La Croix: How do you analyze the very special link of the British to Queen Elizabeth II?
Philippe Chassaigne: When we listen to the British pay tribute to her, since her death but also at the time of the Platinum Jubilee, celebrated last June, one idea keeps coming up: she was a landmark, an element of stability, a figure that seemed immutable, in a world that is changing faster and faster. And who, for the British, was totally upset during his reign.
On the geopolitical level, first. When Elizabeth II acceded to the throne in 1952, Great Britain was still the greatest colonial power, and it was during her reign that the Empire came to an end. Economically, then. The growth of the 1960s was followed by a decade of decline against a backdrop of stagnation, inflation and unemployment. With a symbolic date: the devaluation of the pound sterling, November 19, 1967. And if, in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher restored the economy, it was with the social cost that we know.
The path of his reign was therefore rocky, until Brexit. The dream of a global Britain, still brandished by Theresa May or Boris Johnson, has turned out to be a chimera. But the older the Queen got, the more the Britons grew accustomed to the comfort of stability despite everything. And despite the weakening of his state of health, the recent visit of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss seemed to have further delayed the deadline for his disappearance.
How had this attachment been built?
P. C. : Many Britons have not known other sovereigns, and even among the youngest she had an image of an ideal grandmother. She had been able to install this feeling of closeness, despite all the royal decorum. False proximity in fact, because his subjects did not know his deep feelings. Only her diary, which she had kept since she was 12, keeps track of it. But its publication will necessarily be subject to foreclosure rules, as its content may be delicate.
Death of Elizabeth II: our special file on the death of the Queen of England
These confidences could indeed come to tarnish the image of a queen, and beyond her of a royalty above partisan quarrels. And that is the key, not only to the popularity of the British constitutional monarchy, but also to its survival since the 19th century: to stand above political struggles.
The respect of these rules of the game which the queen has shown has also nourished the bond of affection with her subjects. And this, even if his preferences for certain prime ministers were known. Close for example to Labor Harold Wilson, more distant with Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.
How do the French, with their history, view this relationship between the British and their queen?
P. C. : In France, we are deeply republicans and at the same time fascinated by crowned heads. In this regard, it must be recognized that the house of Windsor, at the head of the first colonial power a century ago, is more attractive than the principality of the Rock, even if the latter allows sales records to be achieved. The youth of Elizabeth II, her meeting with de Gaulle when he was a refugee in London, her impeccable French or her humor also conquered France, which she visited for the first time even before becoming queen, in 1948.
In this, the view of the French is not very different from that of the Americans: rather paradoxical. In this republic also born of a revolt against the monarchy, the reception reserved for the queen was always very enthusiastic, during her trip in 1957 and even in 1976, for the 200 years of the revolt of the 13 colonies. And beyond that, the great popularity of the Windsors in America – George VI had been so warmly welcomed in 1939 – shows how the republican tradition is very well accompanied by a fascination with the tinsel of the monarchy.
Will Charles III be able to build the same bond with his subjects?
P. C. : Charles is more respected than loved. His charitable actions, in favor of young people in difficulty and minorities in particular, his former commitment to ecology correspond today to the concerns of the population, whereas he was considered an eccentric forty years ago.
But his age – 74 in two months – like the unpacking of his private life with Diana, which has not been forgotten, make him a transitional ruler. It was on her grandson William that the queen bet to perpetuate the monarchy, in England and in the States of the Commonwealth. This is also the challenge for the next few years: will the dynastic link be maintained with Australia, New Zealand or even Canada?