Throughout her 70-year reign, Queen Elizabeth was a cultural staple, a fashion icon and an example for women in leadership positions across the globe. With her being the longest-reigning British monarch in history, her influence reached all corners of the world. While browsing tributes of her, there’s one picture that can be found over and over. It’s a portrait of a young Queen Elizabeth shortly after her coronation in 1952. On top of her head sits a stunning crown. The picture is beautiful and regal — fitting for a queen. But the gorgeous crown sitting on top of the Queen’s hair holds a stolen jewel.
In 1905, while South Africa was still a part of the British Empire, the largest diamond in the world, known as “The Great Star of Africa,” was stolen at the direction of the British monarchy. This jewel, along with several smaller ones stolen from other nations, sits atop the Queen’s crown. Their beauty serves as a distraction from the ugly history of how they were retrieved. A history rife with colonialism, oppression and injustices perpetrated against countries across the world at the hands of the British Empire, a history that Queen Elizabeth did not rectify during her record-long reign.
This lack of action has left former British colonies reveling in the Queen’s death while the rest of the world mourns. While British people were lining the streets in black, waiting in three-mile lines to see the Queen’s coffin and weeping for their monarch, people in Ireland were chugging beer and chanting “F*** Lizzy” from the rooftops. A stark contrast given the two countries are just a short hour-long flight from each other. For those who always looked up to the Queen as a role model and a symbol of leadership, it may be confusing as to why anyone would be happy that she died. But for people living in countries recovering from the effects of British rule, it is anything but surprising.
For many, worshiping the Queen and the royal family as a whole is very personal to them — it ties into their culture and identity. Children grow up singing “God Save the Queen” like Americans sing the national anthem. Everyone knows where they were during Princess Diana’s death or William and Kate’s wedding, and everyone has their own stories to tell. Supporting the royal family is an integral part of the British experience. For them, it’s easier to idolize royalty instead of recognizing the harm they’ve done, as the monarchy’s actions don’t affect their core identities. That can’t be said for nations like India, Pakistan, Australia and Ireland.
Many of the TikToks that displayed the Irish celebrations had their comment sections flooded with allegations of insensitivity. And yes, cheering and toasting to someone dying is usually something that everyone would consider to be insensitive. But Ireland, Britain’s first colony, has long had a complicated history with the monarchy. Before gaining independence, Ireland endured over 800 years of military and political intervention at the hands of Britain. After gaining independence, the Queen remained head of state of parts of Northern Ireland, leading to tension between the parts of the country under British rule and the parts that were not. This culminated in The Troubles, a period in which nearly 4,000 people lost their lives. While she aided in repairing the relations between Ireland and Britain following this tragic period, it’s hard to ignore that this could have all been avoided if the British didn’t colonize Ireland in the first place.
During the Queen’s reign, 56 other nations gained independence from Britain. It was not by the Queen’s hand, but rather, in spite of it. While Britain’s colonialism began long before Queen Elizabeth ever graced the throne, the damage it’s done to countries still persists even today. Countries that were previously colonized suffer from economic instability, cultural degradation, and persisting human rights violations as a direct result of British occupation. And though the Queen might not have directly caused these issues, as a world leader, many felt that she had a duty to help repair the damage her family has caused throughout history. She didn’t do that.
At no point during her reign did the Queen offer reparations or any type of aid to the countries that left the British Empire. While she signed letters of apologies to nations like New Zealand and Barbados and visited former colonies, including Ireland, in an attempt to build positive relations with the nations, her actions often fell flat and came off as performative. Critics of the royal family feel that with the royals accumulating so much of their wealth from the direct exploitation of these nations, there is a duty to give some of it back.
But despite all this, to most of the world (or at least countries who haven’t faced Britain’s oppression), the queen was an icon. Is an icon. She took over the throne during her mid-20s while the United Kingdom was still reeling from the aftermath of World War II. She set a record for the longest reign of a British monarch ever. She was the Queen of England during a time when women were expected to stay home and raise children. At a glance, she looks like a champion for women’s rights, leadership, and empowerment. And in many ways, she was. But despite being a powerful woman, Queen Elizabeth continued the rule of oppression, white supremacy, and misogyny just like all royals have throughout history.
To this very day, in the year 2022, the title of “King” still outranks the title of “Queen.” If you have ever wondered why Prince Philip was a prince and not a king, that’s why. Similarly, women have to adhere to strict dress codes that ban immodest dress or flashy colors or patterns. Colored nail polish is strictly forbidden. On top of this, strict rules are in place for etiquette, with the royal women instructed to cross their legs in a “ladylike” way and curtsy in the presence of higher-ranking royals (who are quite literally their own family members). While the Queen loosened rules regarding marriage and divorce during her reign (her sister and three of her children all got divorced — which was previously a huge no-no for the royals), these outdated practices remained a staple of the royal brand. She could’ve changed them but chose not to. Instead of challenging norms of femininity, she decided not to test society’s idea of what a “queen” should be. She stuck with what was safe and never dared to be a radical queen, both in her policy decisions as well as her everyday fashion choices. Think about it like this: she was the leader of the largest empire in the entire world, but she wouldn’t dare to wear bold nail polish.
While much of the world chalk these practices up to tradition, recently, more people have begun to realize that the Royal Family is truly as outdated and out-of-touch as they portray themselves. Meghan Markle’s allegations of racism stunned Americans and outraged masses of Brits after her Oprah interview last spring. While many were stunned that members of the royal family would dare to ask the couple about their son’s skin color, those who have been directly impacted by British colonialism were not the least bit shocked. Is the royal family, racist? For residents of countries who gained freedom from the commonwealth, that was like asking if the sky is blue. But for those who are less familiar, it’s hard to reconcile the shiny, polished exterior with the royals’ dark, oppressive history. And it’s hard to reconcile that it might not even be history, but actually continuing on in the present.
As stated previously, the royal women have often been looked up to as style icons and fashion inspirations. But between Queen Elizabeth’s stolen jewels and misogynistic dress standards, there are a lot of problematic elements behind what they wear. A lesser-known, but one of the more egregious examples of this occurred in 2017 when Princess Michael of Kent wore a racist brooch. The Queen’s first cousin wore a piece of blackmoor jewelry, which fetishizes images of slavery. To add insult to injury, this racist accessory was worn to a lunch with Meghan Markle — the first Black member of the Royal Family. Yet, people were still surprised four years later when Meghan started detailing her experiences of racism while being a working member of the family. Not only were they surprised, but British people in particular became defensive. It was almost like the decades of scandals surrounding the family had been swept away. As if Princess Diana, a blonde, white, British woman had not vocalized similar complaints just two decades prior. Markle was villainized by the media and painted to be the one causing the problem. British tabloids accused her of bullying her staff and even making Kate Middleton cry — despite no evidence supporting these claims. No royal other than her husband defended her. The Queen and other royals stood by as racist, misogynistic abuse was thrown at her by the media.
While Prince Harry confirmed that neither the Queen nor Prince Philip made the racist remarks about Archie’s skin color, the Queen never responded to the allegations or made any type of commentary suggesting that the behavior was wrong. She had a chance to comment on racism and did not take it. Imagine how powerful that would have been.
If one theme is apparent, it’s that every scandal with the royals easily disappears as quickly as it appears. Why are the Brits, and others too, so loyal to them despite countless controversies surrounding them? Whether it ranges from racism to historical injustices to infidelity to even involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, nothing seems to remain in the public consciousness for long. One explanation for this can be found in groupthink. I mean, imagine being a Brit and not supporting the royal family? One can imagine that it would easily put you at odds with family, friends and other peers who were raised to have the utmost respect for the monarchy. On the flip side, the same goes for countries like Ireland that have long had a contentious relationship with the royal family. How do you revere the Queen in a country that quite literally is toasting to her death? If one thing is apparent throughout various nations, it’s that responses to the royal family are strong. Positive or negative, it seems that everyone has a charged opinion.
It can be hard to reconcile the overwhelming love and hatred that coexists for Queen Elizabeth at the same time. During a period where so much changed for Britain, and the rest of the nations in the Commonwealth, Queen Elizabeth was a stagnant staple of grace, femininity, and poise. Prior to her death, she had met 12 Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and oversaw Britain through the aftermath of World War II, the Welfare State, The Troubles, and numerous other significant historical events. She led Brits through this time and spoke to the nation freely and openly about current events, including injustices being perpetrated against people across the world.
That’s why people love her. But it’s also why people hate her. At the same time she was helping the United Kingdom recover from World War II, Nigeria was embroiled in its own civil war, which was fueled by the British impeding the Republic of Biafra’s secession efforts. After war was unjustly waged on her own nation, Queen Elizabeth abetted the same thing happening to another. It’s difficult to stomach both of those realities at the same time.
Additionally, when we discuss colonialism, many of the same themes come up: economic harm, cultural degradation, violence, environmental impact … the list goes on. But while countries around the world fight against these long-lasting issues, the royals continue to be lauded by the press for their charity work and philanthropic efforts. According to the Royal Family’s website, Queen Elizabeth was a patron of over 500 charities during her lifetime, many of them dedicated to addressing social injustices, poverty, hunger, homelessness and even a few supporting educational programs for marginalized groups. While I’m sure her volunteer work and financial support helped many (mostly white) people throughout her lifetime, the hypocrisy of it all is hard to ignore. The same issues she tried to solve within her own country and other commonwealth countries she has perpetuated in other places. For supporters of the Queen, it can be hard to see anything other than an adorable old lady giving back to the community and changing lives. Which in all fairness, she did. But for those dealing with those issues in their own lives at the hand of the monarchy, and seeing no aid from them, it makes Queen Elizabeth look like a complete sham.
In totality, it’s understandable why people can look up to the queen. At a glance, she was a lot to aspire to. But the reality is, the leadership style she was applauded for was a leadership style of inaction. A leadership style of brushing things under the rug and ignoring difficult conversations regarding oppression and injustice. It’s easier to push things away and claim them to be long-forgotten history than face the fact that the horrors we read about in our history textbooks continue today. Even worse is that history books in the United Kingdom do not mention these events — most students in British schools have actually never heard of the Revolutionary War. With so much understanding of history needed to guide these difficult discussions, it’s no wonder why many have been brainwashed into supporting the royals. With that being said, for those who are aware of the monarchy’s actions, while our natural instinct is to mourn a dead person, it’s hard to celebrate the queen’s life when she was never held accountable for her actions.
In 1997, during her last visit to India, Queen Elizabeth said “history cannot be rewritten” in reference to the 1919 massacre of Indians by British troops. She was right, history cannot change and no royal, no matter how powerful, can go back in time and un-colonize nations. But what they can do is aid countries in repairing themselves to the best of their ability.
However, none of that can be done unless the monarchy acknowledges the full extent of the harm they have perpetrated against other nations. That, they have yet to do. With the Queen’s death bringing about these conversations and her being succeeded by a much less popular king, the history of the monarchy is facing an unprecedented level of uncertainty. With the general consciousness of the royals’ injustices slowly increasing, many have surpassed the need for the monarchy. In fact, there are currently calls to completely abolish the monarchy, with many of those calls coming from Brits themselves. While the Queen never entertained such a thing, maybe one day there will be a ruler who realizes this may be the best thing after all, even if it upsets loyalists to the monarchy and fans of the Queen.