The death of Queen Elizabeth II signifies a moment of transformation, it is an event that marks a change in Britain and beyond. Is the end of the second Elizabethan age, an ending that marks something more than the death of the Queen? Will the loss of the Queen, a symbol of stability for 70 years, amplify the slow melt-down of our institutions and increase social fragmentation? Or has her death, and the huge response to it, given the monarchy and other establishment institutions a new boost. Is this a moment that reinforces a deep emotional attachments to a monarchy that symbolizes a social contract of hierarchy and power at the centre?
The death of Queen Elizabeth II has impacted on millions of people from all walks of life. There have been scenes of mourning, and unprecedented coverage of her death by the mainstream media, reporting on the impact the Queen has had over her lifetime, and the impact her death is having on the emotional life within the UK and beyond. So much has been said, and so much will be said about the death of the Queen. This essay focuses on my associations on the entanglements between the monarchy, empire, leadership, and transition.
Monarchy – what does it mean?
The monarchy has many meanings, depending from where your standpoint is. If you are a hereditary peer or committed royalist, the meaning you attach to it will be different from republicans. I asked an activist friend of mine to share his response to the news…
‘honestly all I feel is relief that we might finally move out of the ossified, moribund societal state we have been trapped in.’
The monarchy means a lot to ‘the establishment’. This is no surprise as the monarchy is the ‘establishment body’ at the heart of the United Kingdom, and of the Commonwealth of nations. In the ‘the establishment’ world, the monarchy under Queen Elizabeth II has been at the core, recognized across the world. Watching the BBC offer its solemn commentary, with presenters in black, they clearly delight in their role as being the voice of the nation, aligning with the wider establishment, taking up their role with gravitas and great skill, they do it very well. The constant reporting of the length and waiting times of ‘the queue’, seemed to be a justification of their wall-to-wall coverage…. ‘you see the nation really is in mourning!’ And yet there is more than grief and mourning. Rob Johns a politics professor who surveyed 400 members of the queue, said: “it is less a case of royalists simply wanting to mourn the Queen in person, and more a collective gathering that is as much about the queue as it is about reaching the end of all the queueing….. It’s not grief-stricken, it’s not about weeping and wailing,” He added: “They reported more positive than negative emotions. People are enjoying it….Not in a festival kind of way but in a kind of mutually satisfying way. Enjoying the collective, enjoying the gathering.” A Church of England Bishop also spoke solemnly saying the queue is like a pilgrimage, where the journey and the companionship on the way, are as important as the end point. On the morning of the funeral the BBC 4 lead reporter said that today was a mixture of a funeral, a military parade, and a Glastonbury festival for royalists.
The idea from psychoanalysis that we can take ‘pleasure in our displeasure’ is important here. The monarchy evokes many emotions, and it helps create a libidinal bond that draws many to it. The monarchy offers the masses a distraction from worldly worries, and there is much pleasure gained from our identification with the monarchy, with the nation, with our togetherness, with our imagined past, and with our greatness! Whether a funeral, birth or wedding, or on other major national events, the monarchy is there as a container, and a stimulus, for our emotions, projections, identifications and unconscious investments. Often ambivalent feelings are present, as with the Queens death. There is both a sadness at the loss of ‘our Queen’ .. ‘she was the countries grandmother’, and a real enjoyment of the pageantry, the communal gathering, the self-importance and kudos gained at being present at a historical event. This pleasure gained, is not only for those physically present, the gathering takes place virtually too, friends and families gather around TVs, connect via social media and manifest in our conversations online and in person…. We are all ‘there and present in some kind of way’. The British state and monarchy do their rituals led by the monarchy exceptionally well, with such pathos. Other countries have marvellous pomp and grandeur, but the only competing rituals with the power of Queen Elizabeth’s funeral I can recall were the great communist state parades. For a comparative view of a state funeral ritual, see the documentary film about Stalin’s death State Funeral’ by Sergio Loznitsa. There are no comparisons between Stalin and Queen Elizabeth! Yet the two rituals do share similarities. The huge pageantry, the involvement of the military, the emotions of the masses, and the absolute power on display, whether it’s the soft power of the monarchy, or the hard power of the communist regime. In both cases the power and authority of the establishment speaks through the great spectacle. The Queen has led such rituals and national events for 70 years, and it is one of the many reasons she will be missed. These events are not neutral, they carry symbolic meaning about where power lies.
The wider establishment is activated by the death of the Queen. Political leaders rally to the call, and compete to be the most articulate, straining to find their most mournful voices and solemn facial expressions alongside the genuine sadness felt. I feel a loss myself, even as an anti-monarchist I acknowledge that the Queen was a remarkable leader. She visited our family living room every Christmas day at 3pm on the button, and on many other important occasions. In Britain where I grew up it feels like there is ‘no outside’ from the monarchy space, and yet the research points to a power that has subsided, and that my parents’ generation had greater social and emotional bonds to the monarchy than following generations.
The monarchy offers a living ‘establishment body’, symbolic for establishment figures everywhere, including the new and mighty establishment power of corporate business. Apple the USA global giant, replaced their website front page with a picture of Queen Elizabeth II on news of her death. The subliminal message is clear, Apple computers is not just a profit making business, we are part of the new establishment and align with traditional establishment figures. Watching the funeral, one couldn’t help be struck that the monarchy and military are completely entwined; the monarchy representing the power of the nation, a power that will always be protected by force when required.
Over 500 heads of states from all over the world paid their homage to Queen Elizabeth II. And they also came to align themselves with the monarchy and to stand together, a living commitment to the status quo. There is an appreciation of, and a sadness at the loss of a great Queen. And there is also a coming together to make a statement of elite solidarity. The pictures and pageantry tell their own story which says;
“This is where power lies; yes with us, the establishment. Take a good look, we are good at this, we have been around a long time and we are not going anywhere. Know your place, for we know ours!”
The monarchy is entangled with empire, the commonwealth, the hereditary principle, governance, the house of Lords, land and property ownership, wealth, class and elite power. George VI called the royal family ‘the firm’, a name adopted fondly by the royals themselves. The firm is powerful and very wealthy and it has one clear primary task which is succession. As John Gapper in the FT writes:
“It is a charismatic enterprise that works constantly towards a single target: succession. The monarchy is a selfish gene, working to pass itself down generations, with the sovereign body occupying the throne at anyone moment part of that effort. We are watching a once in a generation product launch”
As an establishment symbol, it is the body of the living monarch that represents the wider royal family, the monarchy, the nation, the commonwealth (and previously the empire) and all it stands for. That is a lot for a human body to hold together. The death of the Queen, leaves a space for a new body to hold the weight of the nation. There is no gap, ‘the Queen is dead, long live the King’, no time for slippage or doubt to creep in.
Containment, Continuity, Stability
There is an undeniable argument that the institution of the monarchy enters the nations psyche and offers containment, continuity, tradition and stability. I see this, I appreciate this. The establishment rallies around this position, millions of citizens find comfort in this position, and yet it offers this containment at a price.
Dependency and Deference to Power
The price is that of dependency and deference. The problem I have with the monarchy is not so much the wealth, privilege and power; although if we are to have a monarchy, then why not a symbolic monarchy, doing the containing, continuity and stability piece without the privilege wealth and links to governance and power? Other countries such as the Netherlands show that great wealth and governance power do not have to be part of a symbolic monarchy. The greater problem I have is that the monarchy creates a dependency culture that reinforces class barriers, and creates a ‘know-your-place’ ideology based on deference to those above us. I grew up in the UK in a ‘know-your-place-culture’. I was never told I could be an entrepreneur, a PhD, an author, or run my own business. The careers advisor pointed to car mechanics, factory work or the army in my all-boys comprehensive school. Yet this is not just a top-down culture of low expectations, it becomes internalized into our minds and beings, and we police ourselves and our peers. Do not rise above your station is the hidden message. The Smiths capture it nicely in their song, ‘‘We hate it when our friends become successful’, singing ’if we can destroy them, we bet your life we will destroy them’ In spite of all the neo-liberal rhetoric about personal freedom and achieving your dreams, the data shows that the status quo remains, the gap between haves and have-nots increases, and that the hereditary principle of wealth is the dominant way wealth is retained by elites. As the economist Thomas Piketty shows with his study of wealth:
Piketty's argument is that, in an economy where the rate of return on capital outstrips the rate of growth, inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth. So the fact that rich kids can swan aimlessly from gap year to internship to a job at father's bank/ministry/TV network – while the poor kids sweat into their barista uniforms – is not an accident: it is the system working normally.
There is a paradox at the heart of the monarchy, they hold the idea of service at the heart of their ethos, and yet they serve from a place of absolute privilege. They offer containment and stability, but they offer it at the expense of autonomy, aspiration and social mobility.
The monarchy means many things, but let us not hide the fact that it means reproducing age old dependency cultures. These ideas of hereditary wealth and elites are so ingrained that in the UK that the hypocrisy is missed. The UK champions and fights war for the democratic principle and yet have the House of Lords that is undemocratic and unelected. The UKs governance system even is a partial theocracy, with Bishops from the Church of England in the Lords. Any legislation passed in the UK has to pass through the unelected House of Lords and this cultural norm is rarely questioned.
The challenge for anti-monarchists and republicans is to find new ways that solidarity can be found without identifying with nationalism, militarism and the monarchy. To find new ways that can offer containment in times of great uncertainty, but without the baggage of dependency and deference to establishment power that undermines us. I recently became a citizen of Ireland and I have witnessed the very impressive Presidents, Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese and Michael Higgins (all elected) take up this symbolic role on behalf of the nation in the Irish republic. They represent the country in a similar way to the monarchy, yet without the links to wealth and the hereditary/class principle. Admittedly what is lacking is the great spectacle of the monarchy, but perhaps representation that is toned down in volume on national occasions is not such a bad thing.
Empire-in-our-minds
The monarchy is entangled with ideas of empire. ‘Crowds gathered to witness the last roar of the vanished British Empire’ was the Irish Times headline. Whilst the British empire is no-longer with us in a political sense, there exists an ‘empire-in-our-minds’ that is harder to shake off. David Armstrong wrote of the ‘Organization-in-the-mind, saying how we carry imprints of the organizations we work in, emotionally and unconsciously within us. Likewise my experience of growing up in England is that we carry an ‘Empire-in-our-minds’. It shows up mostly as an unconscious idea of the superiority of being British. This idea gets magnified and used by politicians, such as during the Brexit campaign. Monarchy cannot escape this relationship, and whilst the maneuver towards the commonwealth of nations was one of Queen Elizabeth’s leadership triumphs, the past stains and traumas of the empire remain unaddressed, and the contemporary ‘empire-in-our-minds’ thrives.
The crimes of the empire are dreadful, simply dreadful. Relatives of the Mau Mau rebels who were put into concentration camps and tortured in the early days of Queen Elizabeth II reign, will hold a different ‘empire-in-the-mind’ than the average British citizen.
The ‘empire-in-the-mind’ I grew up with lacked the evils done in the name of empire, and heralded a great nation that benevolently ruled the waves, with perhaps a passing nod to less good aspects. The empire-in-the-minds of the working and middle classes, meant that whilst we were to know-our-place within social and economic structures, we also knew that our place in the world which was mighty indeed. It was Churchill and the Brits who won the war (the Russians and USA got little mention), and it was our empire spirit that led us to victory. To be a citizen of Britain, was indeed to be great. I saw echoes of this when Liz Truss became PM and in her first few sentences in her new role said that the Conservative party are the ‘greatest party in the world’. To have an empire-in-the-mind is unhealthy as it leads to the kind of grandiosity spouted by Boris Johnson and now by Liz Truss, and also in milder forms by others in the UKs establishment. It seduces the working and middle classes into displacing feelings of inadequacy and filling that space with ideas of greatness. Grandiosity is a delusional state, it leads to unhealthy decisions, and usually has selects a ‘bad/lesser other’ to look down upon as a companion.
The nation state is a comparatively new phenomena, whereas the idea of empire is much older and I expect it will outlast the nation state. We see a revival of empire ideology today. The Chinese are on the march expanding their influence and harking back to their empires of old as inspiration and justification for their expansionist process. Russia lost its Soviet empire and the Putin regime harks back to the Tsar and the Orthodox church to reimagine a new Russian empire. As Kremlin first chief of staff Sergie Kirienko says they are now at war to recover liberated territories in Ukraine ‘because they are part of our empire and our state’. It seems like the empires-in-our-minds are never far from us. Whether we seek to identify with the empire to enhance our individual and collective egos, or whether we identify with = what Vamik Volkan calls our ‘chosen traumas’.
The monarchy keeps the link of empire-in-our-minds strong and alive. As brilliant pageantry and processions reveal, the British might not have an empire any more, but they do have a strong empire-in-our-minds.
Leadership
I wrote a spontaneous LinkedIn post on hearing of the Queens death, praising her leadership, yet standing against the monarchy: copied below:
Born and raised in England, I am not a monarchist, I am filled with ambivalence about the commonwealth and ashamed of the disgraceful aspects of Britain’s colonial past and present, which is entangled with the monarchy. And yet I recognize and admire the truly great leadership Queen Elizabeth demonstrated in taking up a relentless role, showing dedication, dignity and service over a whole lifetime. A unique contribution from a steadfast personality who inspired and offered comfort to so many. RIP Queen Elizabeth.
I received many responses and comments thanking me for expressing the conflicted feelings that others shared. To acknowledge and mourn the loss of a great leader, a symbolic figure who has been a stable presence throughout our whole lives, whether we like the monarchy or not, is an important thing to do. Carrying the weight of the crown, and all it means and for so long, within one human body, is something to behold. Her death will mean different things to each of us, also triggering the other personal losses we each have, and there is a collective and social acknowledgement and mourning too. We all have a relationship to ‘the other’, and in psychoanalytic terms we can say that the Queen is a ‘Big Other’ we carry with us in our minds.
I have a fondness for the Royal family, and sometimes feel sorry for unrelenting and total exposure they endure. At other times I feel a disdain at the wealth and privilege they have, and that they reproduce. I wonder why don’t they show true leadership and give back the wealth to those it was taken from. Why doesn’t King Charles III just say enough is enough, this wealth is now returned as reparations for the crimes of empire? Wouldn’t that be true world changing leadership, beyond the idea of servant leadership combined with succession to keep ‘the firm’ going? Servant leadership is an aspired to form of leadership, yet for me it has always been problematic. To be of service is a good thing, and yet it positions the leader as a ‘holier than thou’ figure, when in practice there are always other dynamics happening- power dynamics, profit and success targets, succession to power. The monarch does take up servant leadership at one level, and they also have other agenda’s; if they didn’t ‘the firm’ would close shop.
The other point on leadership to reflect on is that the Queen was a matriarch and we have now moved to a patriarch King. As mother of the nation the Queen attracted maternal projections e.g. caring for us, looking after us, loving us. But what of Charles, he will attract paternal projections, although rather than attracting projections as a stern father, or a kind Daddy, I believe he will initially receive projections as a good intentioned, yet slightly eccentric uncle. I wonder what the impact of this will have on his leadership and our followership of the monarchy? I imagine his task is to shift the perception from uncle to father of the nation, in order to get the projections a King deserves, and needs to rule over us.
Transition
The loss of the Queen creates a transitional space. Practically, there is a transition between a matriarchal and patriarchal monarchy. King Charles III is perhaps a ‘transitionary object’ who at the age of 73, needs to focus less on creating his own monarchic style, and more on keeping the show on the road and preparing the ground for his son.
Perhaps more importantly after 70 years now a space opens up where the possibility of greater transitions can take place. A transitional space is a potential space. To fill this potential we have to move from our dependency positions and to engage in deep thinking and discover our agency. We need to understand what the monarchy means to us collectively, what kind of followership, and what kind of leadership we want to respond with. Strong emotions, reactions, attachments, and investments easily create polemic positions. The monarch can easily become ‘all good’ or ‘all bad’ very quickly pending on the company you keep. I invite you to step beyond the comforts of polemics, and to ask deep questions about what it means to create a good society? Can we find new ways of creating solidarity that doesn’t rely on ‘know your place’ and dependency cultures? There is a desire and a need for more stability and continuity in our precarious age. There is also a need for embracing social and political change that can re-direct us from ever-growing chasm between rich and poor and from the brink of environmental catastrophe.
Are we sleepwalking into melt-down, or can we realize our potential, stop waiting for a fantasy leadership to save us, and step into this transitionary space with agency, goodwill, and clarity of thinking?
From Dependency to Interdependency
The greatest transition I believe we need to make is not from a dependency culture to an autonomy culture. Individual autonomy whilst important has been co-opted and distorted by neo-liberal capitalism and consumer culture.
The task today is to move from dependency cultures to interdependency cultures. This stance recognizes our interconnectedness with technology, the environment, and human society across the globe. This far cry from ideas of power at the center, empire-in-the-mind, and monarchy. It requires radical new Eco-Leadership approaches (Western 2019). Approaches that are generative, engaging the potential of individuals and the collective in new forms of solidarity. We need to discover and harness the leadership and agency that is distributed across all parts of society, not to act as dependent citizens, paying allegiance and being thankful for the elites at the top. If we are to mobilize thoughtfully and without polarization or rancor, the full potential that can open up in this transitional space may surprise us. Then we can avoid societal MELT-down and co-create together a new path forward that better addresses social inequity, the environmental crisis, and works towards creating the Good Society.
The Meaning of the Monarchy: An Evening with Dr. Eliat Aram, Krish Raval OBE, and Dr Simon Western — September 29th, 4 - 6 PM (UK)
The death of Queen Elizabeth II signifies a moment of transformation, it is an event that marks a change in Britain and beyond. This free online event sponsored by the Eco-Leadership Institute will create space to discuss the meaning of the monarchy in this transitional period.
Edgy Ideas podcast on the meaning of the monarchy with guest Leslie Brissett: https://audioboom.com/channels/5022464 (releasing Monday, September 26th)
Analytic-Network Advanced Coaching Courses cohort starts on 28th September 20, 2022: https://ecoleadershipinstitute.org/coaching
Thank you for this thoughtful article Simon. I too, grew up in working class Britain & from where I am standing, I don’t& didn’t feel any loss from the Queens passing. Her establishment & power never influenced my life & that of my family or peers in a positive way. It indeed, did what you said, kept us in our rightful place, dependents with no ability to find our own voice, for who would listen? We need to be empowered as we are all sovereign, the greatest leveller of them all, in death, we are all the same. So I find it hard to understand why anyone would give their power away to the already mighty & powerful, to people who have no understanding of what life is like for the rest of us. To people who lives exist & flourish from the many who work to enable them to live in unrivalled luxury & opulence. Many of the reporters ( as these are not true journalists) gave the same old line,” her dedicated service.” Firstly, she never served anyone, she turned up a few times a year and cut some ribbons. She was “dedicated”, no, she didn’t sweat blood & tears in her role as Queen & we have no idea what she did in between the ribbon cutting, but I expect, it wasn’t any real graft like you or I have done throughout our lives. This demeans the poor souls who do back breaking work everyday to feed themselves & their families. They are the real dedicated, as what other choices do they have? But I agree, we need to empower everyone to discover & act upon their own agency not looking to their “ betters” to do that for them, and that starts with being really honest about the power structures & the games they play. Once the wool is taken from your eyes, then the real work can begin to liberate & empower the masses, the workers of this world. Until then, it’s business as usual for the firm & their sycophants.
Fabulous article, nothing left to say on the topic. Well done Simon for capturing and contextualising all this so eloquently