Well, it’s been three days since Queen Elizabeth II died. Is it too early to dare to issue a caveat to the deafening chorus of praise that greeted his death?
Posted at 6:00 a.m.
Too bad, I’m going.
Seventy years of reign, of course. It’s longevity, of course, a sort of record in the annals of the monarchy. Elizabeth II had a dignity in the form of stiff upper lipas they say in England, where the national mythology commands to go through all the tests in all impassiveness.
Oh, the sovereign was also a model of stability, it has been said and repeated…
It’s all true.
But still, let’s be serious: Queen Elizabeth II was a decoration, as her father before her was a decoration, as her son Charles III will be. An exquisite decoration, but a decoration all the same, supported by hundreds of employees who made her life super comfortable. We are talking here about a lady who had an aide to “break” her shoes.
Elizabeth II reigned, but she “reigned” over what?
She ruled over a vast and magnificent real estate empire and over a large and dysfunctional family, but she “reigned” without real power over anything. Except perhaps the table plan at royal family dinners.
The length of his reign, seven decades, 70 years at the head of the British state has been praised. The Queen has seen and experienced the rise of Communism, the fall of the Iron Curtain, the advent of the internet, the digitization of our lives, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, 9/11 and the Occupation of Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, countless terrorist attacks on his country perpetrated by Islamists and Irish Republicans, the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Union (and its exit), the handover of Hong Kong to China and the decline of the British Empire in favor of the decolonization launched in the 1960s, the first alarm signals on global warming, the madness of the Beatles, the conquest of the Moon, the advent of color television. And Elizabeth II has known all the American presidents since Truman…
But let’s not forget that she went through all this because she was born into the right family, because her uncle abdicated, too. This woman, like all monarchs, is an ostentatious hereditary accident.
Elizabeth II was a child of the century, but she had no real impact on the events of this century. The British Crown no longer sends armies into battle, imposes no economic policy and signs no treaty to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons or greenhouse gases. At most, she signed the laws promulgated by the elected members of Parliament, a formality.
The Crown may embody a certain popular feeling, yes. The queen did it with a certain talent, yes, but… But still?
The British Crown is apolitical, above partisan considerations. Elizabeth II therefore sent her messages in a sibylline way, during her end-of-year messages. The person who embodies the Crown “advises” the Prime Minister in office… Who can completely ignore his opinions.
Canada’s official head of state, her power in this country is the Governor General… Who could have to settle a constitutional dispute once or twice a century.
And when the Queen came to Canada, she walked all over the place, opening a community center here and a Seaway there, saluting the 100e anniversary of the Northwest Territories or the 200e of New Brunswick, declaring Expo or the 1976 Games open…
In short, Elizabeth II was a professional ribbon cutter. And she did it well. When given a pencil, she could also stand out: she signed the Constitution Act 1982when Canada became officially independent… While retaining its symbolic link with the Crown.
Elizabeth II was therefore the Queen of Canada. Charles III was proclaimed King of Canada on Saturday. We can laugh about it, it’s still a little colonized.
Getting rid of our connection to the British Crown would require painful federal-provincial constitutional negotiations. And in Canada, ever since Meech (Google that, kids), we’ve been scared of constitutional negotiations for the same reasons chickens are wary of Colonel Sanders.
Irony ? The British Parliament could abolish the monarchy with a law passed by a simple majority. It would be easier for the British to abolish the monarchy than for the Canadians…
Never mind, the Canadians have been proving it for three days, this queen was loved, I still haven’t understood why, but oh how loved she was! Outside Quebec, especially, moved and saddened testimonies poured in. Look, Prime Minister Trudeau, when he commented on the death of Elizabeth II, was more distressed than his British colleague, Liz Truss, on the same day.
The City of Ottawa Public Health even sent this message on Twitter: “We are saddened by the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. This event is likely to dominate the news and social media for the next few days, and it will be difficult for many in our community…”
With the telephone number of a crisis line. I’m not making this up.
In short, for three days, I have been watching what is all the same a sweet delirium—that of the international mourning of a lady without power—then I find myself thinking and rethinking that old tale by Andersen, The Emperor’s New Clotheswhere everyone pretends not to see that the king parades naked through the streets…
For three days, all over the world, including in this country, millions of people pretend that Elizabeth II was something more than a decoration. The unifying power of myths still has a bright future ahead of it. It is even a power on which the sun never sets.