 2021, during the pandemic.

It’s a contrast millions have felt, but one that drew a direct rebuke from Commons Chair Lindsay Hoyle, who told Starmer: “Normally we wouldn’t mention, and rightly so, the royal family. We are not involved in discussions about the royal family.”

This is childish behavior for a senior MP. Parliament may not be supposed to discuss the royal family, but everyone in this country does. Also, of course, the media, who are aware of those royalties – whether in the form of the exemplary Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the more controversial Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Andrew’s legacy of charm or the disgraced Diana of Wales – are selling. It is unbelievable that Parliament has useless rules about the constitutional monarchy system on which its own supremacy is based.

The idea that the British way of running a monarchy is the only possible model is nonsense. England is the only European monarchy that is also the head of an established church. Partly for that reason, the Englishman was alone in holding an elaborate coronation ceremony to mark the new reign. If Liz Truss, the British Prime Minister, was a prominent Swedish politician, she would visit the Speaker of Parliament this week to be appointed Prime Minister; he will not go to meet the queen. The king of Sweden also has no role in summoning or dissolving parliament, and does not give royal approval to the law.

Necessary discussion

These are some of the many terms and conditions of a constitutional monarchy that a mature state can reasonably discuss, especially at the end of a long reign like Queen Elizabeth II. The list will no doubt include many forms of royal prerogatives exercised by Britain’s prime minister, but which in the time of Boris Johnson helped turn into controversy.

Don’t underestimate the upheaval in British life that this change of dynasty will bring. For 70 years, Queen Elizabeth II has been a quiet yet highly effective unifying force in a country that is clearly divided.

His death ended that power; power that their heirs couldn’t take for granted that they could reproduce. In its own way, this succession will be one of the greatest tests modern Britain will face. Politics must participate in this process.

Martin Kettle is a columnist for The Guardian

Translation of Emma Reverter