By Antonio Salgado Borge

LThe overwhelming reaction by the British people to Elizabeth II’s death has been harshly criticized in some Mexican circles.

Groups of journalists or politicians identified with the left stand out. Two explanations for this impressive display of affection have been repeated in this circle.

The first is that, despite their economic and social development, the British suffer from a kind of ‘false consciousness’ or collective blindness that leads them to worship their oppressors. In this reading, there is no other way to understand the reverence for characters who are seen as essentially parasites of a treasury dedicated to the pomp, celebration, and social life that characterizes some kings.

The second is that the almost unanimous display of affection is evidence that the majority of the population in England continues to crave the bloody days of the British monarchy; a period of conquest, domination and exploitation of others, is said to be manifested in the figure of Elizabeth II.

There is no denying that both explanations contain a grain of truth.

It is an indisputable fact that Isabel II, like her predecessors and successors, lived surrounded by luxury that extended to her family.

It is also true that the fall of the empire was traumatic at the time and that for decades there were a few outmoded people, especially radical conservatives, who dreamed of restoration that was morally undesirable and factually impossible.

However, both explanations, which are simplistic and uninformed, end up being shot very far from the mark.

To understand the immense affection for Isabel II, it is necessary to consider that while kings elsewhere, such as Spain, sank into irrelevance or ugliness, this queen managed to become the benchmark.

It seems to me that three main factors help explain this phenomenon.

The first is the queen’s role in Britain’s current national identity constitution.

Many say that for anyone under the age of 75, it is impossible to remember their life without Elizabeth II’s presence. The people alive today all lived under what is known as the second Elizabethan period.

In other words, because practically the entire population of England Elizabeth II was not a ‘queen’ but a ‘queen’.

The image of the queen, the seal of this era, is palpable in many areas of British life. Elizabeth II was present to the people through her constant official messages on radio and television. For decades, his presence has also been physical, through tours and charity events. In Great Britain, it is widely said that a significant percentage of the population has ever seen their queen in person.

Elizabeth II emerged in the political arena through her weekly working meetings with the prime minister in office. To this we must add that his image is stamped on countless banknotes, coins and public spaces.

To most Britons, their dead king was not a rich woman confined to the palace. Her queen was an integral part of being British as it is today understood by almost the entire population of the countries that make up England.

A second factor that helps explain the almost unanimous respect for the late king has to do with the way he handled his responsibilities.

Despite her constant presence for 70 years, very few ideas or aspects of Elizabeth II’s personality are known to the public. The fact that this is the case is largely due to the fact that this king made, early on in his reign, when he was only 25 years old, a radical decision which he defended throughout his existence: the role he had to play in life was more important than his development as an individual. So, upon ascending the throne, that person said goodbye to Isabel and dedicated his life to becoming King Isabel II.

In a sense, this decision contrasts with the idea, so popular in our time, that the personality of the leader is more important than the function that corresponds to the position he occupies.

It also breaks sharply with the excessive individualistic emphasis of contemporary capitalist society. Very few people today think that the contribution they make to society with their work is more important than their individuality. That is, very few people consider themselves first as constituents of society and then as individuals.

For the purposes of this analysis, what is important is the fact that the almost unanimous reverence between the right-wing and left-wing press in England for Elizabeth II cannot be understood without taking into account that this monarch demonstrated for her total 70 years. dedication to their role, and their willingness to put aside their individuality, opinions, or preferences in order to fully comply with it.

The third and final factor to consider, closely related to the previous one, is that Isabel II attempted and succeeded in being an element of unity over political or partisan divisions.

This king dealt with 16 prime ministers from various parties: from Winston Churchill to Elizabeth Truss. While not technically penalized, he never expressed his preference for either or tried, at least, to balance it using his enormous political capital.

Of course, in a sense, this neutrality can be infuriating. A vivid example of this is Brexit. But in another sense, Elizabeth II understood that meddling in political affairs would override, and therefore undermine, her role as constitutional monarch and the importance of this to the British people.

The truth is that, by placing the Crown outside of political strife, Elizabeth II managed to maintain the respect and approval, which is essential to her legitimacy, by all political parties in Britain.

Easy to say, but with Britain on the brink of collapse, even those who fought for independence, like the admirable Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon, have expressed selfless respect for the queen.

Yet several speeches have captured this as well as Keir Stammer, leader of Britain’s largest left-wing party:

“When things go round, our nation needs a fixed point. When times get complicated, it takes comfort. And when direction is hard to find, it requires leadership. The loss of our queen has robbed this country of its surest point, of its greatest consolation, precisely at your time of greatest need. But our queen’s commitment to us, her public service life, is underpinned by an important understanding: that the country she represents is greater than any individual or institution.”

To understand, as a Mexican, respect is almost unanimous in Britain for Elizabeth II, it is not necessary to maintain the monarchy as an institution. Nor is it necessary to be a reactionary representative of conservatism two centuries ago, as seems to be the case among some right-wing Mexican legislators or commentators.

Personally, I firmly believe, like many others in our country, that the idea that a particular individual or their lineage has been chosen by some god to rule a nation is anachronistic and insulting.

Moreover, there is no need to even pretend that the British monarchy or Elizabeth II herself was innocent. For example, some members of the country’s royal family, started by Prince Andrew, have been characterized by their abuse. just this week, New York Time documented that Carlos III, the new king and a bright and enlightened man, had made a fortune with a business that had benefited from tax breaks and had no problem accepting donations from non-displayable characters for his foundation.

The point of this article is to point out that those who think that the impressive displays of affection that Elizabeth II has received, which extends across Britain and the British political spectrum, are due to some kind of ‘false consciousness’ are wrong. or imperial longing.

Here I would argue that the impressive respect that the British had for their deceased king can only be understood by reference to the facts. And in fact, by taking her role very seriously and adapting it to contemporary society, Elizabeth II succeeded in becoming a standard bearer of national identity, the role of each individual in society and a unity that transcends ideological or partisan divisions. .

It is an open question whether those who succeeded him would be able to pave the way through the second Elizabethan period. And consequently, it is also uncertain how much longer the British constitutional monarchy can be extended.

*Phd. in Philosophy. Associate Lecturer at the University of St. Andrews
Facebook: Antonio Salgado Borge
Twitter: @asalgadoborge