Reigning figure of our time

In June 1953, during the second year of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign, the Commonwealth was riding high on a wave of imperial optimism.

Queen Elizabeth I (1588) by an unknown artist.

In June 1953, during the second year of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign, the Commonwealth was riding high on a wave of imperial optimism. Just hours before the Queen’s coronation – as the various heads of state and dignitaries gathered at Westminster Abbey to celebrate the formal opening of the new Elizabethan age – news of Edmund Hillary’s conquest of Mount Everest had already travelled the world.

The timing was propitious; the two historic events creating a groundswell of imperial sentiment across the far corners of the former empire. And, for a brief moment, the pallor of post-war Britain lifted on the day of the 27-year-old monarch’s coronation.

It was an occasion of great pomp and circumstance: the gothic abbey refulgent in deep purples, crimsons and golds; its diverse cast of guests draped in glittering regalia, national dress and handsome uniform; the scholars of Westminster declaiming the new peroration, Vivat Regina Elizabetha, from the choir stalls.

But in its arcane traditions and symbolism, the coronation was harking back to an older imperial history, to an age when Britain’s monarchs could look upon a map of the world with a quarter of its landmass coloured in imperial pink. At the centre of the abbey’s historic Cosmati pavement, where 38 kings and queens have been crowned since Henry III, Elizabeth II’s place within the pantheon of monarchs moves into vivid focus.

In Britain, the practice of comparing monarchs has long preoccupied historians and constitutional specialists, with different epochs, personalities and houses pitted against each other in a bid to untangle the power and influence of the crown through the ages. For the Tudors, the six wives of Henry VIII continue to draw comparison, while Elizabeth I and Mary Stuart are frequently set against each other because of their bitter rivalry.

But how does Queen Elizabeth II’s reign compare to her royal predecessors?

While the first Queen Elizabeth gave her name to an age, as did Victoria three centuries on, in an even more powerful and expansive empire, that is not the legacy of Elizabeth II, who at her death stands second only to France’s King Louis XIV as Europe’s longest serving monarch.

Royal historian and biographer Hugo Vickers said while it was still too early to judge the Queen’s legacy against her predecessors, no other monarch had been forced to preside over such a period of radical change, which featured the decline of the empire, the opening of the Commonwealth and the emergence of a more multicultural and secular society.

“Looking back on her reign, the Queen certainly didn’t preside over historic wars against other powers or great wars of conquest, such as Edward III, Henry V or Victoria, but she was a great stabilising force and a superb constitutional monarch.

“Her commitment to the Commonwealth and the energy she put into it meant that she almost single-handedly kept it together as a geopolitical organisation and she’s done so very deliberately in order to give the British monarchy a global platform. This stands as perhaps her greatest achievement.”

Unlike her five predecessors, beginning with her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria and ending with her beloved father, George VI, Elizabeth was not an empress. She was a monarch presiding over an empire that was already in inexorable decline. The appellation Indiae Imperatrix, established at the apogee of the Victorian age, had largely vanished from Britain’s coinage in the years before Elizabeth acceded the throne. Instead her reign saw the birth of republics and emergence of independence movements. In 1957, Ghana became the first African colony to gain independence. Three decades later, most of Britain’s African and Caribbean colonies had achieved independence. And, in 1997, the handover of Hong Kong to Chinese rule marked the final chapter of Britain’s overseas empire.

“I think very early on she grasped that history could not be changed, that the empire was a thing of the past and that in order to maintain a new Commonwealth of nations she would need to be conciliatory and sensitive to local issues,” Vickers said.

“In a way it speaks to the lack of real power she had as a monarch, but it does distinguish her from her predecessors like George III, Victoria, or even those close to her, George V and George VI, who could all be extraordinarily interventionist in their nature. I doubt they could have handled the 20th and 21st centuries as she did.”

Since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the turn from absolutist to constitutional monarchy, the powers of England’s kings and queens have been drastically curtailed, even through the most prosperous centuries of empire-building. In this respect, the sovereign no longer ruled but reigned, with real political power resting in parliament and the government, not the crown.

Unlike William the Conqueror, Edward I or Henry VIII, who wielded absolute power over their kingdoms, Elizabeth II’s powers remained broadly symbolic and strictly delineated by historical precedent. During her reign, the ritual powers of the monarch were limited to Walter Bagehot’s famous triptych: “To be consulted, to advise and to warn”.

But according to royal historian Cindy McCreery the Queen still wielded significant influence beyond Britain in a way few other monarchs enjoyed before her reign.

“It’s clear Elizabeth II had much less constitutional power than monarchs such as George III, as well as others after the Glorious Revolution, but she did have an extraordinary soft power domestically and in foreign diplomacy, which was truly global in its reach.”

Elizabeth II was the longest serving female monarch in history, and her reign included 15 British prime ministers, from Winston Churchill to Liz Truss, 16 Australian prime ministers, seven archbishops of Canterbury and seven popes. “The way in which she became a trusted and admired figurehead for dozens of countries, even outside the Commonwealth, was something her predecessors would’ve undoubtedly envied,” McCreery said.

“She became the epitome of what soft power really was in the 20th and 21st century.”

But for historian Edward Owens the Queen also grew adept at using her privileges to shield members of the royal family from public controversy and embarrassment.

“Of course, Elizabeth II had a lot of powers vested in her which she never used, but stopped other people from using them,” Owens said.

“Theoretically, she could have done a lot of things, but one area in which she clearly did use her power questionably was in protecting some of her dysfunctional family members against legal or press attention.

“Although she has died a very popular sovereign and arguably one of the great constitutional monarchs of all time, we should avoid hagiography. I think, for example, the way the Queen protected Prince Andrew was a major misuse of her powers which could potentially blemish her legacy.”

In her education, the Queen was also limited compared with her predecessors, some of whom received instruction in subjects ranging from mathematics, literature and music. The Queen, however, was given only private tuition in constitutional history from Henry Marten, vice-provost of Eton College, and learned French from a series of governesses. In 2015, when she surpassed Victoria’s record to become Britain’s longest reigning monarch, historian David Starkey said the Queen had done little to distinguish herself from past monarchs and had “said nothing that anybody will remember”, dubbing her the “Elizabeth the Silent”.

He took particular aim at the Queen’s lack of education compared with previous kings and queens such as Elizabeth I, George III and Victoria.

“It is true the Queen had a very limited education and she will not be remembered as one of the great intellectual or cultured monarchs,” Owens said. “But, despite her early inexperience, when she came to the throne she gained a lot throughout her long reign, the people she met and the countless foreign visits she conducted.”

Less than two decades after the coronation, the Queen’s image became increasingly entwined in a new era of celebrity culture, aided and abetted by Britain’s flourishing tabloid press.

By the 1970s and ’80s her face was widely caricatured and paraded in comic effigy by the creators of the television series Spitting Image and turned into a silk-screen by Andy Warhol, who later declared he wished to be as famous as Elizabeth II.

Popular music and global celebrities also began to attend and perform at royal events and ceremonies, in a clear departure from tradition.

The modern image of the Queen as global celebrity, according to McCreery, not only separated her from past monarchs but bolstered her legacy as one of the world’s most beloved sovereigns.

“The development of monarch as celebrity figure predates Elizabeth II’s reign and goes back to at least Queen Victoria, when she tried to shape her public image through the sale of authorised photographs and postcards of the royal family,” McCreery said.

“For Queen Elizabeth this really starts to begin with the famous 1969 documentary that was eventually withdrawn from public view.

“Elizabeth’s celebrity truly did have a global impact, which Victoria’s could never achieve because she did not visit her empire and obviously didn’t have television.

“Through her reign the Queen certainly became the most famous monarch and arguably the most famous person in the world. Partly because of this she is the most admired and beloved of Britain’s monarchs.

“I think her remarkably long reign will mean she is judged as one of the greatest figures in the pantheon of monarchy.”

The Queen was a model of discretion, a rock in an age of shifting sands, and her death will reignite debate about the future of monarchy and the appeal of the royal family. With the crisis of the abdication in 1936 and the death of Princess Diana more than 60 years later, Hugo Vickers said the Queen had succeeded in reviving sentiment in monarchy in a way no other sovereign was required to do before.

“The business of comparing monarchs is always going to be thwart, but I do think Queen Elizabeth II stands as one of the great sovereigns in history because she was able to adapt,” he said.

“Elizabeth I was a great queen, but it is hard to imagine her personality being as well suited and adaptable to such an unpredictable age as Elizabeth II’s. Victoria was a great monarch who also lived through a period of great change. But she was very interventionist in politics and withdrew from public life for years after the death of her husband, Prince Albert. In this respect, you could argue she did not properly commit to her duties for the totality of her reign.

“The Queen, on the other hand, was unfailingly committed to her duties and will remain a significant figure in the popular consciousness because of the way she carried herself as monarch. She ranks just as high as any of the great kings and queens.”