Queen Elizabeth II passed away Sept. 8 after ruling for just over 70 years. During her reign, she worked with 15 prime ministers and met with every U.S. president since her ascension (except for Lyndon B. Johnson). She was the longest recorded female head of state in history. However, the end of her reign has been met with conflicting sets of views about what it really means to mourn her death and to celebrate what she represented.

Despite being someone who grew up in a British/American household with maximally diverse opinions towards the British monarchy, I still firmly believe that the Queen deserves to be mourned. 

What ought to be understood about the Queen is her pivotal role in British national identity. This has remained especially true during turbulent times in which she provided the United Kingdom with unwavering stability that most politicians and authoritative figures in Britain could not. This stability has remained consistent from the beginning of her reign, which encompassed both the very real consequences of World War II and frailties of the world left behind, to the very end of her reign, in which Britain now attempts its recovery from the pandemic, Boris Johnson and Brexit. 

To many, she represented not the backwardness of colonialism of which she inherited, but rather a transition from loss of the British Empire to Britain’s re-definition as a multicultural nation. For many individuals, she also represented a time when Britain held a far more relevant role in the world. This is now contrasted with the UK’s decline in primacy and influence, which are also currently in a frazzled state of precarious debate.

Furthermore, the Queen should be acknowledged for the successful way in which she carried out a monarch’s purpose, which is another debate in itself. I believe the monarchy’s true role is two-fold because of its nature and interaction with the public. 

First, the monarchy should stand as a basis for stability in the face of national hardship and secondly, as an impenetrable obstruction for anti-democratic crusades. The only way in which this can be done is by remaining perceptively present (consistently being in the public eye), yet simultaneously absent from opinion or bias. I think it is fair to say that she was confronted with an inevitable burden of a task of leading and defining Britain and everything it stood for.  This is something which several of her predecessors were buckled by. Not the least of which being her uncle, King Edward VII, whose abdication caused a constitutional crisis. Meanwhile, I feel it is safe to say that the Queen carried through her role with success and she largely did this unfalteringly throughout her lifelong commitment to public engagements and more importantly with her omission of ever expressing opinion. 

There is a clear distinction between the Queen and the other royals. As a result, through mourning her, we address a crucial moment in British history where we revisit whether the monarchy — now without the universally accepted and respected figurehead — remains relevant. The Queen was a woman who maintained an exemplary level of grace and awareness of her privileged role in life. I think this remains to be understood by most, including her harshest critics and the anti-monarchists, which include my own very British father. However I speak from personal experience when I say that there really is a universal presence of respect for the Queen throughout Britain. I think this is because of a global recognition that celebrating her life is not ultimately synonymous with celebrating notions of imperialism, but rather a consistency and reliability which resonates with many. 

Meanwhile, I assert that other royals do not deserve the same level of respect or admiration, let alone lend themselves well to the Royalist argument. Her eldest son, now King Charles III, will always remain tainted in many eyes, because of his failure to the late Princess Diana and the cheating scandal with his now wife Camilla, the Queen Consort. Additionally, no one can forget the humiliation the Queen’s next eldest son Andrew brought with his involvement in the Epstein controversy. Unfortunately, I must come to the logical conclusion that the deeper you look into the rest, the less acceptable and appropriate the presence of the royal family becomes in British society. Instead of the values the Queen represented, the rest swirl deep resentments of unentitled privilege, wealth and crude ignorance through their bad behavior and scandal.

Times are changing and in the wake of people’s newly revived political awareness and immediacy, we can see that monarchy indeed has lost its relevance and arguably its justification. The current reaction from the public is a sign of respect for personality as opposed to institution and I think that the coming coronation of the new King will show how evident this really is. However, I also advocate that the mourning of the Queen is a necessary step to moving forward towards these much needed societal and political progressions, especially if Britain is to remain intact as a relevant contender on the world stage. Mourning the Queen, recognizing her role and what she really represented, will mean Britain’s necessary introspective reflection on its values. And more practically, how it is to face the incoming perils and uncertainties of the time to come. 

Jemima Barroll Brown is a second-year studying philosophy with a concentration in law and ethics and economics. She can be reached at [email protected].