The death of Queen Elizabeth II brought about a mourning period unparalleled in pomp, coverage, cancellations, tributes, and public attendance in Britain since that of Princess Diana. However, many believe the cost to the taxpayer in both time and money, with the many temporary closures across the week and the funeral alone estimated to have cost at least £8 million, will have done more damage than good to the Royal Family’s popularity. A period which for many represented a worthy send-off to a Queen whose 70-year reign was felt to be a near-perfect symbol of dignity and righteousness, was for others felt to be an imposed, over-the-top, unaffordable, and inappropriate distraction from the current cost-of-living crisis. There remain further questions over whether Buckingham Palace will be able to recreate such an extravagant mourning period given Elizabeth’s considerably less popular successor Charles, and over signs that the Royal narrative appears to be increasingly upheld using force rather than popularity in Britain. It is thus worth considering whether such an excessive period of mourning, was justified - and whether it will be repeated.
In a recent piece for The Telegraph, Jordan Peterson wrote: “All people need someone to serve as a model for emulation”. He believed that Elizabeth II served as the perfect example of this, as “a dutiful, responsible, careful, judicious, calm and dignified steady hand at the wheel.” Certainly, the remarkable scale of the queue to her coffin in the week following her death, willing to spend over 12 hours for a few seconds to pay their respects to the dead monarch, reflects the importance of such a symbolic role-model to so many. Notable too is that many in the queue appeared to have recently lost someone close to them, most often during the COVID pandemic, a period in which the process of grief itself became socially distanced and interrupted. This left a painful hole for many, which seemed to be partially filled for many by mourning the Queen and all she stood for. As Laurie Penny in GQ put it: “We’ve been through two years of collective trauma that we haven’t yet processed. And the ailing Queen seemed to represent everything that was slowly slipping away and could not yet be grieved”. Thus, this rare moment encouraged people to collectively come together and mourn someone who for many was a symbol of strength in this period of ‘trauma’ - in an age of increasing individualism. It offered so many a chance to find belated peace after years of turmoil, and the sheer volume of those who sacrificed much to physically partake in it, suggests the Queen’s grandiose funeral, did, as Peterson suggests monarchies do, “fulfil a vital psychological (spiritual) and social purpose” in society.
The problem with this ‘model for emulation’, is its hereditary nature offers an arbitrary guarantee over how suitable of an exemplar whoever inherits the throne will be - as appears to be becoming increasingly apparent. “People won’t come out like this for Charles,” said Mary, 70, a queue-goer. Few argue that Elizabeth II did not play the role Peterson describes almost flawlessly, with her personal popularity high even among anti-monarchists. However, in only his first week as King, two incidents of Charles acting gracelessly went viral. One in which he impatiently waves a penholder away, and another, where he reacts angrily to a pen leaking ink, muttering: “I can’t bare this bloody thing! Every stinking time!” Granted, his mother had just died, and acceding the throne probably isn’t a stress-free process - but these scenes appear to enact the detached entitlement which makes the Royal Family unattractive to many observers.
"People won't come out like this for Charles."
The new King is also not the only controversial figure in Buckingham Palace, and far from the most disliked. The use of taxpayers’ money to support Prince Andrew’s lifestyle, given his close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and accusations of sexual assault by Virginia Giuffre, has become an increasingly uncomfortable idea to large swathes of the population. Therefore, beyond those who still fundamentally believe in the divine right of Kings, it may prove increasingly difficult to justify such large sums from public pockets for the future celebration of royal events for figures who appear unfit to fulfil the example of respectability the Royals are required to fulfil.
Beyond this, regardless of how ‘worthy’ the person on the throne may be to uphold its values, many people simply cannot afford to have their means of work cancelled or postponed for a mourning period in the height of a cost-of-living crisis. Take one taxi driver from Liverpool, Graham, for example. He estimated the cancelled football match in his city would have cost him over £200 in fares from international fans who would’ve travelled to watch the game. “All I hear is ‘pay some respect’. Well, I’ve certainly paid, but I won’t be able to pay my rent,” he told the Guardian. This not only demonstrates the trickle-down problems from the cancellations imposed due to the mourning period, but also the dismissal of valid questions as to why monarchists’ grief seems to be valued more than the working classes’ ability to keep rooves over their heads. Furthermore, such unavoidable, lavish displays of wealth in a time of national hardship, seem inappropriate, and again makes the Royal Family appear detached from, and unsympathetic to their subjects.
"All I hear is 'pay some respect'. Well, I've certainly paid, but I won't be able to pay my rent."
One of the most widely discussed controversies surrounding the grief period has been the heightened presence of the police, and their ruthless suppression of dissenters following the Queen’s death. Even when standing in the queue to see her coffin, Laurie Penny recalled: “It is obvious the police don’t trust us to behave… there are far, far too many police for a queue this aggressively self-managing.” This, however, in circumstances cynics would see as ripe for terrorist attacks seeking maximum publicity, is not in of itself overly worrying. Being arrested for placards and insults against public figures is. Is shouting: “Andrew, you’re a sick old man,” to someone following their mother’s coffin polite and appropriate? No. Should it be deemed a crime? Also no. Detaining people for protesting against their rulers, whose lifestyles their taxes pay for, in appropriate circumstances or not, undeniably shows shades of totalitarianism. It suggests the view of Clive Lewis, Labour MP for Norwich South, who wrote in the Guardian, the “transition [from Elizabeth II to Charles III] is as much about coercion as consent,” is not entirely inaccurate.
Clearly, the Monarchy under Elizabeth II offered many an ideal symbol of virtue and honour, and who’s death offered a collective period of mourning, and for some a chance to heal from a traumatic recent past. Does this facilitation of grief by such extreme Royal pomp justify the price for those most financially desperate? In a cost-of-living crisis, the number of people who would answer ‘no’ cannot be insignificant. For her lineage, many of whom are widely considered unworthy torchbearers for such an idealistic symbol, it is difficult to see how a mourning period for them flaunting such grandiose wealth in front of those unable to make ends meet, would be palatable. And, if it were to happen, it would likely require even more of the coercion which surfaced following Elizabeth’s death.