Can we be critical of monarchy and its messaging?
I don't want to be disrespectful or insensitive, but there are questions we should be asking.
Ugh. I don’t want to do this.
If you’re in the UK now, and if you have an even slightly monarchy-sceptic mindset, you will know what I mean. If you are a monarchist or just a fan of the Queen, you may not, but that feeling you have right now, of rising tension or even anger that I might be about to say something horrible — that’s what I am talking about. An ordinarily rational, democratic, lightly socialist country is in the throes of grieving for a monarch in a defensive, even aggressive way. And I don’t understand it.
But I am trying.
I am honestly more concerned writing this than I have been writing unpopular opinions on Robert Mugabe, Ukraine and Beyoncé. Going out tonight, I am going to feel nervous, I am going to keep my voice down and I am going to resist exercising my democratic right to free expression, partly out of respect to those who feel deeply and differently, partly because I am very genuinely afraid of being assaulted.
And I guess that is one reason why I feel I have to write this.
I really do not want to offend anyone who is feeling actual grief — grief I do not understand — but I also feel that a space where reasonable things may not be said for fear of retribution is not one that should go unchallenged. So this is me trying not to upset you, but also trying to ask some questions that seem unacceptable to ask right now.
I am also aware that the automatic response will be: ‘too soon’. But this, I think, is a silencing tool. A short-circuit to debate and thought, especially in moments when it is most relevant. It has already been deployed repeatedly to silence anti-colonialist voices who have refused to join in the chorus of praise for a monarch whose reign encompassed their oppression. It has been used to silence those who very reasonably wish to see the idea of abandoning monarchy as an institution discussed — an idea with great logical weight. Just as the NRA says the aftermath of a school shooting is not the time to discuss gun control, so we are told that just before a nation in a cost of living crisis spends ransoms on a funeral and coronation may not be the right moment to discuss all of that — and the future of the entrenched structural inequality that is the monarchy.
I think this is exactly the time to discuss it. But that doesn’t mean I want to belittle and attack a 96-year-old human being who has just died.
There is an automatic insensitivity, a performative callousness that comes out at times like these, usually in the form of humour, often as a natural expression of shock and sometimes out of nihilistic unconcern for other people’s feelings. That is not what I am defending, however cathartic some people may find it.
But I can see how it is encouraged by the performative nationalism that finds its focus and expression so often in the celebration of monarchy.
I have found that difficult. Inescapable. An almost homogenous outpouring of ideals I strongly reject, inextricably intertwined with kind tributes to a nice old lady. The ideas are an idolatry of nation in the form of a figurehead that I find very hard to accept as both a leftist and a Christian. And I have held back, mostly, from responding on social media to posts that have stretched my patience because if I were upset I would want people to leave me alone.
No, many will say, there is no ideology, just gratitude to a great example, a great public servant and a great Christian. And that is what I take issue with. It is not just prayer meetings being encouraged to sing national anthems and huge public expenditure at a time when those without palaces are being asked to tighten their belts. It is the fantasy we are being asked to endorse.
And this is the part of this newsletter you may find hard, but this is not a eulogy and I feel it safe to assume no close friends or family of the deceased are reading. If they are, please take this in the spirit I intend: not personal criticism but a reality check that I think any reasonable, intelligent Christian would accept of themselves as well as a monarch.
One of the strangest parts of the initial firing up of the national grief cycle has been watching actual socialists (along with more predictable groups) get tearfully defensive of the Queen. People dedicated to eliminating inequality and concentrations of inherited wealth who are so fond of the person of Elizabeth II that they have called her a great (sometimes ‘the greatest’) public servant. This is a fantasy, rooted in an automatic and unquestioning acceptance of the idea that a monarch is inherently better than other humans. Why else would we see having a job as exceptional? There are pensioners stacking shelves in my Sainsburys. Most of us go to work eight hours a day and have to deal with stress and unreasonable expectations and balance that with concerns about messy family situations. But we don’t live in castles staffed by cooks, servants and secretaries. Many of us manage to remain dignified, and even more would find that easier with immense wealth. The Queen did a good job, but the job was not as taxing as working in a mine or in an Amazon warehouse or as a nurse during Covid. And it is unfair to expect people to pretend that her service was any more valuable than that of ordinary, less generously compensated people.
The outpouring of Christian tributes has been more perplexing. The Queen’s personal faith is well known and I understand the desire to claim and maximise that witness at this time, for the kingdom. And we do tend to rose-tint those who have passed. But when I see people posting about what a good servant she was I desperately want to ask what they mean. This is one of those questions I feel might upset people, but it seems important to ask as the Church seems determined to nail its colours to that particular mast. In what way do we consider it an exceptional service to the Lord? She spoke about her faith, as many of us do. Some of us do not, but we are not heads of the Church of England. I have liked her speeches praising Jesus Christ, but, while I do not want to get into the territory of pointing out the speck in someone else’s eye, what else is motivating this claim? Had she dissolved her estates and given them to the poor (or half of them, even) that would have been a remarkable witness and a sign of a great servant. As far as I know, she did not. Why, then, is she such an example to us all? In Christian terms, I mean, rather than aesthetic ones like dignity, poise and stability.
How would I measure up to these standards? Not wonderfully. But nobody is leaning towards hagiography in describing me.
The fact is, the Queen was a human being. Flawed, imperfect and saved by Grace alone, as I am sure she would be the first to assert. And when people have challenged the praise poems and hagiographies, they have been crossly reminded of the fact. This is a human being who has died. Somebody’s gran. Show some respect.
And all humans, all grans, deserve respect in death. But most of us, when we lose our grans, will not be able to stop traffic with police escorts to see her. We will not have our grief made easier by festive occasions being cancelled. We will walk through a world that carries on as normal. And my question is why this particular gran is more important than yours or mine.
I am aware many people will say their grans loved the Queen. And that may be part of this grief, an intertwining of symbol and memory. But there will be many grannies this year who will die because of lack of access to adequate shelter and heating, in this country and throughout the Commonwealth. Is it honouring, is it Christian, to spend a fortune on a funeral and coronation rather than helping these people?
It is easy to criticise, I know. But what is the difference between these women?
The fact is, as one reporter now infamously put it, the discussion of the cost of living crisis pales into insignificance compared to the news of the monarch dying. And for the media and the establishment maybe that is true. But I don’t believe it is true before God. As people made in his image, none of us is inherently more valuable than another. And monarchy, as a system, as a mindset and as an idea, denies this truth.
Queen Elizabeth II was much loved. It is not our job or our right to try and take that away from people. Some found a sense of unity, pride and identity in paying respect to her. I don’t believe they should be mocked or attacked any more than other groups who find their identities in fantasies, distractions or fictions. Regardless of the object, love and joy are precious and rare things, as is a sense of identity and meaning.
But maybe we can look beyond the shallow nationalism, the deference to ‘betters’ and fantasies like the divine right of kings for a better, bigger identity. In Christ the poor humiliated servant if we are Christians, or just as human beings. All equal, all valuable, all worthy of respect.
Let’s hear from someone different
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
As criticisms have been denounced, two arguments have been doing the rounds. The first is that the Queen achieved so much that she deserves plaudits. Achievements of Britain have been ascribed to her. At the same time, a second narrative goes thus: the Queen was largely a figurehead and can’t be blamed for the terrible things Britain did during her reign. They can’t both be true.
The silencing of voices from around the world who are critical not just of her role as figurehead of colonialism but also more recent crimes, should not be accepted.
It is also worth considering the damage a narrative of harmless pageantry can do in a country so beset by entrenched inequality and class oppression. This scholar of authoritarianism nails it.
Latest pod episodes: Greenbelt, McLaren, total depravity.
It feels like years ago when everything wasn’t about the monarchy but was about Greenbelt festival. That’s where our last two episodes were recorded. You could check them out on your podcast provider, or here:
The end bit
Beer Christianity is primarily a podcast, hosted by Laura, Malky and Jonty, but Jonty usually writes the newsletter. We are anti-capitalist, pro-BLM, pro-LGBTQ+, post-post-post evangelical and, it turns out, republican with a small r.
You can find Beer Christianity on Twitter: @beerxianity and Instagram. Listen to us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube and Stitcher. You can also leave us a question or comment to be included in the podcast at: speakpipe.com/beerchristianity.
Beer Christianity costs about £900 a year in software subscriptions (not counting equipment, travel and beer) because capitalism. If you wanted to support us that would be kind, but not essential. If it’s a choice, we’d rather you shared our stuff.
Hey, thanks for making it to the end. I’m really sorry if you hated this. Didn’t want to upset people, but the response just seemed so overwhelming and homogenous that it felt cowardly not to say something. We’re really excited about upcoming episodes so I hope you will listen to those. Much love, Jonty.
I applaud your defence of freedom of speech - absolutely. But...
The argument in criticism of monarchy, though, is rife with false binaries (e.g. feeding the poor or having a monarchy - is this really a choice?) & poorly argued disconnections (e.g. gun control, performative nationalism?), in my view. And connecting, even blaming, a twentieth century modern monarch - with no real power - to the noxious impact of colonialism totally misplaces blame for what was, in effect, a largely victorian phenomenon. Of course that was wrong, of course British overseas policy was fraught with brutality and flagrant self-interest. But to take issue with modern monarchy on the basis of centuries old wrongs (terrible though they were) is to draw connections where there aren't any. As you say about yourself, I have't sold half my possessions either, but does that make me any more or less guilty than the queen? At least I have the power to sell my stuff; the Queen didn't, as most of her holdings are in the national possession anyway. Maybe that makes me more guilty?
To reduce the international and national (internal) benefits of figureheads to that of ancient oppressing authoritarians is just daft to my mind. She/they are not that. Neither can anything they do be reasonably stretched out be that.
To suggest that the Queen didn't work is to ignore the reality of a life sacrificed on the alter of national service. Of course she's privileged and wealthy - that much is obvious and not an issue to me. But she/they can never go the the shops, go on holiday, attend church for worship, visit friends or do any of the other myriad things we all take for granted. There's often an assumption by the 'have nots' that the 'haves' enjoy greater freedom, happiness, joy and delight than the rest of 'us.' And therefore they 'must' be somehow to blame for it all.
For me, that's the nub of all this. I'm neither a royalist nor a republican by instinct. But I do think that a self-centred, inverted superiority that individualises everything is fraught with problems; and all the more so when it claims Jesus as its justification.
As for freedom of speech - absolutely. I wholeheartedly applaud you for saying what you've said, Jonty, because it is absolutely your right to do so. Thank you.
Thanks so much, this is brilliant. Puts into words everything I've been trying to put across to my family since she died, so nice to find a like-mind amongst the idolators!