The death of Elizabeth II, Queen of England, is for many reasons, a historic event. It is, of course, looking at her trajectory, marked by the exceptional longevity of whom she has lived for almost a century and has reigned for almost seventy years. But it is, too, considering the present and future of the United Kingdom, because Elizabeth II disappears at a time when her kingdom is experiencing one of the most difficult moments in its recent history since the fall of the British Empire. As much as the British is the paradigm of constitutional monarchies and, consequently, the role of the monarch is to maintain political neutrality, there is a logical concern to know if his successor, King Charles III, will be able to maintain these virtues. in which she stood out so much. The queen was crowned when her country, and the crown itself, were also experiencing moments of anxiety, with the United Kingdom shaken by the loss of the empire, but the country was deeply united by its outstanding role in the war against Nazi Germany and began a new and promising journey, with a prominent place among European nations and a seat on the Security Council. Charles of Wales will be crowned under very different circumstances. With a deeply divided country that is experiencing a deep economic and social crisis after leaving the European Union and in which the construction of the symbolic figure of the monarch as it must start from scratch.
The new king does not have in his powers to interfere in the problems that afflict the United Kingdom, but he must take into account that his mother, always maintaining an exquisite equanimity, has been able to provide the British with the confidence and sense of belonging that all people need. especially in times of adversity. The last image of the queen, receiving, in a state of extreme fragility, Liz Truss at Balmoral Palace, reflects the complexity of the moment in which the British monarchy deals with the transition. Of the sixteen candidates for the head of government received by the queen during her term, Truss is probably the one who attended the appointment with the greatest political weakness, with a divided Conservative Party and with a country on the verge of a distressing recession. Elizabeth II never liked what happened with the Brexit referendum. Not so much because she had ideas more or less favorable to remaining in the European Union, something that her caution does not allow us to know, but because she perceived that the referendum was going to split the country in half.
In the balance of the strengths of Isabel II, which will be hard to do for the years in which she has reigned, her determination in the defense of the country stands out, which began before her coronation, during the Second World War. His commitment to the defense of London was forever in the retina of the British and was decisive in forgetting the hesitations of other members of the royal family. The balance of his errors feeds, fundamentally, on how he has managed the dynastic tensions that the royal family itself experienced. The disdain that she initially showed when Lady Di died of her created a moat between her and a part of British public opinion moved by the tragic death of the so-called village princess that he had to fix. Above these circumstances has always been not only the ability to exercise his role according to the characteristics of any parliamentary monarchy, but also in the category and dignity with which he has exercised the position. Without being blamed for improper actions of the position that stain his very long mandate.