The death of Queen Elizabeth II highlights her nuanced legacy

The extraordinary farewells to Queen Elizabeth II, who passed away last week at the age of 96, have partly reflected the astounding length of her reign, which spanned not just an era but several. But the Queen, alive and dead, is also a symbol of a number of issues that have been at the center of the political and cultural conflicts of our age — ranging from the legacy of liberalism to racial justice to tensions between traditional and modern views of duty and personal fulfillment.

In many ways, the Queen was a figure of both modernity and tradition. She represented a monarchy that seems antiquated; she also became a female head of state in 1952, when few dreamed of female presidents and prime ministers. Yes, it was a ceremonial post with few real powers, and yet an embodiment of leadership — and an inspiration to many women. Among them: 26-year-old political beginner Margaret Thatcher, who wrote an article expressing the hope that the Queen’s ascension would help end prejudice against female ambition. She was, in a very real sense, a working woman with a family who often had to put work first.

Elizabeth’s traditionalism also included an emphasis on stoicism — a stance that brought the Queen into public disfavor during the drama surrounding the divorce between Prince Charles and Princess Diana and Diana’s tragic death in a car crash in 1997. At the time, the Queen was widely criticized for her coldness, while Diana was seen as a modern princess whose emotional openness made her relatable. With time, public perceptions shifted. In the 21st century, the Queen has eclipsed Diana in iconic status, and her restraint is often viewed as wise and protective of her grandchildren. Perhaps there’s something to be said for the stiff upper lip.

The Queen’s devotion to duty also underscored her conviction that her post was about service — unremarkable today, but a striking inversion of the normal historical relationship between monarch and subjects. It is a measure of British royalty’s evolution into that most paradoxical of entities: the liberal monarchy, with democratic elections and protection for individual liberties. But here, another paradox looms: The monarchy also presided over a formidable empire whose political and racial legacy is hotly contested today.

Some of that conflict was spotlighted when, in the Queen’s final hours, a Nigerian-born American professor posted a tweet wishing her a painful death in retaliation for British support of a brutal postcolonial regime in Nigeria. While few would endorse this ugly sentiment, more measured commentary on Elizabeth’s passing — and the empire’s passing under her reign — challenged the view of a largely benevolent British Empire that voluntarily relinquished its power. This perception, critics say, downplays the empire’s roots in white supremacy as well as its attempts to preserve its power through violence.

No credible person denies the empire’s historical racism or violence. But history is also complicated — as tributes to the Queen in many former colonies make clear. Even some commentators who believe the dark side of British imperialism is not discussed enough acknowledge that in many places, British rule helped foster the very liberal values that helped end it. The Queen’s warm relationship with Nelson Mandela, the hero of South African liberation — and, much earlier, her norm-breaking dance with the Black president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, in 1961 — exemplifies this nuanced legacy.

The Queen is dead, but the cultural issues she symbolized will be with us for a long time to come.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a cultural studies fellow at the Cato Institute, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.