Some contend that Queen Elizabeth’s death has reinforced the fraying United Kingdom, and marks a period of renewed pride in the state. Others are concerned that the transition to Charles III will mark a further period of decline in the status of the British monarchy. Most telling, perhaps, is the reaction of the British public.

There can be no doubt that Queen Elizabeth was a much-respected figure across various political divides, who will continue to be held in esteem across the world. While there is nothing peculiar in Britain’s preoccupation with the significance of the Queen’s death, and the importance of the transition to King Charles III, and it may also be surmised that there would be differing reasons for honouring her passing, many seasoned commentators have nonetheless been surprised by the scale of the public’s reaction – its unexpected intensity eloquently described in Boris Johnson’s speech.

Why was intense shock the prevailing reaction of so many to the rather less than unexpected death of a public figure, given much news of her fragile health? And what caused such an undercurrent of muted anguish after having absorbed the sad news?

Many point to the Queen’s exceptional abilities as head of state and the considerable duration of her reign. These aspects of her history would surely play a role but could they, in turn, point to another deeper issue that might better explain the intensity of the grief that so many Britons experienced?

Beneath the images of ceremonial grandeur, there is much afoot in the kingdom of Great Britain. The royal family has unfairly been tainted by the charge of racism, courtesy of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, with commentary broadening to British attitudes on race – revisiting divisive themes that disparaged the Brexit movement. The harm caused to the royal family was made abundantly clear with the royal visits to the Caribbean, where dissent was amplified by the British media, with much talk of moving toward republican rule and slavery reparations. The Platinum Jubilee was a success but was marred by unwelcome Sussex tittle-tattle, and criticism of a similar bent, including comparisons with the Third Reich! Such divisiveness might be expected by a prejudiced hard-left reading of history, but these views were espoused by popular mainstream figures. The Commonwealth Games was also marred by the charge of British racism, even within its opening ceremony, while the BBC cast its habitual pall on proceedings.

Charles III has been warmly received; however, given the intimacy and scale of Prince Harry’s betrayal, for which division remained visible even within last week’s familial rapprochement, it is hard to see how Charles can lift his family out of the mire. Meanwhile, Charles III’s temptation to speak ‘privately’ on divisive political matters is unlikely to abate, given his trenchant interventions on climate change and the Rwandan migration policy.

With very few exceptions, the main British newspapers have not featured front-page headlines on any topic other than matters appertaining to the royal family. All was subsumed by ‘much bigger stories’ according to GBN Breakfast (13/9), namely the Queen’s death, Charles’ accession, etc. Such a claim might be unsurprising in the normal political cycle but makes for a startling contention when Britain still faces a near-paralysis of parliament through much of 2022, since PM Boris Johnson struggled to put out fires over the post-fact ‘Partygate’ scandal, which ultimately constituted less than ten minutes of imbibed cola and sandwiches, resulting in a misdemeanour for Johnson and Chancellor Rishi Sunak. Britain is facing a political and economic crisis akin to the 1970s, necessitating an unprecedented scale of economic intervention, estimated to be £150 billion per annum, to manage the fallout of a disastrous lockdown policy, and an energy crisis that a degree of foresight could have substantively avoided. If this intervention fails, many weakened businesses will be pushed to the wall, making it harder to service the already substantial national debt, and having the potential to pull the UK into a lengthy depression. The net result: a substantial decline in quality of life with attendant death rate increases. Why would the timely passing of a respected figure dwarf this crisis?

Given such troubling circumstances, it is not unreasonable to think that the striking public reaction to the Queen’s death is borne of a concern for the health of the royal family, tied with Britain’s image of itself and its history, as well as more urgent questions over the nation’s welfare.

The ritualistic grandeur of the monarchy can seem odd and out of place in the modern world but this feature is elemental to the institution – a symbolic representation of status, power, as well as lineage and memory, essential to national identity. The public would be keen to partake, returning quite fervently to the traditions of mourning, a gesture that is especially resonant in an era where tradition has generally been cast aside, ridiculed, subject to opprobrium. With the Queen, lying in state at Westminster Hall, for four days before the state funeral, the opinions of those, potentially facing a 30-hour wait, was stoical: ‘she gave so much to our country, that I just wanted to give something back’. What was to be given back? Was it more than a gesture of deference? The public seemed entirely unfazed by such an ordeal, with growing estimates of the crowds indicating that it may constitute the largest public order event in British history.

Many speaking of their grief made a surprising connection between the Queen and their own grandparents. Such is likely tied to the belief that the Queen was the last leading figure of the ‘Greatest Generation’, that would not submit to Hitler, paragons of sufferance for a greater good, that refused to bend to superior strength, however attractive the surrender. She was seen as holding an increasingly divided nation together – a constant reassurance at a time when many are witnessing failures of democracy and order. The public’s sentiments must surely involve an expression of support for older values of national pride, duty and self-sacrifice, of which the Queen was an exemplar.

The outpouring of grief has much to do with the British people themselves, with earnest expectations of uniformity. The aversion toward protest, even when directed at the Houses of Parliament toward Charles III, is significant in a time where rampant lawbreaking is tolerated with the ‘Rebellion’ eco-extremists. Left-wing activism, with its growing control over mainstream discourse, has come to represent an existential assault on the broad national British identity.

The Queen, a public figure of few words, was the emblematic presence of the British nation, seen on everyday coins and stamps. The unexpected strength of Britain’s grief would also appear to be informed by a sense of loss for this nebulous entity that many have come to undervalue due to sustained political onslaught from academia and the bastions of culture – grief less for the individual, for she was also held in esteem by republicans, but for what she truly represented in public life: the British nation.