The Tribune

“The alternative is to throw the Empire overboard and reduce England to a cold and unimportant little island where we should all have to work very hard and live mainly on herrings and potatoes.”

– George Orwell on the role of empire in Britain

BESET by economic woes including rising inflation, low growth and increasing labour unrest - and an unpopular Boris Johnson whom most voters would like to exit Number 10 posthaste - the recent Platinum Jubilee extravaganza in the United Kingdom, celebrating the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, was arguably the sort of gin and tonic that Britain temporarily needed.

There was a four-day holiday weekend, street parties, a grand concert, the Trooping the Colours, a thanksgiving service at St Paul’s Cathedral and other public pageantry that the former imperial power performs so brilliantly.

The nonagenarian Queen made her ritual Buckingham Palace balcony appearance to a cheering throng and nation as the Royal Air Force did a flyover. To many, it all felt so wonderful, brimming with the nostalgia of imperial glory. There are few nations that can put on such a dazzling show.

The British have mastered the performative art of how to display and reinforce power structures, including through a well-established honours system, replete with various orders and medals, including the Order of the British Empire and copious knighthoods.

Empire is at the heart of British history, culture and identity. This is especially so for older citizens, who see themselves as a part of a glorious past, much of which is embodied in the Monarchy, which played a starring and essential role in the brutal colonial and slave-owning history of Great Britain.

Despite Orwell’s hyperbole, Britain would be a shell of itself had it not indulged in centuries of imperial conquest and control.

EMPIRE

In Empireland: How Imperialism Has Shaped Modern Britain, Sathnam Sanhera, who is British with Indian heritage, explores how “the British empire ran for centuries and covered vast swathes of the world”.

He writes how this “is fundamental to understanding modern Britain: from the feeling that we can go it alone when it comes to everything from Brexit to global pandemics – and our particular form of racism.”

Human beings need and crave hierarchy. We delight in nationalism, often and especially when it metastasizes into chauvinism, racism and other forms of grandiosity and superiority.

The British proved exceptionally adept at these, justifying its murderous and plundering conquests in the name of Christianity and British exceptionalism, with refrains of “God, Queen and country” as it was subjecting mostly black and brown people to some of the vilest and most vicious subjugations in human history.

In an incisive guest essay for The New York Times entitled, “The Imperial Fictions Behind the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee”, Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard University, demythologises and deconstructs the conceits of Britain’s imperial past and the residual romanticism for such glory-filled centuries: “For well over a century, Britain’s claims to global greatness were rooted in its empire, thought to be unique among all others. Sprawling over a quarter of the world’s landmass, the British Empire was the largest in history.

“Celebrating Queen Elizabeth II’s 70 years on the throne, the platinum jubilee is pregnant with meaning about the nation’s imperial past and the monarchy’s overdetermined role in it.”

SWAN SONG

Despite the riot and revelry of Union Jack-festooned celebrations, the Jubilee year is a swan song for Elizabeth II, whose health challenges did not permit her appearance at most of the events. UK Guardian columnist Marina Hyde, observing her on the balcony of Buckingham Palace in a pale blue dress with white trimming, and walking cane in hand, likened her to a “fragile Wedgwood vase”.

Is her fragility a partial metaphor for the transition in the Monarchy? It remains sentimentally precious for the British. It will likely last, but without the majesty of the past, remaining mostly ornamental, useful for mostly diplomatic and ceremonial displays, projecting British soft power at home and abroad.

In her stead at public events has been her heir, Prince Charles, 73, who has represented the Queen at recent state events including jubilee celebrations, the State opening of Parliament and the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference (CHOGM) in Rwanda.

There is a transition in the British Monarchy in the person of the Monarch and the Monarchy’s role in Britain and the Commonwealth. Prince Charles reportedly wants a pared monarchy. While there remains deep affection for Elizabeth II, younger subjects in the country find less relevance in the institution.

A changing, younger, increasingly more liberal and more cosmopolitan Britain has been undergoing transformation for some time, accelerated by Britain’s declining global power, and movements such as Black Lives Matter.

Britain retains certain vital power and global reach as described in some detail in leading international affairs think-tank Chatham House’s Undercurrents podcast titled, “Reflections at 100: UK foreign policy”.

ECONOMY

Britain is the fifth largest global economy, enjoying one of the world’s most vibrant financial services sector. It is a member of the UN Security Council and the G-7. It retains some hard power and considerable soft power, and tremendous reach in intelligence and diplomacy.

The UK boasts some of the best talent and universities in the world, bolstered by a large pool of foreign nationals. One of the leading vaccines during the pandemic was produced by the Oxford-AstraZeneca collaboration, exemplifying its scientific and technological capacity and sophistication.

But Britain’s power is increasingly even more relative in relation to other powers, with which it must collaborate to achieve certain ends. The history of Brexit may record its departure from the European Union as mostly an economic and political failure.

Though many economic arguments were aggressively advanced for Brexit, much if not most of the narrow Leave vote, mostly supported by older citizens, was decidedly cultural, driven by a penchant for a certain isolationism and a pining exceptionalism, as well as a desire for a purer British identity that is decidedly white and Anglo- Saxon. Brexit is having a deleterious effect on the UK economy, which will likely worsen.

Meanwhile, Britain is increasingly debating, reckoning with its colonial past, including injustices done to waves of immigrants from black and brown countries, including Caribbean people who came as part of the Windrush generation from 1948 to 1971.

The howls of disgust over the allegation that a member of the Royal Family reportedly questioned what colour would be the children of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle should not mask that quite a number of Brits likely privately shared the sentiment. Some reportedly wondered whether it was Prince Charles who asked.

The Prince of Wales’ full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. He may use any of these for his regnal name, with George VII perhaps a leading contender. Ironically, given the reckoning and the moment, Prince Charles, by necessity, may be well-placed in significant ways for the coming monarchical transition.

The heir to the throne does not share the gravitas nor affection his mother enjoys. He is sometimes gaffe-prone, awkward, injudicious and lacking in magnetism. He may be personally wrestling with the matter of race. Still, he may be able to say and do things Elizabeth II could not because of her times and inclination.

On her 21st birthday in 1947 she famously announced: “I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.” It was into the 1960s that Elizabeth Regina still referred to the empire in her Christmas message.

RECONCILIATION

Speaking at CHOGM in Kigali, Charles joined in the international conversation on the need for acknowledgement and reconciliation as the global commons continues to debate the dark history and legacy of colonialism. This dialogue includes the movement for reparations and restitution.

The Prince of Wales stated: “To achieve this potential for good, however, and to unlock the power of our common future, we must also acknowledge the wrongs which have shaped our past. Many of those wrongs belong to an earlier age with different – and, in some ways lesser – values.

“In Canada recently, my wife and I were deeply touched to meet many of those engaged in the ongoing process of reconciliation – indigenous and non-indigenous peoples reflecting honestly and openly on the darkest aspects of history.

“As challenging as that conversation can be, people across Canada are approaching it with courage and unwavering commitment.”

He emphasized: “I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many, as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery’s enduring impact.”

Professor Elkins offers further thoughts on the coming transition in the UK: “As the Queen is feted for fulfilling her youthful commitment, the monarchy and its perennial source of imperial power hang in the balance.

“Whether or not heirs to the throne can recraft its image and purpose, toeing a fine line between familial fictions and the institution’s imperially charged and developmentalist lifeblood, is anyone’s guess.”

The potentially George VII is now engaged in dialogue on the brutal legacy of empire and slavery. He is passionate about environmental preservation and climate change.

Is it possible, given the global moment and needs, that Elizabeth’s heir, by inclination arrived at by personal reckoning and other influences, may be well-placed and better suited than his mother for the times?

And, might he, in significant ways, be more consequential than his mother, despite what will be a shorter and less storied and glamorous reign?