The Historical Paradox Of Queen’s Elizabeth’s Reign
The Snapping of A Thread That Connects Britain To Its Past
Queen Elizabeth’s historical role is something of a paradox.
Under her watch the British Establishment lost its moral and cultural authority. The Establishment was in effect displaced by a ruling elite whose outlook was defined by a sense of estrangement if not direct hostility to the tradition and values that underpinned the authority of the monarchy.
The unravelling of the moral authority of the Establishment was strikingly illustrated through the adulation enjoyed by Lady Diana Spencer. Diana’s courtiers consciously positioned her against the cultural authority of the Establishment. Her youthful energetic celebrity style was actively promoted as an antithesis to ‘the stuffy, regimented style of the other royals’.
Paradoxically, despite by the disintegration of the traditional British Establishment and erosion of the values into which it was socialised, the Queen retained her moral authority and if anything, her popularity grew with the passing of each decade.
Despite her refusal to play the celebrity game or modernise her behaviour and image, Elizabeth continued to successfully symbolise the British nation. At a time, when the British elite became alienated from the nation’s past and willingly detached itself from it, Elizabeth succeeded in embodying a sense of continuity. She must have felt isolated in the performance of this vital role. Her instincts and beliefs were clearly at odds with those promoted by the cultural institutions of Britain.
Elizabeth’s death represents the breaking of a thread that connects Britain to its past.
The new elites held back from targeting her, because they knew that Elizabeth was held in great esteem by the British people. The cultural elite’s animosity towards the stuffy old ways of the monarchy tended to be directed against Elizabeth’s husband’s Philip and the younger royals. When in December 2010, William, the now Prince of Wales announced his engagement to Kate many members of the cultural elites openly mocked the idea of a Royal Weddinghttps://www.spiked-online.com/2010/12/16/hating-willsnkate-the-new-conformism/.
That Elizabeth succeeded in giving meaning to a sense of historical continuity is a remarkable feat considering the gradual disappearance of the world she personified. It is important to note that throughout her reign, as a way of life Britishness was on the defensive. In recent times hostility to it has intensified.
There is more than a hint of triumphalism amongst opponents of Britishness, when they declare that this nation faces a crisis of identity. ‘There’s no cohesive British identity anymore, if there ever was’ declares a columnist in The Irish Times.
.
Back in 1941, George Orwell remarked that ‘England is perhaps the only great country where intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality’. Were he alive today, even he would be surprised by how deeply such sentiments have penetrated into sections of the British Establishment.
Unfortunately, critics of Britishness hold the upper hand because even those of the Establishment who claim to uphold British identity, struggle to provide a convincing argument. Since the turn of the 21st century, a succession of British governments has been preoccupied with the question of not only how to promote national values but how to define what they are.
Back in 2006, the then UK chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, announced plans for a British Day, to ‘focus on things that bring us together’. However, spelling out what binds British society together proved to be far too challenging a task, and the Labour government quietly dropped the idea in October 2008. The Labour government’s quiet retreat on this issue represented an acknowledgement that national traditions that might inspire the public cannot be invented in committee meetings or through consultations with ‘stakeholders’. If society itself is unsure of what it stands for, it’s not surprising that schools lack the ability to talk about the soul of Britain.
Confusion about what binds a community together assumed a caricatured form in 2008, when the Labour government’s plan to publish a national songbook for primary-school children was quietly dropped. The government had wanted to publish a collection of 30 songs that every 11-year-old should know, but the idea was rejected as too divisive. Gareth Malone, a leading figure in Sing Up, the organisation charged with realising the songbook project, said experts could not agree on which songs to include. He described the songbook debate as a ‘hot potato, culturally’, adding ‘you have to be realistic’ and you ‘can’t be too culturally imperialist about it’. In the end, officials chose to evade the controversy that publishing a common British songbook would have stirred up, and opted instead to establish a ‘song bank’ of 600 songs.
Unfortunately, a negative and even hostile representation of Britishness and this country’s past is widely promoted by its own media, institutions of education and popular culture. Such sentiments continually call into question the legitimacy of Britain itself. Britain’s history is depicted as a source of embarrassment and of shame. Whereas in the past, school children were taught about the ‘good old days’, today they only learn about the ‘bad old days’ of their society. Consequently, their education encourages them to become estranged from their community and from its cultural legacy.
The cultural crusade against Britishness is rarely challenged. Occasionally, the sense of frustration at the derision directed against a particular British custom, leads to a backlash. The outcry provoked by the BBC’s announcement that Rule Britannia will not be sung at the Proms is an example of such a reaction. However, a backlash by definition is rarely able to match the force to which it reacts. It is entirely reactive and defensive.
The campaign to undermine the moral status of Britain has been so remarkably successful because the field of battle on which this cultural conflict is fought out has been abandoned by its elites. A significant section of the British establishment feels detached from its own culture and past. The principal cultural institutions that create and communicate ideas – the universities, the media, the church – have lost the capacity to generate loyalty and pride towards the society that they meant to serve. In many instances they feel alienated from the historical legacy of Britain to the point that they unwittingly – sometimes wittingly – communicate the proposition that the attempt to defend Britain is itself, indefensible.
Queen Elizabeth stood out as an isolated voice, who through her words and behaviour never let people forget that on balance Britain’s historical achievements should be seen as a source of pride. In a world where Britishness became the constant target of anti-patriotic ideology, she succeeded in making people feel good about feeling British.
‘Is there anyone who can assume Elizabeth’s role as the personification of continuity with the past’ is the question posed by History.
Listen to my discussion with Brendan O’Neill about the historical meaning of Elizabeth’s Death: A Countercultural Queen .
.