As you can imagine, this wasn’t the video I was expecting to make this week.
However, the death of Queen Elizabeth II marks a truly historic moment, not just for Britain
but for many other countries around the world.
It’s perhaps easy to forget that she was not just the Queen of the United Kingdom,
she was also head of state for 14 other countries – the Commonwealth Realms – including Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Jamaica.
Each of them now has a new monarch: King Charles III.
But how should we perhaps understand the Queen’s life and legacy?
Her 70 years on the throne saw profound changes in the world and Britain’s place in it.
When she became Queen, at the age of 25, in 1952, the British Empire was coming to an end
and the United Kingdom was just starting on the path of decolonisation.
India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka had just gained independence.
Over the decades that followed, many more territories would follow.
Spanning the four corners of the world, these would include countries as diverse as Nigeria,
Botswana, Cyprus, Malta, Malaysia, Belize, and Fiji.
Of course, the legacy of imperialism weighs heavily on many of these countries.
And in many ways, Britain has yet to fully reckon with its colonial past.
There are still far too many aspects of this era that have yet to be acknowledged,
let alone truly confronted.
But it’s also important to recognise the pivotal role the Queen played in trying to form
a new relationship between Britain and these countries.
As head of the Commonwealth, an organisation she valued enormously,
she oversaw a body that today provides a useful mechanism
for these very different states to talk to each other.
Many may see this as scant atonement for what went before, but it nevertheless
represents something positive that emerged from an undeniably dark chapter in British history.
Her reign also marked a profound period of change
for Britain as a country on the world stage in many other ways.
Over the course of her seventy years on the throne, Britain lived through the Cold War.
It joined, and then sadly left the European Union.
It went to war on numerous occasions.
Sometimes, this was done for the best of reasons.
At other times, it was under false pretences and served to stain Britain’s reputation.
Closer to home, Northern Ireland descended into conflict, only to eventually emerge
with a peace settlement that may well pave the way for a united Ireland in the coming decades.
Her time on the throne also saw enormous social changes in Britain.
When she came to the throne as a young woman, Britain was dominated by old, white men.
Today, it’s a very different place.
Just days before her death, the Queen appointed a new prime minister,
Liz Truss, who becomes Britain’s third female head of government.
The country also has a government that reflects its increasing ethnic diversity.
The Chancellor has roots in Ghana and the Foreign Secretary in Sierra Leone.
The Secretary of State for International Trade comes from Nigeria and father of the
Secretary of State for the Environment came to Britain from Sri Lanka.
Meanwhile, the Home Secretary’s family are of Indian origin via Mauritius and Kenya.
Whatever one thinks of the current government, and I am a fierce critic of it, it
is nevertheless important to recognise the positive change that this all represents.
But while the Queen’s reign marked a period of profound change,
her personal presence provided a sense of stability for many.
It’s this that helps to explain why her death has caused such
strong emotions - even amongst people who might otherwise be opposed to the monarchy.
For many people, a public figure that has been there all their life has now suddenly gone.
For most Britons, and others in the Commonwealth Realms,
she was the only head of state they have ever known. It is a jarring experience – a feeling
that people from countries where presidents come and go may find difficult to understand.
But it’s also important to recognise that the
Queen was also a divisive figure – if through no fault of her own.
Many came to see her as the embodiment of the British state,
a state they held responsible for many of the evils of colonialism.
But it is important to recognise that the Queen
had no personal role in so many of the events that have angered people.
As a constitutional monarch, she had no political power.
She took no part in deciding whether to go to war.
And she was not personally responsible for any atrocities that were committed.
Although it’s perhaps understandable that, as the figurehead of the British people,
she came to be seen as the living symbol of a state that many around the world blame for the
ills of colonialism and for other wars, blaming her personally for the bad things that Britain did - let alone for
an empire that preceded her birth - is not only a mistake, but also profoundly unfair.
It’s therefore been sad to see some of the truly unpleasant comments
that have appeared in the hours after she died. Comments that often showed
a complete lack of understanding about how the British political system works.
More to the point, as a person, a human being, she deserves better.
As even many republicans have noted, she was dedicated to her role - a role she performed
for seven decades; thus, making her the longest reigning monarch in British history.
Many of the tributes pouring in have rightly recognised this.
Whatever one thinks of the principle of a hereditary monarchy, or Britain’s imperial
and post-imperial role in the world, the Queen played an enormously important and valuable role
as a figurehead, not just for Britain but for many other countries around the world.
She carried out her duties as head of state admirably for seven decades.
For many people, she is all they have ever known.
And she will be mourned.
And while there will inevitably be those that see her as the embodiment of a state they despise,
we can all recognise that her passing truly marks the end of
an era – not just for the United Kingdom but far, far more widely.