The death of Queen Elizabeth II on 8 September 2022 brings to a close the longest reign in British history. She is succeeded by her son Charles, who at 73 years of age has already beaten the record previously set by William IV (who succeeded his brother George IV in 1830 at the age of 65) as the oldest person to ascend the throne.
Having read reams of commentary and watched countless footage about Elizabeth II’s passing two things struck me. One was due to the longevity of her reign is that how many people have said that they have known no other monarch than Elizabeth II. Even my father-in-law who was born in 1940 and was 11 years old when George VI died said pretty much the same thing. The second is when talking to various friends and colleagues there was the sense that they thought Elizabeth II would either live as long as her mother and husband or go on forever.
During the 10 days of national mourning, we’ve noticed how history has repeated itself both with the coverage of the death and funeral as well as with the ascension of a new king.
QUEEN VICTORIA VIS A VIS QUEEN ELIZABETH II
On the face of it, there is not much to say about supposed similarities between Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II, in fact, commentators in the 1950s would always compare Elizabeth II to her Tudor predecessor and namesake Elizabeth I. There were hyperbolic proclamations of the hope that a second Elizabethan era would be as glorious as the first Elizabethan age and even Winston Churchill himself fell for the whole hype, proclaiming the new queen as another “Gloriana.”
However, with the passage of time one can see the similarities not between the two Elizabeths but Elizabeth II and Queen Victoria. Both were not born to be monarchs but ended up on the throne due to twists of fate – Victoria due to the death of her cousin Princess Charlotte and the childlessness of another uncle, William IV, and Elizabeth due to the abdication of her uncle, Edward VIII. Both women were not particularly well educated but Elizabeth, once she was heir to the throne, had the advantage of at least taking lessons in history and constitutional theory from Henry Marten, a vice provost of Eton. There was also a striking similarity with their marriages – both women were devoted to their husbands and the marriages had an impresario behind them, with Victoria and Albert there was King Leopold I of the Belgians while Elizabeth and Philip had Lord Louis Mountbatten. It could be said that both Leopold and Mountbatten harboured dynastic ambitions and lived vicariously through their relations: the former with his ambition of having a Coburg on every throne in Europe and the latter with avenging his father Prince Louis of Battenberg’s forced resignation as First Sea Lord in 1914 due to his German title and deepening his links with the main line of the royal family.
The reigns of Victoria and Elizabeth II are characterised by a longevity which saw great political, economic, social, and technological change. While Victoria’s reign saw the British empire at its height as well as being the mistress of the seas, Elizabeth’s reign saw the final dismantling of empire and its transition to the Commonwealth; and whilst British naval power has long since gone, the country’s soft and cultural power has not waned.
Crucially, both queens utilised the leading technologies of the day in order to connect with their people. Queen Victoria had photography, post cards the telegraph and even became a published author herself, helping entrench the image of her (especially during the second half of her reign) as “the Widow of Windsor” – black dress, white widow’s cap and pearl and diamond jewellery. The last years of her life also coincided with the advent of the motion picture and were used during her Diamond Jubilee and her funeral procession.
Queen Elizabeth II reigned over a period where there were even greater technological advances. Her coronation in 1953 was televised, as were her Christmas speeches from 1957 onwards, and even weddings beginning with that of her sister Princess Margaret in 1960. She also began engaging with television: starting with the infamous Royal Family documentary in 1969 which was later acknowledged to be a mistake. However, it did not dissuade her from authorising more documentaries about the monarchy and its various aspects from the 1990s onwards, even providing commentaries and sharing her thoughts with some of them. The mass media also played a role in disseminating her image through photographs which over time inform our enduring image of Elizabeth II – the brightly coloured hat & dress, sensible shoes, handbag at the crook of her arm, corgis and horses.
The beginning of the 21st century saw Elizabeth II engaging with various new modes of communication such as the Internet and social media via its own website as well as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube accounts. It is highly significant that this engagement via the new media was very visible with her lying in state, funeral and committal service being televised and reported in real time via the Royal Family’s social media accounts.
KING EDWARD VII VIS A VIS KING CHARLES III
The longevity and popularity of Victoria and Elizabeth II has led to concerns about their respective heirs, Albert Edward and Charles, as both men were not popular when they were Prince of Wales. As Victoria and Elizabeth aged, there were regular concerns and speculation about the state of the monarchy and the country after both women had passed away and their unpopular heirs succeeded them.
Albert Edward who succeeded to the throne in 1901 as Edward VII had an unhappy childhood -burdened by the twin expectations of monarchy rising to the challenges of the post-French Revolution order and his mother’s expectation that he would be the mirror image of his father Prince Albert as man and monarch. Unfortunately for Victoria, Edward would rebel against his upbringing and his life as Prince of Wales was characterised by gluttony, womanising, and gambling. One can see shades of George IV in Edward’s behaviour but unlike his predecessor, he was prudent with his money and benefitted from good financial advice which kept him out of debt.
He was also the subject of several scandals: most notably being named a co-respondent to the Mordaunt divorce case and the Tranby Croft case which damaged his standing and was held up as an example of how the upper classes fell short of the Church’s teaching on marital fidelity and middle class notions of respectability.
King Charles III’s childhood in contrast was not as unhappy as Edward’s but there’s no denying Elizabeth II and Philip were distant parents and the latter’s choice of schools did not suit Charles’ interests and sensitive nature. His unpopularity as Prince of Wales has been mostly through the very public collapse of his marriage to Diana Princess of Wales (who surprisingly had some parallelisms with Edward VII’s wife and queen Alexandra), his outspokenness and meddling on several issues, especially those to do with the environment.
Despite all the naysayers, Edward VII proved to be a good and popular king. As Prince of Wales, he was conscious of the need for the royal family to be visible to its people and more than once persuaded his mother Queen Victoria to come out of her prolonged mourning telling her that “the more people see the Sovereign, the better it is for the country.” His reign as King saw the revival of much of the ceremony and pageantry abandoned by his mother and in order to facilitate this, the Mall was broadened with Admiralty Arch built as a gateway from Trafalgar Square to Buckingham Palace.
The bad relationship between mother and son was one of the reasons why Edward VII was unprepared when he ascended the throne. As one of his biographers Philip Magnus observed “[t]he art of constitutional government had to be learnt by King Edward, who found it increasingly convenient to meet and talk to individual ministers upon purely social occasions.” He also used his love of France and familial connections to help pave the way for the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904 and the Anglo-Russian alliance in 1907.
In light of Elizabeth II’s death, the question now is what sort of monarch will Charles III be? I don’t think he’s as unprepared as Edward VII was but there are lingering doubts about whether he will change his habit of outspokenness. During his first address as king, Charles has sought to assure the nation that like his mother, he will be committed to upholding Britain’s constitutional principles and traditions as well as acknowledging that “as I take up my new responsibilities. It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply.” The latter is especially telling as it seems to signal his awareness that his environmentalism is increasingly being seen as out of step with the Great British Public struggling to heat their homes this coming autumn and winter.
There has also long been the belief that the new King’s routine will not be the same as Elizabeth II’s, with media reports of plans to open Balmoral Castle fully to the public and Buckingham Palace being opened longer than the usual two months summer opening. Even as Prince of Wales, Charles was already called for a slimmed down monarchy, and it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Either way Charles III would do well to follow his mother’s example of dignified silence and Edward VII’s dictum that he is the “king of all the people” – a unifying force and not a divisive one. Only time will tell how he will be as king amidst all the speculation and criticism due to his past actions and words – will King Charles III prove his doubters and critics wrong just as Edward VII did one hundred and twenty one years ago?
Enough of this Tomfoolery! 