Not merely a queen, but the Queen

People simply referred to “the Queen.” They usually didn’t say “Queen Elizabeth.” They didn’t need to. Neither her name nor those of the countries she ruled were necessary to identify her. There are other queens, of course, but none has remotely the same stature or instant recognition. Mention of them is likely to prompt the fugitive thought, “I’d forgotten that country had a queen.”

Why was there only one Queen?

Partly it was her brilliance in balancing warm accessibility and the awe-inspiring dignified distance that makes majesty. She was “Her Majesty” not just in title but in demeanor. She engendered love and delight among ordinary people because she had the common touch and she personified duty. But she never forgot the admonition of Walter Bagehot, the 19th century essayist, who said of monarchy, “We must not let daylight in upon magic.”

Queen Elizabeth II’s successor, her son, who is now King Charles III, and many other members of the royal family have not lived by that wisdom nearly as well as the Queen did. They often let the glaring light of publicity in upon their lives. It is for this reason rather than because monarchy is neither modern nor egalitarian that people occasionally wonder whether the institution can long survive the death of Elizabeth.