The Decibel - Queen Elizabeth dies at 96

Episode Date: September 9, 2022

Queen Elizabeth II died on Thursday at the age of 96. She was on the throne for 70 years, making her the longest-reigning British monarch in history. Her rule was marked by modernizing the monarchy, increased philanthropy, timeless fashion and the occasional joke.While the Queen was widely beloved, the popularity of the monarchy has been waning here in Canada and elsewhere. Vicky Mochama, royals writer and contributor to The Globe, tells us about the Queen’s life and legacy, and how we might reckon with the monarchy now that she is gone.

Hi, I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms, and you're listening to The Decibel, from The Globe and Mail. I can make my solemn act of dedication with the whole empire listening. I should like to make that dedication now. It is very simple. I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong. That's the voice of Queen Elizabeth II from 1947, on her 21st birthday, when she was still a princess. It was one of her many broadcasts over the decades. The Queen died on Thursday, at the age of 96, at Balmoral Castle in Scotland.

She was surrounded by family. The crown passes to her son, Charles, who is now king. People have been expressing their condolences, including world leaders. We are all devastated by the news that we have just heard from Balmoral. The death of Her Majesty the Queen is a huge shock to the nation and to the world. Queen Elizabeth II was the rock on which modern Britain was built. It is with great sadness that New Zealand wakes to the news of the passing of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Canada is in mourning. She was one of my favorite people in the world,

and I will miss her so. Elizabeth became queen at just 25 years old, and she ruled for an unprecedented 70 years. No other monarch in the UK has ruled for that long. She reigned through 15 British prime ministers, all the way back to Winston Churchill, and she visited over a hundred countries. Her rule was marked by modernizing the monarchy, increasing philanthropy, timeless fashion, and the occasional joke. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister of Canada, for making me feel so old.

For most Canadians alive today, she's the only monarch we've ever known. And though she's pretty widely liked, many Canadians don't love the monarchy. Last year, a Leger survey of 1,500 Canadians found that 53% agreed with the statement that the monarchy is out of date and no longer has a place in the 21st century. I think we are really at an inflection point where this person who is adored and admired by Canadians is no longer there to be the ambassador for this institution. And it really begs the question, how do we deal with this institution that we're left with? Vicky Mochama is a freelance writer and contributor to The Globe. She often writes about the royal family.

She's here to tell us about the Queen's life and legacy, and how we might reckon with the monarchy now that the Queen is gone. This is The Decibel. Vicki, thanks so much for chatting with me today. You're welcome. It's a pleasure. Let's just start with a little bit of backstory about the Queen here. How and when did she actually come to power? Queen Elizabeth II came to power in 1952 when her father, King George, passed away.

And she was actually on tour in Kenya at the time. And so she acceded to the throne when she was actually outside of Britain. And it wasn't until about a year and a half later that she was crowned queen in the coronation. And so it was an interesting time. It was the 1950s. There's a lot of liberation fights and independence fights happening. And it was a very heady time in global politics. And so to have a new queen, especially a young queen at that time, would have been fascinating for millions of people. And why was there such a delay from when she was actually declared queen to her coronation? You know, there's always a little bit of a delay. But I think in that case, the committee that came together to pull together the coronation wanted to give her time to settle

into the role. But also they were going to do a major change, which was that they were going to broadcast the coronation. I solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your possession, and the other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs. I solemnly promise so to do. Which had never been done before, and the royal family hadn't really engaged with the modernity of television

in the dawning of the television age. And so this was their first big strike. And that gave them time to really practice and get right the coronation. Almost every single part of the coronation, except for one little bit of it, was broadcast to millions and millions of people. And it was the first time people were really getting to see how it is a queen gets made. A lot of people in Canada and Britain, but, you know, around the world, too, had great affection for the queen. What made her so

likable to people around the world? I can't speak for everyone around the world. But I know that, you know, what I appreciated about what the queen did was that she did her job very well. And part of their job is doing things like bringing attention to charities, bringing attention to causes that are maybe underserved or underpaid attention to. And she did that really well. She showed up for charities when they needed her and when they called for her. She was the patron of over 600 charities, which is pretty substantial. So that means when they call you to show up for a gala, she would show up for those galas. And I think that's a striking role to play. Let's talk a little bit more about that philanthropy then.

How much money does the monarchy give out and what kind of issues do they focus on? So the monarchy is an interesting site of patronage because the queen inherited a number of her patronages from previous monarchs. And so there are things like the Royal Sailing Clubs, the RSPCA. Those are patronages that would have come about from previous monarchs that she now also has. But they also have patronages that are of their own personal interests. And so we've seen that with Will and Kate, for example. They are patrons to charities that are focused on children in need, children in care, child bullying. They're really focused on young people as part of their charities. And so for the Queen, a lot of her charities that were civic organizations like the Red Cross and

cancer research institutions, how much money they bring in is substantial. We know that much. But we don't really know the exact dollar figure because charities don't necessarily have to account for how much money the royals are bringing in for them. But we do know it's in the millions, if not billions of dollars, because being a royally patronized charity means that they are considered diligent. They are considered reputable and they're considered to be of good work. The royal family, by putting their name to it, by the queen putting her name to it, has said to people, this is a valuable source of community effort here. And one of the things I know that the queen did that was kind of rare is that she made a private donation to people displaced by the war in Ukraine. Can you tell me a little bit about that? And why is something like that so rare?

You know, it's rare because that is, in a sense, making a political statement, which the family tends to shy away from. And so they try to find ways to be apolitically involved in charities. This is why it was controversial when Diana, for example, stepped into the conversation about landmines and AIDS. These were considered at that time very politically charged topics. For the queen to make a private donation, she was indicating what mattered to her personally, but she wasn't telling anybody else what to do. The queen was a pretty private person, but I guess what do we know about her and what her interests were and what she was like. It's hard to pin down exactly what the queen was like as a person because she really embodied her role as head of the monarchy and as representing the institution. But we did get little glimpse and bits of it from her family

who said she was really funny and that she loved her dogs and she really cherished her time out in Sandringham on her horses. And she loved some of the things and moments in her life where she had some independence, like when she was a mechanic during the war. And so she really had a personality unto herself, but the success of her role and the success of her time was that she managed to keep her personality out of the job

and really convey what it is to be a monarch, a modern monarch, and to do that without bringing necessarily every little inch of her personality to it. You said she was a mechanic during the war? That's kind of an interesting thing. Yeah, so she served in the auxiliary during the war where she learned how to be a mechanic. And unlike lots of other families, the royal family did not send away their daughters overseas to be safe during the war. They were kept in Britain, and they were asked to take on roles, which they eagerly did, serving and participating in the war efforts.

Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne for decades. How did she bring the monarchy into the modern era here? A lot of the work that the monarchy did to come into the modern era came about not just from Queen Elizabeth II, but also from a lot of what Prince Philip did. He was really pushing the monarchy to be involved in technology. You know, if you think of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, it's a huge technological change happening. And Prince Philip will just say, of course, is her late husband, is her late husband. And he was real, you know, because he had experienced so much turbulence in his upbringing

as a member of a sort of lower royal house, but a royal house nonetheless. He understood what it meant for royal families to not be as engaged in the conversations that were happening around them and what that kind of distance can do to royal families. And so he really pushed the families to be more modern. For example, there was a behind the scenes can do to royal families. And so he really pushed the families to be more modern. For example, there was a behind-the-scenes documentary showing the royal family. The only thing that they could notice with Queen Victoria was that she was just crambling the slightest little bit,

as all this was going on, but she never gave any sign. And afterwards, of course, there was a child who was pawed down her cheeks. She had this incredible control. Oh, she did? Yeah, what to do then? In the internet age, they've been some of the first to embrace technology. They were very early on social media. The royal family has really tried to join with people where they're at and to meet with the average person as often as possible. Another innovation that the queen invented is the royal walkabout. So when you see royals, you know,

shaking hands with people on the street, that wasn't something that they did. They used to, in the past, just drive by or wave at people from their cars or from their chariots. But it was the queen's actual innovation to say, I'm going to walk up to these people and shake their hands. I believe she did this on the royal tour of Jamaica, and she was going to shake hands with people directly. And that was a relatively new innovation. So there's been steps to modernize and to bring the royal

family closer to the average person. This is interesting, too, because you mentioned at her coronation, of course, that was the first coronation that was telephied. So kind of right from the beginning, there was maybe a different attitude towards her or kind of a different level of connection that people may have felt with this queen. Absolutely. And we see this in, you know, poll after poll that says that no matter what the politics of the moment are for the monarchy, the queen herself was admired all the way through. We see that in polls all the time. In a 2016 Angus Reid poll, the Queen remained remarkably popular, even though there were beginning to be questions about whether or not Canada wants to be part of the monarchy. In a 2022 Angus Reid poll, and I'm sure this is happening now, 60% of Canadians said that they would be hugely affected by her passing. And so the queen has remained an incredibly popular figure,

regardless of what has happened. And part of that is because she did her job well, often with very little controversy. And what do you mean by she did her job well? What does that entail? The monarchy is meant to embody national unity, and they're meant to be representative of the state of the nation. And so she maintained a very placid but likable facade, always being pleasant but not always being overly forthright. And I think that allowed people to, you can write onto that, you can telegraph onto that any kind of personality or person you want. And I think that is a part of what she did her job well.

The other part of doing her job well is she navigated a number of personal and family crises, as well as political crises, causing very little controversy. She was never seen as partisan, for example. The royal family does not share their political opinions, even though they have causes that they do support. And so for that reason, I think she remained a popular figure. And also, this one's a personal one for me. I think her fashion remained remarkable. You know, 50 to 60 years plus of straight looking like a boss is incredible to me. And pulling that off with style, with flair, and with grace is part of what people really admired about her.

Yeah, and maybe that was part of, like, kind of the, you know, people thought they kind of felt some personality coming through there. She also made a couple of cameo appearances that were kind of fun in recent years, like that James Bond skit at the Olympics, right, with Daniel Craig, or the Paddington Bear one with the marmalade sandwich. Perhaps you would like a marmalade sandwich. I always keep one for emergencies. So do I. I keep mine in here.

I guess, what do things like that, those kind of fun little things that we wouldn't necessarily expect a queen or a monarch to do, that kind of thing, what did that do for her image or for the image of the monarchy? It showed that little bit of a hint of what she was like, that the family would sometimes clue us about, that she was fun. She was game for an adventure. She was willing to participate, even if it wasn't necessarily, quote unquote, dignified. But those are the moments where we got to see a queen step off of her throne and really engage with the rest of us. And that felt real and that felt human and that allowed people to engage with a monarch. We'll be right back. It's interesting, we're talking about how like, you you know people kind of felt like they knew her throughout some of these different things and i think about that the netflix show the crown right

like when i watch that i kind of feel like i have a sense of of this person even though of course it's it's still from quite a distance i wonder about that show in particular like what did the crown do for how people viewed the queen that is such an interesting question. I think it has given people an insight into what the job is like and what it is for the queen to be part of what is called the firm, which is the institution of the monarchy and the institution of the family versus the push and pull of being a person in that family versus what it's like to try to be a mother or grandmother in that setting. That show, I think, has opened the door for questions about what the monarchy is and what it can do, but also about some of the harms that have been levied by that institution or the

institutions surrounding them, but also what kind of harms they've done to themselves is really, you know, the questions that come up for me when I'm watching The Crown, it's turned me into a bit of a, you know, having seen, I guess, too much of the sausage being made, I now think, oh, God, maybe this isn't, you know, the charming celebrity institution I once thought it was. Well, so let's, let's talk a little bit about these harms. And I guess, for you personally, since since you mentioned it, like, how is the way that you think about the monarchy and the queen? How has that changed and maybe developed over the years then? I always thought of the royal family as just kind of charming celebrities that I could keep up with. I could no longer keep up with whatever new starlet was out and about, which pop stars were doing what.

But I could keep up with the royal family because their celebrity news tended to be slow. They would maybe have one or two interesting events for them in a year. However, when we start to look around the world and we start to look up close at some of the harms that we're trying to untangle in this country around reconciliation, around colonialism, around the impacts of those institutions,

you can't pretend that the royal family and the queen weren't involved in that. I think it's very hard to remove them from that equation. Yeah, because there's, of course, the long history of colonialism. How do we see that legacy, the legacy of colonialism play out in the current monarchy? I think we see that legacy play out in some of the challenges that, for example, Harry and Meghan had around dealing with the firm, as they called it, and that caused them to leave the family. Because they needed the protection from some of the racism that was being leveled at them by the

media institutions, but also just the difficulty of trying to modernize an institution that is still, for all of its modern changes, quite slow moving. You know, they tend to be like a microcosm of what it is our world is like. If we're trying to untangle racism on these granular levels in schools, in our workplaces, in our families, and the royal family, with all their money, all their wealth, all their access, all their power, is unable to untangle racism from inside its own institutions, how are the rest of us meant to move forward? How are the rest of us supposed to struggle? And I think that's really the question that raises for me that they are still struggling with being part of a modern era, in an era where we're asking people to be accountable for the harms that they've caused. And this is making me wonder about former colonies, too, like Canada, like a lot of

places around the world. What about the role of the monarchy in former colonies, especially now, given that the queen is no longer around? How should us in former colonies, I guess, kind of view this moment in time? I think this moment in time is an inflection point. It's one that's been on the way for quite some time. For example, in 2021, Barbados left the Commonwealth and became a republic. And the Queen is no longer their head of state.

And now they have an elected head of state. And there's at least six other Caribbean nations, if not several more now, that are considering that same process of becoming a republic and abandoning the monarchy. In Canada, that may or may not be popular. That may or may not be what happens next. But I think we are really at an inflection point where this person who is adored and admired by Canadians is no longer there to be the ambassador for this institution. And it really begs the question, how do we deal with this institution that we're left with? Yeah, because I think, frankly, I think a lot of Canadians, I think a lot of people probably would say, you know, I don't really have any connection, this just doesn't really affect me in any way. So is it I guess there's maybe a danger of kind

of the monarchy, maybe becoming obsolete or not as relevant to a lot of people. Yeah, and I think that's the thing that they've struggled with. They try to do their tours, you know, visiting a variety of countries, especially countries that are part of the Commonwealth. But, you know, times do change and things do progress with or without them. They're firmly embedded in our Constitution, so it would be very difficult to untangle. It would also be very difficult to untangle because when we're looking at questions of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, their many nations, their primary relationship or their treaty relationship is where power is embedded and that's where trust is embedded and has been broken and needs to be reconciled with. And so it's a sticky question.

It's how do we move forward? But at this moment, I think what we can look at is that the queen herself was incredibly admired for the work that she did. However, it's a moment in time to really ask ourselves the big questions about the work we need to do next. Yeah. If I can ask you, like, how do you I guess, how do you think about this? Because you've thought a lot about the monarchy over time. Like, how do you think about the history that that, you know, we have with the institution versus the family or how those things connect or maybe don't connect in ways? You know, for me, I think it's striking that Queen Elizabeth ascended to the throne when she was visiting Kenya, which is where I'm from. And there the British were

brutal. They were a horrifying colonial force and independence did not come about easily. And so I think of it personally, it connects to me deeply because maybe I once thought of them as charming celebrities, but the more I begin to know and understand my own family history, the history of colonialism in Canada, the more I don't think of them as these kind of anodyne pleasant figures. I think of them as the institutions that they represent. And the institutions that they represent have been incredibly harmful and owe something to the people that they've harmed, whether that's a question of reparations or republicanism or some other form of moving forward. I'm a lot less charmed by the institution as I once was, but I still think that there's, I've seen some value in them as a stabilizing force for democracy. And so I'm conflicted as always, as ever. And I know that

I appreciated the Queen for what she did, not just in the work that she did and the fashion that she brought forward. Shout out to wearing a kitten heel in your 90s. But I really appreciated that the Queen navigated a lot of these tensions, not always perfectly, not always easily, but she definitely managed to stay the course. It's hard to tell in moments of change like this, but I guess how much lasting interest do you think there will actually be in the monarchy now that the queen is gone? I'm not sure. Because Charles, for example, is not as popular as his mother was. A 2016 Angus Reid poll found that 46% of Canadians wanted to recognize Charles as king,

which means less than half the country wants to recognize Charles as king. Some are more attached to Prince William, so who knows? I don't know if the royal family is making decisions based on Canadian polling firms, but it's one way to go. But it does tell us how Canadians are starting to feel about the monarchy,

which is it's a little bit less of a permanent force in their lives. And even in the wall-to-wall coverage we're having of the Queen's death, they may feel an emotional distance from it. They may feel it has no application to their lives. And I wouldn't say that they are incorrect to analyze it that way. Vicky, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. Thank you so much. Before you go, we've got a special Saturday edition of The Decibel dropping tomorrow morning.

It's about the conservative leadership vote, which is happening later tomorrow. And on Monday, I'll be hosting a Twitter space with Globe reporters Marika Walsh and Robin Urbach, where we'll break down the results of the vote. That'll be at 2 p.m. on Monday, and I really hope that you can join us. Okay, that's it for today. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms. Our producers are Madeline White, Cheryl Sutherland, and Rachel Levy-McLaughlin. David Crosby edits the show. Kasia Mihailovic is our senior producer, and Angela Pachenza is our executive editor.

Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.