The Perfect Grandma Who Knew When She Was Needed

 

I got to admit that I started tearing up when the news of the Queen’s death broke. I was up at night, following the news online and when Youtube channels and wire services broke the news, it felt like I had lost a nice grandmother.

Although I lived in the UK for my formative years, I am not British and I can not claim that she was “My Queen.” Furthermore, I grew up in the UK, which meant that I ended idolising anyone in history who drove out Western colonialist. My heroes are people like Gandhi, Nehru and Ho Chi Minh. Just look at the following graphic, which gives you an idea of how much the symbols of “valued British tradition” which the monarchy symbolises are built on the stealing from people like me – people of colour. Yet, hearing about her death has left me with a profound sadness:

 

 Trawled through several postings and I noticed that I am not the only one who is feeling strangely bereft by her passing. People I know, who are against the very concept of monarchy were sad and described her passing as the loss of an extraordinary person.

So, how why has the passing of a woman whose sole purpose in life was to be a symbol of many objectionable things be a cause of bereavement for so much people around the world?

Whilst I cannot speak for everyone, I believe that the Queen managed to touch the lives of so many around the world by being who she was and making her personality fit shape the institution that she represented.

Let us start with the fact that although the idea of “monarchy” or the principle the “some people are born to rule,” might seem like an “anachronism” in the modern world, the institution of monarchy, particularly in the constitutional ones, has certain strengths.

Constitutional monarchs are effectively expensive cutlery. They are well taken care of by the tax payer because the only thing that are expected to do is to look good on certain occasions. Constitutional monarchs attend events, meet the people and read the speeches that the Prime Minister bowing before them tells them. Governments policy is issued in their name but everyone knows that is actually the elected Prime Minister enacting the policy. You could say that Megan Markle saw marrying into the Royal Family as being part of a never-ending film production where you just read the lines you are given.

While constitutional monarchs have no “real” power to do things (if anything, they are treated as public instruments to be used by governments) it does not necessarily make them powerless and the more successful constitutional monarchs have understood that the less power they are seen to have, the more power they have. Trying to take political power is a death trap for a constitutional monarch.

Successful constitutional monarchs are the ones who appear to defend the democratic process. Thailand’s late King Bhumibol Adulyadej was revered because of it. In 1992, the military government sent in the tanks to crush protestors. The next day, head of that military government was seen on his knees being told off by the King and he promptly resigned, leading the path towards democracy. In 2006, the King famously dressed down Thai judges for “allowing an election with only one political party – that is not democratic,” while Singapore’s “elected” politicians were justifying why Singapore needed only one political party.

By contrast, the former King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah of Nepal took back absolute power in 2006. Two years later, the Nepalese monarchy was abolished.

Elizabeth II has been aware of this role and played it masterfully in her 70-years on the throne. She never gave an interview and never allowed anyone to know what she thought of or spoke with any of her 15 Prime Ministers. Former Prime Minister, Terresa May in her tribute to the late Queen said that she looked forward to the weekly meetings because she knew it was the only meeting that would never be leaked to the media.

By not saying anything, nobody could accuse of taking positions nor could anyone accuse of getting dirty with the grubby business of getting things done.  

On the other hand, she also had a knack of appearing when she was needed. One of the most prominent moments came in 2017 at the Grenfell Tower fire. The Queen came to meet the victims. The Prime Minister, Terresa May, hid from the victims. The optics were obvious. Another former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson provided the example of the Queen driving her own land rover in the country, whilst his follow politicians stuck to their convoys. Again, the optics are obvious.

The late Queen was like the ideal grandmother, who doesn’t do anything particular to affect your life except to show up when you need someone to be there. The longevity of her reign also made her a reassuring figure. Prime Ministers came and went but Queen was always there (she had seen 15 Prime Ministers, and her last three came in the last six years).

 

 A Constant in our live through the years.

A Queen, who is not allowed to do much except appear where she is told to appear has proven exceedingly useful in another way. She has been a unifying symbol to the nation regardless of political beliefs.

Upon her death, the House of Commons started agreeing. Union leaders of the rail unions called of their strikes in respect of the Queen. The passing of the woman has brought unity to a nation that had been becoming acrimonious and divided by Brexit.

The contrast across the Atlantic could not be starker. US President, Joe Biden has made wonderful speeches about “United States” rather than Red of Blue States. However, the nation remains helplessly divided. Unlike the monarch, the US President is responsible for the results of government. When things go wrong, half the nation howls about his screw ups, which only acerbates divisions.

The world has lost a woman who knew her place in it. She knew how to play the cards she was given and the world will miss her steady presence.