#6: A death, a funeral, and royal bloodshed
More than 4 billion people tuned into live broadcasting of the late Queen's funeral, in the biggest TV event in history - but support for the monarchy sinks lower than ever
I sat down in a busy cafe on Monday (September 19) to begin what, on the surface, appeared to be just another working day writing 500-word articles on culture and entertainment. But this day was different - my editor even told me that I would be covering the most important news of my journalistic career: Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral.
I stocked myself with enough caffeine, in the form of several caramel lattes, to cover the unprecedented displays of pomp and pageantry - writing about throngs of mourners paying their respects to Britain’s longest-reigning monarch who would finally be laid to rest after a lifetime of service to the Crown and her country. Actually, some 4 billion of us had tuned in to watch her historic state funeral.
However, since her death earlier this month, I have felt myself being torn between respecting a woman who has marked my memories as a young child with a sense of continuity, and anger at what her lineage and nation represents. Maybe this comes with being Australian but having spent the first half of my life living in the United Kingdom.
For many Britons, Her Majesty remained a constant through turbulent times and at one time or another she was a metaphorical warm embrace when we needed support. At the same time, we cannot deny the reasons why - and the methods how - the Royal Family came to be in the position they have found themselves in. Indeed, the late Queen was a beacon of resilience to the nation, but her legacy is becoming overshadowed by the brutality of the past.
To be frank - although I am no expert in history at all - I do consider myself a history aficionado (I have had an abnormal fixation on Henry VIII and medieval history for 15 years - don’t ask). But you don’t have to be well-versed on the intricacies of blue-blooded lineage to understand the ruthless ways men (and women) clawed their way to the throne.
In its 1098-year royal history, England has seen 54 monarchs sit on the throne. Lots of modern historians have deemed Anglo-Saxon King Æthelstan the first ruler of the whole of England - prior to this, England was not unified and monarchs ruled over the Kingdom of Wessex, rather than the whole country (a unified England, up until this point, was arguably impossible due to the existence of Scandinavian Danelaw in the North - but that is a whole separate issue I won’t be delving into right now).
Gradually, reigning over England wasn’t enough, and a study has shown that the British Empire invaded 90% of the globe’s nations, save for just 22 nations - including Guatemala, Luxembourg, and Tajikistan.
In the 18th century, Britain used the doctrine of terra nullius (a Latin term for ‘no-one’s land’) to expropriate Australia - previously inhabited by Indigenous Australians for an estimated 65,000 years - through savage barbarity. Since Australia was first colonised in 1788, whole societies and cultures of First Nations people have been wiped out through systematic and widespread murder.
It wasn’t even until a 1967 referendum that Indigenous Australians were considered part of the Australian population - 15 years after Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne.
I cannot deny that even I feel ashamed and angered at what my ancestors could have done when settling in Australia all those years ago - I mean, I myself am not Indigenous Australian and so, at one point, my family obviously would have had to make a home on a land that never truly belonged to them.
The history of the British Empire has not always been relayed with complete honesty, generally because accounts of colonisation of many countries have been written by British officials. Particularly the United Kingdom’s brutal colonisation of Nigeria - in fact, the British government literally funded the genocide of 3 million Igbo people during the Biafran War from 1967-1970 (a bloody civil war that occurred during the start of the late Queen’s reign).
Queen Elizabeth II’s death has sparked intense discussions from multiple people who suffer with the deep traumas left from Britain’s acts of violence (though there are hundreds more cultures who have suffered as well, these two callous colonisations in particular have dominated social media during the last two weeks).
One US-based Nigerian professor, Uju Anya, tweeted that she hoped the Queen would die an excruciating death - this left internet users with polarised opinions. However, dig a little deeper, and Anya revealed that her parents were survivors of the horrific genocide in Nigeria.
In an interview with The Cut, she stated: “My earliest memories were from living in a war-torn area, and rebuilding still hasn’t finished even today. Half of my family was slaughtered with guns and bombs that this queen sent to kill us.”
“My experience of who she was, and the British government she supervised, is a very painful one. The harm shaped my entire life and continues to be my story and that of the people she harmed — that her government harmed, that her kingdom harmed, however, you want to frame it. The genocide of the Biafra killed 3 million Igbo people, and the British government wasn’t just in political support of the people who perpetrated this massacre; they directly funded it. They gave it political cover and legitimacy,” she added.
Anya, and many people like her, have simply been asking for what they have deserved for decades - an acknowledgement or apology from Britain and the Queen.
Furthermore, the Royal Family could not own a £14bn Crown Estate property portfolio and cost the tax payer hundreds of millions of pounds per year had their ancestors had not raped, murdered, conquered, and pillaged throughout the centuries.
And while Queen Elizabeth II herself is not actually responsible for these atrocities, her continued and apparent denial (through her silence) has angered many people. Especially those hailing from nations the British Empire violently enslaved and ruled over.
When she died and Prince Charles of Wales became King Charles III, dissent against the monarchy seeped through the fabrics of British society. In her 70-year rule, the Queen did earn the respect and admiration of those around her - despite her family’s sordid historical reputation. Perhaps, people were waiting to blast the Royal Family until after she died, as a mark of respect. That, I don’t know.
Many people seem to have an issue with the new King who has not yet earned the adoration of the people through years of service as his mother did. Also, they still appear to be seething over his flagrant disregard and cruel treatment of Princess Diana - 25 years after her tragic death.
Most notably, much of the anger stems from the fact King Charles III will not have to pay the United Kingdom’s standard 40% inheritance tax on the massive fortune he inherited in personal assets from his mother.
This alone has caused the public to question whether the Royal Family’s presence is even worth it (at least, economically speaking, given that the nation is falling victim to rapidly rising inflation, battling an energy crisis, and coping with a troubled healthcare system). In fact, Britain’s GDP decreased by 0.6% in June, conveniently coinciding with Queen Elizabeth II’s jubilee that same month.
In modern times, we no longer need a strong figurehead to support us - we now need action, rather than someone to look up to. Out of respect for the Queen, who died on Thursday, September 8, I guess people kept this anger bottled. Now, after her death, many of us no longer need to suppress the feelings of resentment that the monarchy can bring out within some of us.
At the end of the day, is the Queen specifically to blame for her family’s notorious history of violent murder and callous bloodshed? In my opinion, she is not solely responsible, no. However, as a law graduate, I have been taught that silence can be an admission of guilt.
And while I don’t hold the late Queen directly responsible (or even necessarily guilty) - again, this is my own opinion - I do feel that her silence has deeply pained many people. Obviously, the Royal Family is meant to remain apolitical, yet The Firm should have found a way to own up, apologise, or at least even acknowledge their corrupt history. In 70 years, would this really have been so difficult to do?
King Charles III’s reputation is already hanging by a thread - at least, he’s deeply unpopular with the younger generations on social media - so could he manage to make the Royal Family marginally more popular by answering to Britain’s crimes?
After all, ruling comes with great responsibility. But, for want of some alliteration, maybe it should be ruling and responding come with great responsibility. After all, a response is all most of us are after.