The lot of the constitutional monarch is not an easy one. Since the unfortunate events of the seventeenth century, English Kings have known that to keep their thrones and even their heads, they needed to keep their conduct strictly in line with what a more or less democratically elected parliament and government wanted, at the same time being, in one way or another, inspiring and respected figureheads, expected to enjoy the trappings of wealth and power of the wealthy aristocracy, hunting, shooting, polo etc. Some kings, and a few queens, but fewer princes have indeed succeeded in living lives both edifying and, at least slightly, enviable lives.
I have read that it was Edward VII who established the modern British monarchy. His long life as Prince of Wales had been more dissolute than edifying. As a young man, carpeted by his father and asked whether the previous night he had “been with that woman” (an actress of some notoriety), he answered honestly, but not frankly, that he had not been with that woman. He did not add, that it had not been “that woman’s” turn the previous night.
Bertie’s life of princely pleasure was perhaps something of an antidote to the excessively withdrawn life of his widowed mother. Both mother and son stretched popular tolerance allowing too much individual preference to threaten their position as figurehead and office holder. Kings and queens should be distanced but not remote; accessible but not familiar.
The Georges V and VI reacted against this too human behaviour in their predecessors, leading private lives of almost impeccable rectitude (a propriety which was only emphasised by the contrasting misbehaviour of Edward VIII- although we may observe that his offending behaviour would hardly be regarded as misbehaviour at all nowadays)
In this light, how should be rate the late Queen’s success in treading that tightrope between the impersonal public figurehead and an individual whose personal qualities inspire respect and affection? I suggest that her reign must be counted a success if only in that it lasted so long, despite the criticism, often justified of both the institution of royalty and some of its delinquent junior members; and that she remained admired and loved as and individual and a queen.
She certainly displayed a devotion to duty that her father and grandfather would have admired. She has had a clear and unbending consciousness of her constitutional role. She was by all accounts both genuinely interested and informed about the interests of her subjects and especially the peoples of the Commonwealth, even if never allowed to express publicly the opinions which I do not doubt she held privately.
On the other hand, perhaps because of the constant impertinent and frequently prurient interest of the press, her family life appears somewhat stilted and stern, even by the standards of the times. Poor Prince Charles appeared in shorts and kilts and stockings long after his peers had moved denim jeans. There was a remoteness which even gooey photographers could not dispel, still less inviting the BBC into their drawing room. But I am speaking of times when I was scarcely socially or political conscious myself.
All the clergy and readers here will, by this evening, have spoken about the late queen from this pulpit. I feel singularly unqualified to do so. I am not a republican; the examples of our recently elected leaders is surely enough to convince the most ardent anti-royalist, that there is something to be said for heredity as a method for choosing a head of state, provided of course, he or she is prepared to keep to the rules. So it is that we hope in the third verse of the National Anthem, when asking the monarch to defend our laws and give us cause to wish he or she will long reign over us.
Enough has been said of the late queen’s devotion to duty, but that is not her quality which, for me makes her outstanding, although it is one which certainly distinguishes her from certain elected leaders.
No, what makes Queen Elizabeth outstanding for me far more is her little acts of simple human kindness. They demonstrate a human personality which it is difficult, but not impossible to reconcile with majesty.
At an investiture (which I was attending as a guest) I saw her step down from her podium to pin the medal to the lapel of an honorand in a wheelchair; it was small gesture which stuck out like a sore thumb in the stultifying formality of the ceremony. I did also speak to her once, briefly about C4WS and while she listened politely, she was very much more interested and lingered longer talking to my neighbour, a rather good-looking Indian graduate who was running a scheme teaching maths in primary schools. I was only charmed that her elderly majesty should also be so naturally human as to prefer my handsome young neighbour to my rather more than middle aged and portly self.
But the story which clinched this admiration for me is one you have probably heard but bears repetition. It was on Michael Berkeley’s Private Passions that I heard a surgeon [I have since learned he was David Nott] who had been in Syria during the civil war working for Médécins sans Frontières or a similar organisation, describe how he was invited to lunch with the Queen. He had seen dreadful injuries and witnessed distressing scenes in Aleppo and when asked about his experiences by the Queen, felt himself about to break down. The Queen summoned the dogs, handed him some biscuits, meant for the dogs, she explained, and they sat there feeding the undoubtedly grateful Corgis, until the Queen said “There; so much better than talking about things.” as indeed it was.
That humane perceptiveness; that thoughtful and unconventional action; that simple kindness was surely unique or at least, unexpected in a sovereign.
We should not, I think, look to the late queen’s life as some sort of parable or exemplar, nevertheless there is much in it which can instruct and inspire us all. We are all to some extent called to play roles; to take on tasks or offices which, although much less daunting than being a queen, require dedication. Queen Elizabeth’s devotion to duty is an obvious lesson for that. But it’s more than that for the Christian; we are asked to show more than mere dedication to the worldly task thrown in our paths. To build the Kingdom of Heaven requires that those tasks be carried out, and our lives generally be lived with perception, thoughtfulness and kindness- and of those three the greatest is kindness.
That Queen Elizabeth should have achieved that difficult balance between constitutional majesty and human kindness is an inspiration to all of us and I suspect attributable in no small part to a deep and imaginative Christian faith. She was a worth head of the church of England, worthier perhaps than it deserves, and one to whom all faiths could look with respect. We are right to be sad that she has left us, but she could leave no more valuable legacy than the challenge and encouragement to emulate her achievement. Amen.