Welcome to the Deep Dive, where we sift through
monumental stacks of historical context, biographical
sources, and global research to give you the
fastest, most insightful understanding of the
world's most complex subjects. And today, we
are attempting a feat. of historical compression,
one that spans seven whole decades. We're diving
deep into the life and really the unparalleled
reign of Queen Elizabeth II. When you just look
at the sheer scale of her tenure, 70 years and
314 days, it's an almost unimaginable stretch
of history. I mean, it's hard to even comprehend.
Right. She reigned over 32 sovereign states during
her lifetime and 15 realms at her death. She
wasn't just the longest reigning British monarch.
She was the second longest sovereign ruler in
world history, second only to Louis XIV of France.
That kind of longevity, it makes her less of
a contemporary political figure and more of a
historical anchor. And so our mission today is
to provide you with the essential architecture
of that reign, tracing her path from, well, an
unexpected, almost accidental heir to a global
figurehead. who really mastered the art of constitutional
restraint while adapting the monarchy to seismic,
political, and social change. We've distilled
a massive body of source material to focus on
three core themes. Dedication, transformation,
and I think resilience. Okay. We're going to
unpack her foundational pledge of service, the
major constitutional shifts she oversaw, the
personal challenges like the 1992 Annis Horribilis,
and most importantly, the strategic move she
made to preserve the relevance of the crown.
in a fiercely modernizing world okay let's unpack
this monumental journey starting with the simple
fact that the girl who became queen she was never
supposed to be queen at all not at all she was
born elizabeth alexandra mary on april 21st 1926
in mayfair london and crucially at the moment
of her birth She was third in line to the throne.
Third. So not even close. Oh, not even a remote
possibility in most people's minds. Her position
was behind her uncle Edward, who was the Prince
of Wales, and then, of course, her own father,
Prince Albert, the Duke of York. So there was
almost zero expectation that she would ever wear
the crown. Zero. And yet, even as a child, she
seemed to possess this certain formality, a seriousness
that... It kind of hinted at the role she would
eventually take on. We know she was affectionately
called Lilibet by her closest family. Yeah, that's
right. Which is such a personal, tender detail.
A nickname that came from her own attempts to
say Elizabeth, right? Exactly. And it just gets
so quickly overwhelmed by the immense formality
of her future life. It really does. It truly
contrasts with the image of the monarch. She
and her sister, Margaret, who was born in 1930,
they were educated privately at home. Right,
so no public school. No, the instruction was
primarily in history, languages, literature,
and music. But she had this innate dignity. It's
worth remembering that Winston Churchill, upon
observing the two -year -old princess, commented
that she had an air of authority and reflectiveness
astonishing in an infant. Wow, at two years old.
At two. That character was present from the very
start. She also had a very close relationship
with her grandfather, King George V. She called
him Grandpa England. Which is just a wonderful
nickname. It is. And we learn that her visits
were publicly credited with significantly raising
his spirits during a serious illness he suffered
in 1929. But that stability, that entire world
was shattered seven years later. What happened
in 1936 that fundamentally rewrote the destiny
of this 10 -year -old girl? That was the abdication
crisis. Her uncle, Edward VIII, had succeeded
George V, but he chose to abdicate after less
than a year on the throne. And also he could
marry Wallis Simpson. Exactly. A twice -divorced
American socialite. His decision was a direct
conflict between his royal duty and his personal
desire. And the consequence for Elizabeth was
immediate and completely life -changing. It thrust
her father, the Duke of York, into the role of
King George VI. And suddenly, this 10 -year -old
girl, Elizabeth, was elevated to heir presumptive.
That distinction is vital, isn't it? Heir presumptive.
It's a huge distinction. Yeah. Because male preference
primogeniture was the law of the land at the
time. Meaning a future brother could have jumped
ahead of her. Precisely. She was the heir presumptive
because if her parents had later had a son, that
son would have superseded her in the line of
succession. So her path was open, but it wasn't
guaranteed. So the very foundation of her future
monarchy was built on this unexpected family
sacrifice, her uncle's choice to abandon his
duty. That must have just cemented the absolute
necessity of service in her mind. Oh, absolutely.
The trauma and the immense sense of duty that
this session brought to her father profoundly
influenced her. But those formative years were
then immediately plunged into the crisis of the
Second World War. The fortitude the royal family
showed during the war is legendary, isn't it?
Starting with the refusal to evacuate the young
princesses to the safety of Canada. It's one
of the most powerful declarations of the entire
war. Her mother, Queen Elizabeth, stated it plainly.
The children won't go without me. I won't leave
without the king, and the king will never leave.
This declaration rooted the monarchy in the shared
danger and struggle of the British people. The
princesses spent five years mostly residing safely
within Windsor Castle, but they were active participants.
What did that look like? They even staged Christmas
pantomimes to raise funds for the Queen's Wool
Fund, which was buying materials for military
garments. So she quickly began to take on these
symbolic duties, starting with her first radio
broadcast in 1940. Yes, aged just 14, during
the BBC's Children's Hour. She addressed the
evacuated children of the Commonwealth, many
of whom were far from home and, you know, terrified.
And her message was simple but powerful. Incredibly.
We're trying, too, to bear our own share of the
danger and sadness of war. This established a
lifetime pattern of connecting the royal family's
experience directly to the national experience.
But her service went beyond symbolic broadcasts.
Her personal commitment really peaked in 1945
when she entered military service herself. She
had already become colonel of the Grenadier Guards
in 1942, which was her first solo public military
appearance. But then in February 1945, she joined
the Auxiliary Territorial Service, or ATS. The
women's branch of the British Army? That's the
one. She was an honorary second subaltern. She
was even given a service number, 230873. So the
future Queen of England was actually getting
grease under her fingernails. Exactly. She underwent
hands -on training as a driver and a mechanic.
She was learning to strip and rebuild engines,
driving military trucks. That's incredible. By
July 1945, she was promoted to Honorary Junior
Commander, which is the equivalent of a captain.
This was not a PR stunt. It was direct, practical
participation in the war effort. A deeply unusual
action for an air presumptive, and it cemented
her reputation for duty and practical competence
among the public. And the emotional climax of
this whole period has to be victory in Europe
Day. We have this wonderful image of her celebrating
incognito with the crowds. It's a beautifully
human moment. She and Margaret were allowed to
slip out of the palace with a small group of
officers and just mingle with the massive crowd
celebrating in London. I can't even imagine.
She later recounted the thrill of the night,
recalling being terrified of being recognized,
but describing how she linked arms with lines
of unknown people. and was swept along on a tide
of happiness and relief. A fleeting, necessary
moment of anonymous freedom before her life was
claimed entirely by the crown. Which it was,
formally, in 1947, during her first major overseas
tour. This leads up to a 21st birthday speech.
Right. She was with her parents in Southern Africa.
And the broadcast she gave to the entire Commonwealth
on her birthday was perhaps the most defining
statement of intent she ever made. The famous
declaration. The famous declaration. 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. And you have to notice
the phrasing, my whole life. It was a public
vow of absolute lifelong dedication. It framed
her future reign not as a privilege, but as a
sacred contract that could never be broken or
retired from. It set the irreversible standard.
Now we shift from the accidental princess who
served as a mechanic to the young bride and queen
who would have to navigate a crumbling global
power structure. Here's where it gets really
interesting. How did the personal life of the
young royal clash with the immense political
machinery of the crown? Well, the romance between
Elizabeth and Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
began early. She met him when she was just a
girl, but she truly fell in love after meeting
him again in 1939 when she was visiting the Royal
Naval College, Dartmouth. But that romance was
met with significant resistance, especially in
the post -war climate. He was certainly not the
standard choice. I mean, he was foreign born,
had been exiled from Greece as a boy, lacked
substantial financial standing, and most controversially,
his four elder sisters were all married to German
noblemen. Some with clear Nazi links. Yes, some
with very clear Nazi links. I understand even
her own mother initially had serious reservations
about the match. She did. Elizabeth's mother.
reportedly referred to Philip as the Hun at first.
Wow. Though she eventually warmed to him, calling
him an English gentleman. Despite the controversy
and become a naturalized British subject, Elizabeth
was absolutely determined. And they married at
Westminster Abbey on November 20th, 1947. The
symbolism of that wedding ceremony itself speaks
volumes about post -war Britain, doesn't it?
It really does. I mean, despite the spectacular
pomp of the event, the country was still gripped
by austerity. And Elizabeth famously had to save
up ration coupons for her dress. Ration coupons
to purchase the material needed for her elaborate
wedding gown. It was this potent symbol. The
monarchy was grand, but the nation was struggling.
And even the future queen had to participate
in the rationing system. And it was notable who
wasn't invited. Oh, very notable. Philip's German
relatives, including his sisters and the Duke
of Windsor, Edward VIII, were all excluded from
the guest list due to sensitivity. In a world
of increasing duty, the couple did manage to
carve out a brief period of near normalcy in
the early years of their marriage. They did,
in Malta. Between 1949 and 1951, while Philip
was serving as a Royal Navy officer, they lived
intermittently at Villa Garda Mangia. And what
was that like? It was, relatively speaking, the
life of a typical naval couple. They drove themselves
around. They went to parties. It was likely the
closest Elizabeth ever came to living a life
outside the direct glare of history. That quiet
chapter ended abruptly in February 1952. Walk
us through the moment of accession in Kenya.
Her father, George VI, who had struggled with
ill health following the strain of the war, died
in his sleep. Elizabeth and Philip were on an
official tour representing the ailing king. They
were at Treetops Hotel, weren't they? They had
just spent a night there and had returned to
Sagana Lodge in Kenya. And it was Philip who
delivered the devastating news to his 25 -year
-old wife. She was queen immediately. She chose
to retain Elizabeth as her regnal name, becoming
Elizabeth II. But that choice immediately sparked
friction in one of her realms. It did. Some Scots
were offended by the use of the numeral, too,
as she was technically the first Queen Elizabeth
to rule in Scotland. This was a subtle but early
indication of the complexities of her new multinational
role. The greater internal battle, however, was
about the name of the royal house. The source
mentions a significant dispute over whether the
House of Windsor would change its name to reflect
Prince Philip's lineage. Oh, this was intensely
personal for Philip. The traditionalists, led
by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the Queen
Mother, Queen Mary, insisted that the house must
retain the name of Windsor. And Philip was furious.
Furious. It led to his famous, bitterly delivered
complaint. I am the only man in the country not
allowed to give his name to his own children.
So what was the compromise? Elizabeth eventually
declared the house would remain Windsor, upholding
the wishes of the establishment, even against
her husband. It wasn't until 1960 that a compromise
was made, stating that male line descendants
who didn't carry royal titles would use the surname
Mountbatten -Windsor. That incident really speaks
volumes about the early tension she faced between
her loyalty to Philip and the immense weight
of the institution she led. Absolutely. And the
world watched her coronation in June 1953. And
this moment was truly revolutionary for public
engagement with the monarchy. A communications
watershed. Exactly. Despite intense resistance
from traditionalists, including Churchill, who
worried about demeaning the sacred ceremony,
Elizabeth insisted the event be televised. The
first time a British coronation had ever been
broadcast. The first time the most sacred elements,
the anointing and communion, remained private.
And the impact was immediate. It was massive.
The number of UK television licenses doubled
to three million almost overnight. It cemented
television as the dominant medium in British
homes. It brought the spectacle of the monarchy
right into people's living rooms, democratizing
access to the crown in a way that was previously
unimaginable. And her gown was symbolic, too.
Her coronation gown. embroidered with the floral
emblems of Commonwealth countries, visually symbolized
her new, modern, international focus. That international
focus was immediately put into action. She quickly
became the most widely traveled head of state
in history. Just months after her coronation,
she undertook a seven -month round -the -world
tour, 1953 to 1954. She visited 13 countries,
covering an astonishing 40 ,000 miles. She was
the first reigning British monarch ever to visit
countries like Australia and New Zealand, and
the crowds were immense. In Australia, it's estimated
three -quarters of the entire population saw
her during that trip. And this global travel
underscored the biggest constitutional shift
of her early reign, the rapid acceleration of
decolonization. Right. Her role was transforming
from the head of a declining empire to the head
of a voluntary association of sovereign states,
the Commonwealth of Nations. This transition
required immense political and constitutional
agility. She had to manage the challenge of former
colonies choosing to become republics like India?
Yes, but still wanting to remain part of the
Commonwealth. This was an ingenious constitutional
compromise that subtly reframed the relationship
from one of loyalty to the crown to one of shared
values and friendship. However, this geopolitical
transition wasn't smooth. Her constitutional
role came under serious domestic fire during
the Suez Crisis in 1956 and the subsequent appointment
of new prime ministers. The Suez Crisis was a
political disaster that ended the premiership
of Anthony Eden. And when Eden resigned in January
1957, the Conservative Party had no formal mechanism
for electing a new leader. So the decision defaulted
to the monarch. She had to exercise one of her
few remaining reserve powers, commissioning someone
to form a government. Exactly. And she was expected
to consult senior party figures, often referred
to as the Magic Circle, to determine who commanded
the majority support of the party. She was advised
to appoint Harold MacMillan. But she faced immediate
criticism for it. Immediate criticism that she
was acting on advice from an old boys network
rather than a democratic process. And this controversy
was repeated in 1963 when she appointed Alec
Douglas home. So the media and the political
atmosphere grew uncomfortable with the monarch
exercising any political choice, even if she
was advised. That's the key insight. The monarchy
had to be seen as apolitical. The public backlash
and media scrutiny surrounding those two appointments
became so intense that the Conservative Party
was compelled to adopt a formal leadership election
process in 1965. Which effectively took her out
of that controversial decision -making loop forever.
Exactly. It preserved the neutrality of the crown.
What's fascinating is the personal courage she
showed in parallel while dealing with these large
geopolitical shifts. The source highlights her
1961 visit to Ghana. Ghana was hugely important.
It had recently become independent under President
Kwame Nkrumah, who was leaning toward the Soviet
bloc. There were genuine security concerns. Assassins
were targeting Nkrumah. A risky visit. Politically,
very risky. But the Queen dismissed safety fears
and went anyway. Harold MacMillan noted her calmness
and courage, recognizing that her presence cemented
Ghana's place in the Commonwealth when it could
have easily broken away. She even broke ground
by visiting a communist country. Yes. In 1972,
she became the first British monarch to visit
a communist country when she toured Yugoslavia
and met President Pito. These acts weren't just
state visits. They were strategic diplomatic
efforts, leveraging her soft power. Her commitment
to constitutional restraint was really tested
to its limit during the 1975 Australian constitutional
crisis. The Australian Prime Minister, Gough
Whitlam, was dismissed by the Governor General,
Sir John Kerr, and the public immediately looked
to the Queen to intervene. And she refused. She
stated firmly that she would not interrupt decisions
reserved specifically for the Governor General
under the Constitution of Australia. She had
the power to intervene, though. She had the power,
but she realized that doing so would undermine
the independence of the Australian constitutional
process. So she essentially sacrificed popular
involvement and the ability to save the situation
in order to preserve constitutional integrity.
Precisely. Her refusal taught future realms that
the monarch would not save them from their own
constitutions. It was a pure, deliberate demonstration
of the limits of her reserve powers, even though
the crisis itself. significantly boosted Republican
sentiment in Australia. Moving into the 1980s,
the dangers to the crown shifted from constitutional
ambiguity to, well, to physical threats and intense
media scrutiny. Let's start with the literal
threats to her life in 1981. That year was marked
by two significant assassination attempts. The
first occurred during the Tripping the Colors
ceremony in London, as she rode her favorite
horse, Burmese, down the hall. Six blanks were
fired at her from the crowd. By a 17 -year -old.
A 17 -year -old assailant who was later jailed.
The most remarkable thing was her reaction. She
maintained incredible composure, didn't she?
She did. She was shaken. But she expertly controlled
the panicked horse and just continued the parade
with immense dignity. Then, later that same year
while on a visit to New Zealand, another 17 -year
-old, Christopher John Lewis, fired a shot from
a .22 rifle from an overlooking building in Dunedin.
And he missed her. Narrowly missed her. And Lewis
was only charged with unlawful possession of
a firearm, which is just extraordinary considering
the context. It speaks to the bizarre nature
of the security around the monarchy at the time.
Lewis was actually involved in a subsequent attempt
to assassinate Prince Charles two years later.
These close calls exposed vulnerabilities and
ultimately intensified the need for stricter
security reforms. The security concerns culminated
in a deeply embarrassing incident in 1982, the
Michael Fagan intrusion. That was a catastrophic
lapse. Fagan, an unemployed decorator, scaled
the walls, navigated corridors, and managed to
enter her private bedroom in Buckingham Palace
where she was sleeping. He woke her up. He woke
her up, and the Queen handled the situation by
calmly engaging him in conversation until security
finally arrived. The incident deeply shocked
the nation. The sanctum of the Queen's bedroom
had been breached, leading to immediate high
-level security reviews. At the same time, the
political realm was defined by her relationship
with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. There
were frequent rumors of tension, particularly
over foreign policy. And there were concrete
instances of disagreement. In 1983, the Queen
was reportedly angered when the U .S. administration
ordered the invasion of Granada, one of her Caribbean
realms, without informing her as head of state.
A significant diplomatic breach. A huge breach.
And the disagreement over apartheid South Africa
was much more public and fundamentally concerned
the integrity of the Commonwealth. Right. The
reports in the Sunday Times. Yes. In 1986, the
paper suggested Elizabeth was profoundly worried
that Thatcher's economic policies were fostering
deep social... divisions at home, pointing to
high unemployment and the violence of the miners'
strikes. But the biggest political friction was
Thatcher's steadfast refusal to apply sanctions
against the apartheid regime in South Africa.
And how do we know these rumors weren't just
media embellishment? Because of later testimony.
While the palace often downplayed these reports,
Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney later
confirmed that Elizabeth was an effective behind
-the -scenes force in applying pressure and ending
apartheid. So her political views rarely surfaced,
but when they concerned the survival of the Commonwealth,
she found ways to exert influence. Exactly. On
a more diplomatic note, her 1986 state visit
to communist China was crucial for Britain's
future interests. It was pioneering. She became
the first British monarch to visit the People's
Republic of China. touring historic sites like
the Forbidden City and the Great Wall. And this
visit was pivotal because it signified mutual
acceptance between Britain and China of the planned
1997 transfer of Hong Kong, giving the process
a sense of official legitimacy. All these challenges,
security breaches, political disagreements, diplomatic
tightropes, they all culminated in 1992, the
year she famously called her Annis Horribilis.
The term. Latin for horrible year, was delivered
in her speech marking her Ruby Jubilee. And it
felt like the institution of the monarchy was
simply collapsing around her. The family breakdowns
were relentless. Absolutely. Prince Andrew and
Sarah separated. Princess Anne divorced Captain
Mark Phillips. And Prince Charles and Diana formally
separated in December. And then the fire at Windsor
Castle, one of her primary residences, seemed
to symbolize the destruction of the old regime.
The fire in November 1992 was catastrophic. It
caused massive damage and immediately catalyzed
intense public scrutiny, not just over the tragedy,
but over who should pay for the estimated $40
million in repairs. Right, Republican sentiment
soared. It did, fueled by the family drama, but
primarily by concerns over financial transparency.
The public was asking why they should fund the
repairs for the queen's residences when she was
reportedly one of the wealthiest women in the
world. And this public pressure directly resulted
in major financial reforms for the crown. It
did. The political pressure became overwhelming,
forcing the monarchy to modernize its finances
drastically. It was announced that Elizabeth
would begin paying income tax from 1993 onwards.
And the civil list, the system for funding the
royal household. was significantly reduced. A
critical moment where Republican sentiment successfully
forced transparency and accountability. She also
showed she was ready to fight back, successfully
suing the Sun for publishing her Christmas message
early, forcing them to pay legal fees and a large
charitable donation. The ultimate crisis of that
decade, however, was the tragic death of Diana,
Princess of Wales, in August 1997. This was the
moment the public's emotional demands clashed
most dramatically with the monarchy's traditional
instinct. This crisis required the Queen to take
a calculated, deeply uncomfortable constitutional
risk. After Diana's death, the royal family retreated
to Belmoral to shield William and Harry. The
monarchical instinct was private grief and stoicism.
But the media and the public demanded a public
theatrical performance of grief. They really
did. The family's silence and the initial failure
to fly the Union Jack flag at half -mast over
Buckingham Palace caused widespread dismay. The
backlash was visceral. It was intense. The hostility
became intense. Polls showed the monarchy's popularity
plummeting. The queen realized that adherence
to traditional protocol was actively endangering
the institution. She was pressured to return
to London, and on September 5th, the day before
Diana's funeral, she delivered a live, televised
address to the nation. And in that speech, she
made a deliberate strategic choice with her language.
Oh, absolutely. She didn't speak merely as the
monarch or head of state. She consciously chose
to speak as a grandmother, offering admiration
for Diana and articulated the difficulty of their
shared grief. That shift, choosing a personal
emotional title over her formal role, was unprecedented.
Completely. It was a calculated humanization
of the crown designed to meet the public's demand
for emotion. And it worked instantly. Public
hostility just evaporated almost immediately.
The institution was saved not by following tradition,
but by deliberately breaking it to connect personally.
She finished that challenging year with another
act of powerful diplomatic courage. Her controversial
visit to India. Her visit to the Jallianwala
Bagh massacre site in India in October 1997 was
fraught with tension. Protesters were chanting,
killer queen, go back. But after she and Philip
laid a wreath at the memorial, the fury softened.
It was another example of her willingness to
face historical friction and rely on her personal
presence and quiet, respectful gestures to diffuse
intense political situations. As we move into
the 21st century, Elizabeth II's reign transitions
from constant firefighting and crisis management
to becoming an internationally respected anchor
of global stability. We see a clear statement
of solidarity immediately after the 9 -11 attacks.
Yes. In a powerful, deeply felt break with tradition,
she ordered the American national anthem, the
Star -Spangled Banner, to be played during the
Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham
Palace. A small... but highly visible gesture.
A gesture of solidarity that resonated globally
and showed her capacity for emotional diplomacy.
The start of the new century, however, was also
marked by deep personal sorrow right before a
major milestone. Her golden jubilee in 2002,
marking 50 years on the throne, followed the
deaths of her sister. Princess Margaret and her
mother, the Queen Mother, within just two months
of each other. So the media speculated the Jubilee
might be subdued. They did, but Elizabeth proceeded
with an extensive tour, starting in Jamaica,
and the celebrations in London saw immense public
enthusiasm, with over a million attendees daily.
Her personal resilience in the face of such profound
private loss seemed to fuel a surge of public
support for the institution. She continued to
navigate modern realities, including taking on
the aggressive tabloid press in court. In 2003,
she successfully sued the Daily Mirror for breach
of confidence after a reporter managed to pose
as a footman inside Buckingham Palace to gather
information. And she won? She won, forcing the
paper to cover her substantial legal costs. That
same year, Despite being generally healthy, she
underwent keyhole surgery on both knees, a sign
that the physical demands of her role were beginning
to catch up with her. But the milestones just
kept accumulating, redefining historical norms.
She became the longest lived British monarch
in 2007. And then the monumental achievement
came on September 9, 2015, when she surpassed
her great -great -grandmother, Queen Victoria,
to become the longest reigning British monarch
in history. That must have been a subtle but
profound challenge stepping out of Victoria as
a men's shadow. Indeed. She was the first British
monarch to commemorate a sapphire jubilee at
65 years in 2017. And later that year, she and
Philip celebrated their platinum wedding anniversary.
Characteristically, in her speech marking the
longest reign, she noted she had never aspired
to achieve the milestone, highlighting her focus
on service over records. Her later years were
defined by critical diplomatic efforts, particularly
the 2011 state visit to the Republic of Ireland.
That was truly a watershed moment. It was the
first state visit by a British monarch to the
Republic of Ireland since its independence. Her
personal diplomacy, including a visit to the
Garden of Remembrance and delivering a few words
in Irish, marked a massive step forward in Anglo
-Irish relations. Healing centuries of friction.
It really was. She was being recognized globally
for her role as an anchor. She addressed the
UN General Assembly a second time in 2010, where
she was specifically introduced as an anchor
for our age. The 2012 Diamond Jubilee demonstrated
her willingness to embrace modernization and
even self -deprecating humor on a global stage.
We can't talk about that celebration without
discussing her surprising cinematic debut. Well,
the short film for the opening ceremony of the
London Olympic Games was iconic. She appeared
alongside Daniel Craig as James Bond. And the
scene culminating in the Queen parachuting into
the stadium, it was a moment of pure, unexpected
humor. It demonstrated a truly modern approach
to her role, suggesting that even the ultimate
symbol of tradition could poke fun at itself.
It's reported that her staff were absolutely
shocked that she agreed to this. They were stunned.
But the Queen saw the strategic value in this
highly public, self -deprecating act. It humanized
her on a global level to billions of viewers.
She later received an honorary BAFTA award for
her patronage of the film industry. In the last
decade of her life, there was a visible, smooth
transition of duties to Prince Charles, ensuring
a soft succession plan. She started reducing
her long -haul travel, and Charles started representing
her more. This transition was formally cemented
in 2018 when Commonwealth heads announced that
Prince Charles would succeed her as head of the
Commonwealth. Which she publicly stated was her
sincere wish. And then came the ultimate period
of isolation and reflection, the COVID -19 pandemic.
She moved to Windsor Castle in March 2020. And
lived under an extremely strict sanitary protocol,
affectionately nicknamed HMS Bubble. The Queen
used this moment to directly connect with the
nation's struggle. Her televised address during
the pandemic was a poignant moment watched by
24 million UK viewers, where she consciously
echoed the language and fortitude of her childhood
wartime experience. She drew that direct line
from 1940 to 2020, promising better days will
return. We will be with our friends again. We
will meet again. Incredibly powerful. Yeah. But
the isolation intensified with the death of Prince
Philip in April 2021 after 73 years of marriage.
She was now the first British monarch to reign
as a widow since Queen Victoria. And the image
of her sitting entirely alone at his funeral
service due to COVID restrictions. It resonated
globally as a profound symbol of duty and personal
sacrifice. It showed the world that even the
queen was subject to the same public health restrictions
as everyone else, demanding personal grief be
set aside for civic obedience. Despite this immense
personal sorrow and increasing health issues,
she battled COVID -19 and suffered from episodic
mobility problems. She reached her platinum jubilee.
70 years. She renewed her lifetime commitment
in her accession day message and continued to
make surprise public appearances, including officially
opening the Elizabeth Line Railway in London.
Her final constitutional duty occurred just two
days before her death, appointing Liz Truss as
her 15th British prime minister. She received
Liz Truss at Balmoral. marking the only occasion
she did not receive a new prime minister at Buckingham
Palace or Windsor during her 70 years. That single
fact appointing 15 British prime ministers plus
14 other prime ministers across her realms speaks
to the sheer scope and unprecedented nature of
her constitutional service, which she literally
fulfilled right up until the very end. Let's
delve into how Elizabeth II managed to maintain
such high levels of popular support, often serving
as the constitutional safety net for the institution,
even when the rest of the royal family came under
intense scrutiny. It all seems to begin with
her personal sense of duty and faith. Her deep
sense of religious and civic duty was the absolute
core of her character. She took her coronation
oath, which established her as supreme governor
of the Church of England, incredibly seriously.
She was also a dedicated member of the Church
of Scotland. And she often gave us glimpses into
this personal faith through her annual Christmas
message. Indeed. Her Christmas broadcasts evolved
over the years, becoming increasingly personal.
In her 2000 message, for example, she made it
clear, For me, the teachings of Christ and my
own personal accountability before God provide
a framework in which I try to lead my life. That
emphasis on personal accountability must have
resonated deeply with the public. I think so.
They saw her actions as stemming from a genuine
moral commitment rather than mere political obligation.
She also actively supported interfaith relations,
meeting five different popes during her lifetime.
Beyond serious duty, her character was defined
by her passions, horses and dogs. They were her
respite. She's a keen equestrian and remained
an active rider well into her 90s, overseeing
her racing stables and attending major events
like Royal Ascot. And of course, there were her
dogs. The Corgis. Her Pembroke Welsh Corgis,
a line that started with Dookie in 1933. These
interests provided a vital counterpoint to the
formality of her public life. The rare scenes
that surfaced, showing her relaxed, perhaps preparing
meals or washing dishes with her family, helped
soften the monarchy's distant image. Her public
image evolved significantly over her reign. Initially
in the 1950s, she was the fairy tale queen. How
did she modernize that image to maintain relevance?
Well, the turning point was often considered
the controversial television documentary Royal
Family in the late 1960s, which gave the public
a brief glimpse behind the scenes. However, our
most critical innovation in public engagement
was instituting the first royal walkabout. What
was that exactly? Leaving the protection of the
royal enclosure to directly greet and interact
with ordinary people. She did it first during
a 1970 tour of Australia and New Zealand. And
the walkabout became standard practice, transforming
public access to the monarchy. It did. It allowed
people to physically connect with the monarch.
And her wardrobe became functional, part of that
strategy. She adopted a signature style of solid
color overcoats and decorative, often brightly
colored hats. Which wasn't just about fashion.
Not at all. It was explicitly designed to ensure
she could be seen easily in any crowd. The strategy
worked. By the end of her reign, almost one -third
of Britons claimed to have seen or met her in
person. Even though her personal approval ratings
were sky high, we noted that support for the
institution itself fluctuated, hitting a low
point in the 1990s. The criticism was almost
always directed at the conduct of the wider family
or the perceived cost of the monarchy, never
at the queen's own dedication. Her personal popularity
served as a crucial constitutional shield, especially
in the realms outside the UK. We see this constitutional
power play out specifically in referenda concerning
whether her realms should become republics. Exactly.
In Australia's 1999 referendum, the proposal
to become a republic was rejected by voters.
Several Australian politicians, even those who
were personally Republican, later acknowledged
that the issue should wait until after her reign.
Right. Malcolm Turnbull, a former Republican
prime minister, noted that in Australia there
were simply more Elizabethans than there are
monarchists. The person was more popular than
the political structure she represented. It's
the ultimate soft power checkmate. Her personal
popularity acted as a pause button on Republican
movements globally. Even in other places. Oh,
yes. Referendums in Tuvalu in 2008 and St. Vincent
and the Grenadines in 2009 also rejected proposals
to ditch the monarchy. Even amid later turbulence
involving her family members, her approval remained
incredibly high. She was the third most admired
woman globally in the annual Gallup poll, having
appeared in the top 10 more than any other woman
in the poll's history. On September 8, 2022,
the longest reign in British history came to
an end. It was announced suddenly after Buckingham
Palace issued a stark statement that doctors
were, quote, concerned for Her Majesty's health.
Her immediate family rushed to Balmoral Castle.
in the Scottish Highlands, where she died peacefully
that afternoon, age 96. Her death immediately
activated Operation London Bridge, the plan for
her funeral and accession. And because she died
in Scotland, another plan was activated. The
localized plan, Operation Unicorn, was also put
into motion. She was the first monarch to die
in Scotland since James V in 1542. The official
cause of death was recorded as old age. However,
some sources, including a biographer and former
Prime Minister Boris Johnson, later suggested
she may have been suffering from multiple myeloma,
a form of bone marrow cancer. Regardless of the
precise medical cause, the transition of power
was immediate and seamless. She was succeeded
instantly by her eldest son, Charles III, who
was proclaimed king. The subsequent period of
national mourning was unprecedented in its scale.
The public's response began in Scotland with
the lying in state at St. Giles Cathedral in
Edinburgh. It was an intensely moving scene.
The Crown of Scotland was placed atop her coffin
and approximately 33 ,000 members of the public
filed past in Edinburgh. After the coffin was
flown to London, the scale just grew exponentially.
It lay in state at Westminster Hall for four
days. Where an estimated quarter of a million
members of the public queued for hours to pay
their respects. This period also saw her children
and grandchildren hold silent vigils around the
coffin. The state funeral on September 19, 2022,
was a historic event televised globally. It was
the first monarch's funeral service held at Westminster
Abbey since George II in 1760. More than a million
people lined the streets of central London in
silence. The guest list included hundreds of
heads of state reflecting her enormous global
standing. And the final procession at Windsor
Castle contained some deeply personal touches.
Her fill pony, Emma, and her two royal corgis
were waiting at the side as the procession approached.
And her final resting place reunited her with
the man who was her strength and stay. She was
interred with Prince Philip in the King George
VI Memorial Chapel at St. George's Chapel, Windsor
Castle, during a private family ceremony later
that evening. It marked the closure of a chapter
spanning over seven decades of continuous public
service. It truly is staggering when you look
at the historical sweep of her life. She was
born when Calvin Coolidge was U .S. president.
She oversaw the premierships of 15 British leaders,
from Winston Churchill to Liz Truss. She witnessed
the British Empire dissolve and transform into
a voluntary commonwealth of 56 nations. She maintained
consistency, stability, and constitutional discipline
throughout decades of cycle. seismic political
and social upheaval. She fulfilled the vow she
made as a 21 -year -old in 1947. Absolutely.
Her commitment to service was total, and that
constancy is why the world ultimately respected
her so much. Right. We often hear criticism that
she was aloof or emotionally distant, particularly
during the Diana crisis. But we must understand
that her restraint was not apathy. It was constitutional
discipline born from that sacred, lifelong promise.
The complexity of our constitutional role, the
separation of the personal self from the political
machinery of the state, must have demanded an
almost impossible level of endurance. It demanded
everything. And that brings us back to the core
element of her dedication. The sources tell us
that in 2002, she told the Canadian Governor
General, Adrienne Clarkson, that she would never
abdicate. Stating firmly, it is not our tradition.
So she added a qualifier. She did. She said,
although I suppose if I became completely gaga,
one would have to do something. That conviction
that her duty was for life, regardless of circumstances
or personal cost or even political unpopularity,
is perhaps the most revealing detail about her
character. Indeed. It forces us to consider the
ultimate question of her legacy. How did this
foundational conviction that her commitment was
permanent and irrevocable shape her reliance
on rigorous constitutional restraint? And more
importantly, how did this resolve, this dedication
to never give up, never despair, the phrase she
used during her VE Day 75 message, ultimately
preserve the relevance of the monarchy in an
era where almost every other country modernized
by reducing or eliminating their royal houses?
Her lifelong commitment to the vow she made in
1947 is, I think, the ultimate explanation for
why the crown survived her unprecedented deep
dive through history.