Monarchy & Murder: The Queen’s Lasting Legacy with Colonialism
Source: Photo by Mathew Browne on Unsplash
Queen Elizabeth II was arguably the last living link to many of the most important world historical events in the last several decades. Over her sixty years on the throne, Queen Elizabeth II met thirteen U.S presidents, had her portrait on hundreds of different currencies around the world and ruled over ten countries in the British Commonwealth. Her death has sparked debate over the case of the British monarchy and how the Queen ruled over the last remnants of the world’s once largest empire. Queen Elizabeth II was a relatively conservative monarch, who kept mostly silent on the dissolution of her empire and was primarily focused on revisioning the monarchy and maintaining the respect that it long fought to obtain. With that being said, the empire did not dissolve under her rule cleanly. Now more than ever, we should question the morals the monarchy followed in the past century.
Civil wars throughout the Middle East and Africa, genocides such as in Rwanda and political turmoil in Northern Island were ignited by Britain’s failed attempts to hold on to its empire or the quick neglect of its old colonies. Such civil wars as the Nigerian Civil War that lasted between 1967 to 1970 claimed the lives of half a million to two million civilians. Back home the Queen gained criticism for her stance on The Troubles in Ireland. Between the 1970s and 1990s, Northern Ireland, which was a part of Britain, was a hostile environment as Irish nationalists and British loyalists clashed over the region. Although Queen Elizabeth II helped to end the conflict in the 1990s with a ceasefire, the two decades beforehand saw the crown completely shut off diplomatic ties to the Republic of Ireland. Thousands of Irish and British people alike would lose their lives or be forever scarred by the conflict. Queen Elizabeth II made sure to maintain a passive approach to the falling empire.
One of the more important rules of monarchy is to stay neutral on political matters. I mainly see it as a downside since Queen Elizabeth II had a moral obligation to guide the liquidation of the Empire and world conflicts, but instead, the monarchy redefined the term colony. Although the idea of a colony is a thing of the past, Britain still has a grasp over global economies. After the fall of the empire, an idea known as neo-colonialism twinkled in the eyes of British nobility and politicians alike. Political scientist Nicholas Westcott proclaims that “British companies are still major investors on the continent, and more African companies are quoted on the London Stock Exchange than on any other stock market outside the continent,” as much of the capital in Africa is still owned by the British homeland. Instead of directly ruling other nations, the British would simply back puppet leaders and make countries rely on British profits.
It is untrue to say that Queen Elizabeth II was not compliant with these beliefs. Middle East historian Joseph Gill states how the Queen had no objection to the 1953 British/American backed coup of Iran: “Of course the queen did not author the 1953 coup - that was Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Eisenhower -- but she helped strengthen relations with Iran over the decades by forming a personal relationship with the shah and his wife, until he was overthrown in the revolution of 1979.” The coups and civil wars that followed the fall of the Empire begs the question of how much Queen Elizabeth II wanted to keep British strongholds throughout the world.
Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy concerning western history is also being re-examined. Her death has created a positive outlook on the past century of British rule, some have argued. “I think Elizabeth II’s rule prevented a reckoning and allowed for a sense of continuity and continued denial about the extent of change in the last 70 years,” says Priya Satia, a history professor at Stanford University. The activities of the empire have been largely undermined due to her passing.
The ugly side of western history such as imperialism, genocides and slavery has largely been overlooked since the queen’s death. People often focus on the positive legacy of world leaders once they pass, and Queen Elizabeth II is no exception. However, teaching a full, honest history of one’s country is difficult, but it helps to create a more well-rounded society. Despite her death, the idleness that Queen Elizabeth II stood by in meaningful moments of history can be questioned. Such world events as the conflicts in the Middle East or the political turmoil that Africa has suffered from have come with few words from Queen Elizabeth II. This has created a ripple effect back home where the dark side of a country’s history is ignored and the public is miseducated.
The British Empire may have fallen under Queen Elizabeth II, but the effects of conquest never fully evaporate. A world leader’s foreign actions are often undermined as the public focuses on a more positive legacy, but history must be seen through all lenses for society to grow.