For four days and five nights, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Britons from every corner of the United Kingdom and of diverse beliefs, colour, religion and national origin stood for up to 24 hours in a queue five miles long to pay their respects to their Queen who had been a constant in their lives for 70 years.

The Queen, the longest serving monarch in British history, mentored 14 prime ministers who have all spoken of the value of the Queen’s guidance and soft power in those weekly audiences.  

The spectacle of pageantry and symbolism throughout the five hours of the funeral at Westminster Abbey and the committal in the Chapel at Windsor Castle was both breathtakingly moving and at the same time deeply personal. 

Both events and the procession between Westminster Abbey and Windsor were seen by hundreds of millions on television, masterfully filmed by the BBC.

The private burial at St Georges Chapel in Windsor followed in the early evening.

Symbol of duty

The outpouring of love and appreciation was for the stability and continuity the monarch symbolised in good times and bad and for the caring, understated but profound role that Elizabeth II brought to the role.

She worked tirelessly until the day she died at 96. Two days earlier she welcomed Liz Truss as her 15th prime minister at a meeting at Balmoral Castle in Scotland.

Some from the 54 Commonwealth countries made the journey from as far afield as Australia, India and Canada and some came from the United States and the European Union.

Scores of world leaders and royalty attend the funeral at Westminster Abbey among 2,000 invited guests.

Members of the armed forces guard the coffin as they attend the Lying-in-State of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II at the Palace of Westminster in London, Britain, 18 September 2022. The queen’s lying in state lasted for four days, ending on the morning of the state funeral on 19 September. (Photo: EPA-EFE/Neil Hall)

Guards are changed as mourners file past the coffin as they attend the Lying-in-State of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II at the Palace of Westminster in London, Britain, 18 September 2022. (Photo: EPA-EFE/Neil Hall)

On the 21st April 1947, Queen Elizabeth II made the following declaration on the radio from Cape Town while on a three-month state visit to South Africa with her parents, King George VI and the Queen and her sister, the late Princess Margaret.

“I declare before you all that my whole life — whether it be long or short — shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”

Other leaders have made similar pledges but very few have got close to the Queen’s record of selfless dedication and total commitment tinged with kindness and good humour. But then that is what the Monarchy is there for. 

It was young Princess Elizabeth’s coming-of-age as she turned 21 at a double party in Cape Town, one in the Cape Town City Hall, which now acts as a temporary Parliament, and one in the Parliament precinct which was severely damaged in a fire on New Year’s day this year, with no sign of repair as yet.

Impression on South Africa

While Country Manager of Brand South Africa during the State visit of then president Jacob Zuma in 2010, I was privileged to participate in the planning of the visit and to assist in recommending invitees to the reception hosted by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in the Queen’s Gallery in Buckingham Palace which Houses the Royal Collection of priceless art.

After the handshakes with the Royal couple, I became engaged in conversation and suddenly the Queen was standing in front of me. 

I immediately thought of the way my parents had always spoken animatedly about the State visit of 1947 when the Royal ship Britannia docked in Cape Town.

I asked how important that day had been and she confirmed that it had been formative and one of the highlights of her life.

Cape Town is where my British-born father, a young doctor on a Royal naval vessel, had met my South African mother after World War 2 when his ship called in Cape Town.

I have kept my late mother’s brochure of the Royal visit which lasted three months — not two days as is now the case.

During their visit the Royal couple visited every corner of the country in the year before the National Party came to power and apartheid was institutionalised.

General Jan Smuts, a close confidant of Sir Winston Churchill and co-founder of the League of Nations, struck up a friendship with King George VI and they engaged in a prolific exchange of letters after the State visit which the Queen exhibited in an adjoining chamber at the State banquet in 2010.

The standard by which she should be judged is the way she treated people regardless of race, creed or national origin throughout her life.

What is remarkable about the British monarchy is that from the coming to power of the National Party in 1948 until South Africa’s democracy elections in 1994 there was no contact of any kind between Buckingham Palace and the apartheid government.

This clear act of royal disapproval came despite successive UK governments not only engaging the apartheid state but Margaret Thatcher notoriously splitting the Commonwealth by opposing sanctions against apartheid South Africa.

The Queen struck up a warm relationship with Nelson Mandela after 1994 and the two leaders were clearly comfortable in each other’s company and shared an impish sense of humour.

When Mandela’s statue was unveiled in Parliament Square in 2007 it was striking that the only other South African in the square of statues was Jan Smuts in the company of British prime ministers spanning a century along with Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln.

Reflections of majesty

In his sermon at the Queen’s funeral 19 September, Anglican Archbishop Justin Welby lauded the life of service which put Elizabeth II in a league of her own and set an example that leaders today would do well to follow.

“Those who serve will be remembered, those who cling to power will be forgotten,” the Archbishop said on the only occasion his voice rose deliberately.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

The sheer intensity and weight of history take me back to those heady days of Mandela’s release in 1990 and his inauguration in 1994. 

It has been a reminder that the soft power of one person in a leadership position who does what they have committed themselves to do every day of their lives is astonishing.

Analysts and historians are pouring over the degree to which it was the person of Elizabeth II or the institution of the monarchy which has transformed an anachronistic institution which rests on traditions going back 1,000 years.

The truth, as is so often the case, lies somewhere in the middle.

The extraordinary spectacle of the past week has reminded us that the monarchy is a force to reckon with, quite apart from that of the incumbent — even one who has served 70 years.

But the way Elizabeth II adapted to changing times and understood and developed the leeway that she had — despite the institution — enabled her to build a degree of wisdom and charisma which is almost unique. 

Her mere presence was able to calm and guide prime ministers and build a bond and mutual loyalty with the ordinary people, which made her indispensable to the well-being of the majority of the population as well as millions of subjects in the wider Commonwealth. 

Force for unity

The Queen’s death has unified this country in a way I never thought was possible but I guess that is what happens when people realise that they have lost a leader who was so vital to their peace of mind.  

A caring leader who transcends the maelstrom of the political realm performs a critical role to preserve democracy in any country.

In a country such as the UK which has no written constitution, it is all the more so.

The Queen’s presence has provided crucial guidance and reassurance in times of crisis such as World War 2, the Suez crisis, the winter of discontent in the 1970s, the Covid-19 pandemic, the highly divisive impact of joining the European Economic in 1974, the traumatic Brexit in 2016, the rise of populist demagogues and the invasion of Ukraine this year. 

Not to mention the trials and tribulations of her own family having to be acted out in the full glare of the public spotlight.

A new era

Three outcomes of this week’s extraordinary spectacle seem fairly clear: Prince Charles, who has had a lifetime to observe and prepare, has brought a surprisingly tactile and warm touch to the monarchy early on in the transition and has passed the exacting test of reconciling his personal grief with the formidable public duty of the monarchy.

The fact that the Queen died in Scotland and lay first in Edinburgh Cathedral is likely to push any secession of Scotland into the long grass.

And lastly, the healing power of a caring monarchy, now occupied by King Charles III, is likely to be needed more than ever in the difficult decade that lies ahead with an ailing economy and a turbulent global backdrop.

The monarch will endure albeit in a trimmed down and modernised form.

That process has already begun.

The imagery of King Charles and Prince William shaking literally thousands of outstretched hands — and even accepting kisses on the cheek — would suggest that the royal ship is on course as long as Charles follows closely in the footsteps of his mother on style and values.

Queen Elizabeth II set a good example of what leadership should look like.

And the ritual of the attenuated transition — the removal from the coffin of the orb and sceptre and the breaking of the wand of office — is helping ordinary people break through the taboo around death and to face their own mortality.

The choice of the Russian Kontakion at the Chapel of Windsor sent a clear message of comfort: it expresses the sorrow of grief but reminds us of the hope of life after death.

With the hindsight of history, it would be easy to blame the Queen for the legacy of colonialism and imperialism which South Africa is still grappling with but it would miss the contribution she made from behind the scenes as a moral leader in the mould of Mandela,  Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

As a  monarch, she of course had the advantage of never having to enter the boxing ring of politics and the cancel culture.

But she should be judged by the way she treated and interacted with people on a personal level regardless of race, creed or national origin. 

She cannot be held personally responsible for the horrors of the slave trade or the burgeoning food queues in the UK of today exacerbated by the economic fall-out of the war on Ukraine.

Her hallmarks were steadfastness and human decency and respect and on more than one occasion she found herself at odds with the prime minister of the day. 

But above all, she gave people hope in the darkest of times and often would have spoken her mind on human rights issues if she had not been constrained by her constitutional role.  DM

See another viewpoint here: I will not shed a tear for the Queen, a beneficiary and furtherer of colonial conquest