The glue that held our nation together is gone.
Downloaded from YTS.MX
We are mourning the loss of a constant, reassuring presence.
Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX
As we slowly come to terms with her death,
what happens to Britain after the Queen?
Good evening. Welcome to a special programme.
Over the next 90 minutes, as the nation mourns the death
of the Queen, we'll reflect on her reign, her life and her legacy.
But we'll also focus on the future - what it may hold for the monarchy,
what the Elizabethan age stood for, and how history will judge it.
And what next for Britain, the union and the Commonwealth?
After three days of incredible scenes,
perhaps the most moving and extraordinary pictures
are from today. King Charles III, walking behind his mother's coffin
with all the other members of his family
as it was taken along the Royal Mile in Edinburgh to St Giles' Cathedral.
My first guests tonight are the Archbishop of York,
Stephen Cottrell,
one of the eight signatories to the proclamation of King Charles III.
Broadcaster and cultural commentator Baroness Joan Bakewell.
Professor Chandrika Kaul, historian at the University of St Andrews.
And Andrew Marr, broadcaster and author of The Diamond Queen:
Elizabeth And Her People.
Let's begin with the Queen's life and reign,
and perhaps nothing sums up that
better than this piece of footage from 1947. She's 21,
and already acutely aware of the importance of duty.
I declare before you all that my whole life,
whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service
and to the service of our great imperial family
to which we all belong.
But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone,
unless you join in it with me, as I now invite you to do.
I know that your support will be unfailingly given.
God help me to make good my vow,
and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it.
Well, Archbishop, when it came to duty and service,
she certainly kept her promise, didn't she?
Yes, I mean, I think it's impossible to really understand the Queen
without understanding the word "service",
and I think one of her great legacies will be a way of
re-understanding the place of monarchy
as service rather than rule.
Rule is the way we've always understood it,
but in a constitutional monarchy, it's not that.
It has to be something else. And not celebrity?
No, no, and so, it has been a life laid down in service,
and I think the other thing I would say is,
it's impossible to understand that service...
I mean, she mentioned God twice in that.
Her own profound Christian faith is what shaped her service.
You know, Jesus famously says to his disciples,
"Don't be like the leaders of the world. That's not how you do it.
"I am among you as one who serves,"
and I think that understanding of leadership as service
is deep inside... Was deep inside Her late Majesty the Queen,
because of her Christian faith.
Joan Bakewell, people have talked about how surprised
they were by how much they were affected by the news of her death.
Were you?
Yes, I was in my second year at Cambridge, I was in a lecture
when the lecture was interrupted by news of the King's death,
and we were all sent away
because the lecturer wouldn't complete his work.
So we all trooped out of the lecture hall
and looked amazed at each other. I mean, it was one of those moments.
"Here we are, this is history." And he was only 56 at the time too.
He was very sick, and I think what's very interesting,
just to talk about this matter of duty,
that I think her family mattered very much.
She had been known that she was going to be
the heir to the throne for a long time.
Her father was very close to her, and he was a very wise man
in many ways, and I think the bond between a father and a daughter
is very strong, and I think he gave her great leadership, so that when
it did fall upon her to be Queen, she knew from him what was expected.
But were you affected by the news in a surprising way?
Well, we were all rather stunned. We thought... first of all,
I was at one of the two colleges in Cambridge
that were for the women, so we were first...
No, no, I mean by the Queen's death. Yes... Oh, by the Queen's death?
Yes.
Well, I'm getting on for her age myself,
so it's a familiar presence, that we walk with death
as we get over 80, so in that sense, I think she had a wonderful death,
and I think that's a very important part of our grieving for her,
that it wasn't too soon, it was part of her life, complete,
and so I feel a great warmth about her death rather than grief.
Andrew Marr, people knew the Queen had to die some time. She was 96.
But even so, people, I think,
were caught up in the moment.
When it happened, they were surprised by their reaction.
I think that's absolutely right.
I think the way to think about it is that it was, of course,
not a surprise. How could it have been a surprise, given her age?
But somehow, it was still a shock. A shock, but not a surprise.
You were quite surprised? I was surprised and shocked.
I was surprised by my own reaction,
and I am nobody's idea of a rabid monarchist,
but I think it was to do with the fact that, at that moment,
thoughts of my own father's death two years ago flooded through me,
and I think the interesting thing is,
talking to colleagues and friends since then,
almost everybody had some kind of
sort of visceral family-type reaction to the Queen's death,
and I think it was, you know, she'd been part of our world,
of course, but also, somehow,
there was a projection of one's own family onto that family
at extreme moments, and so it's a complicated thing.
I mean, I was chatting with someone in the street on Friday.
I've met the Queen on several occasions, I've stayed with her.
I don't pretend I know her, but I had stories to tell.
And I was chatting with this person in the street
who also had stories to tell.
But their stories weren't about meeting the Queen,
they were about Paddington bear and the Coronation,
and I found myself saying, it's funny, isn't it?
We feel this great need to tell these stories.
It's not like she was a member of our family. Except she was.
You know, part of the way she managed royalty
was make it feel close.
Well, if I might just add, you know, that point about family,
I mean, the idea of the royal family as the idealised family
was a very conscious attempt on the part of British politicians,
going right back to Victorian times,
and certainly with Victoria herself, and it is very interesting
that during the Second World War, you know, the King and...
you know, "the four of us", you know, that phrase -
the King, the Queen and the two daughters -
that was very much part of that myth-making,
albeit for a good end.
You know, the nation needs to pull together
as the royal family is.
But this idea of the family,
it's very much ingrained now in the 21st century.
But it kind of came back to bite the royal family, though,
when, among the Queen's children, everything started to go wrong,
if you will. Well certainly, like...
Well, that's where the identification becomes
very interesting, because in a way, it's like saying,
"Well, she's like one of us."
You know, "She has problems in her family too!"
And that was also part of some of the narrative that was put across,
you know, by certain members of the governing elite,
including members of the Palace PR.
But this might anticipate what you're saying in part three,
but I was thinking more of the household of the nation.
And I think one of the things we are discovering at the moment
is those bonds which have been so under threat in recent years
for all kind of reasons we well know.
There's a real sense of the household of the nation.
Let me go to Andrew, then I'll come to you, Joan.
Just two things. First of all, you know, my reaction,
"What was all that about?" I was talking to my colleague,
the broadcaster Shelagh Fogarty on LBC, and she'd been texted
by a friend of hers who, when the news broke,
was on a train carriage full of people,
and everybody in the carriage was crying.
Absolutely extraordinary. Now that's a surprise, is it not?
It is! But I... just to take up this point about family,
I think having made a reference to her closeness to her father,
that family was obsessed with the disappointment of Edward VIII,
and his, as it were, bad behaviour,
and they saw themselves inheriting a duty of a perhaps rather heavier
weight than it would have been had it been a natural succession.
Because he had provoked the abdication crisis?
The abdication crisis had shocked them all,
particularly the Queen Mother, who hated...
Let me come on to the Queen again.
She was on the throne for 70 years, our monarch for 70 years.
What were her greatest achievements, Andrew Marr, over that time?
To put it really brutally, and I hope not too crudely,
not screwing up. I mean, in all that time,
there were questions of whether she should have gone to Aberfan
earlier than she actually did, and there's been all the problems
with her children that we know about,
but in terms of doing her job, meeting scores of heads of state,
endless Prime Ministers, huge political crises,
moments around the world, again and again,
she never, ever once caused a problem.
She always said the right thing, she always calmed things down,
and I think in terms of our own domestic politics,
she was able to provide, if I can put it like this,
a sort of gentle anaesthetic at the heart of political crises
which kept the thing ongoing, kept the show on the road.
It's very hard to put it in a single phrase, as you can tell, Andrew,
but that's what I think it was all about.
Was it just not screwing up, Chandrika,
or did she not make, in areas of the Commonwealth,
or Ireland, or, going with major changes,
didn't she make a positive contribution there?
Well, absolutely. I think we need to really recognise
the enormous contribution
made by the whole institution of the constitutional monarchy
with her as central to it,
to strengthening the bonds of common culture,
as well as the relationship of the individual to the state,
in many respects far better than elected representatives,
dare I say it, over the last 70 years, have managed to do.
I want to show you the Queen - this is her in Dublin,
this is the first time a British head of state has gone
to Ireland since Ireland gained its independence in the early 1920s.
This is her speaking in Dublin in 2011.
A Uachtarain...
..agus a chairde.
Wow!
Prince Philip and I are delighted to be here,
and to experience at first hand Ireland's world-famous hospitality.
Of course the relationship has not always been straightforward,
nor has the record over the centuries been entirely benign.
It is a sad and regrettable reality that through the history,
our islands have experienced more than their fair share
of heartache, turbulence and loss.
To all those who have suffered as a consequence of our troubled past,
I extend my sincere thoughts and deep sympathy.
With the benefit of historical hindsight,
we can all see things which we would wish had been done differently,
or not at all.
Key phrase there, "or not at all".
Which spoke volumes, Archbishop, didn't it?
In a sense what we see there
is something we maybe didn't appreciate enough at the time.
The Queen was a huge diplomatic asset to the government of the day.
We saw that dealing with the Commonwealth,
when things were going badly,
and we saw it there above all in Ireland.
Who was it who said, "If you stand still long enough,
"you'll become a radical"?
And I think what I see in Her late Majesty the Queen
was her steadfastness to a certain set of values,
to her Christian faith, to the outworking of that in service,
and there we see in that remarkable piece of footage...
A remarkable understatement, but reconciliation.
These values shaped her whole life and now we sit here thinking
it's precisely those things that we need
in the life of our nation today.
I think also I would say, speaking personally,
I've been hugely impressed by the things we've heard King Charles say
in these first few days - on Friday evening,
again in Westminster Hall this evening -
where it seems to me to be clear
that he wants his contribution to be shaped by that continuity of values.
Can I just quickly add... Yes.
..you know, it's not just in this country
that we've seen this outpouring of respect and grief.
It's all over the world.
You know, she's possibly the first global monarch, truly.
Including Ireland! Including Ireland,
including places in the Continent, France and Germany,
where the idea of reconciliation was very much appreciated
after the World Wars.
But also in the Commonwealth, widely defined.
You know, I think there is a certain genuineness of warmth,
and that isn't only, dare I say it, about sentiment.
It is also about how productive she has been
as head of the Commonwealth,
and I can, just a quick example of her role
in helping the Commonwealth
in the process of ending apartheid in South Africa.
You know, I'm always reminded of when she finally went back
to South Africa in 1995 with Nelson Mandela,
and what he said, he said, "My dear Elizabeth."
And he made it very clear where the nation stood
in respect to her role within the wider Commonwealth.
These are real achievements. They are real, and you could say, Joan,
that the Commonwealth might not have happened
in the way it did without the Queen.
She gave it care and concern from the start, when our politicians
were often looking to America or to Europe or elsewhere.
And when it got into trouble, as the professor mentions,
over the attitude to apartheid South Africa,
the Queen helped keep the show on the road.
I think she established the credibility forever
of a constitutional monarch who knows how to be that role.
She was consistent, and she was, without tremor,
loyal to the values that she held. And we all knew what they were.
She made it quite clear what they were, and we held to them with her.
And I think that's a really major historical contribution
to establish monarchy in that kind of role.
Andrew, what were the low points in her reign?
Well, I mentioned Aberfan, where that terrible,
terrible tragedy happened, and she was advised
not to go too quickly - the Palace said,
"No, no, don't go too quickly, you'll just cause trouble,"
and she waited and she waited and by the time she arrived there
there was a lot of anger and hostility
because she had waited for so long.
They were delighted to see her and it was all fine in the end,
but it was certainly a misstep.
And then certainly during the turbulent 1970s, you know,
there were periods when there was
a kind of very, very angry republicanism around.
You will remember the scenes at Stirling University, for instance.
So there was that.
I think for her the murder of Lord Mountbatten
was certainly a grim low point, and it did seem that
sort of the fabric of the British Isles
was beginning to come apart, in a way.
Wasn't one of the low points, though, Andrew,
the immediate aftermath of Diana's death? Ah.
When she didn't seem to understand the significance
of the outpouring of grief. So this is, I think,
about the difference in generational attitudes.
We have to remember, the Queen was part of the wartime generation,
where the way you responded to a problem or grief
was you buttoned your lip, you buttoned up,
you put your chin out and you just got on with it.
And that kind of stoicism, to younger people,
seems absolutely absurd, unfeeling and so forth.
And so I think there was a big generational problem there.
She didn't get it, that's absolutely true. And it has...
The rest of the country, sorry, the rest of the country
was going through a kind of weirdly Mediterranean outpouring
of open, empathetic grief
of a kind we really haven't seen in Britain for a very, very long time.
So it perhaps wasn't surprising that she was two steps behind that one.
But you know, I think that surely has also a great deal
to do with who it was who had died.
You know, it was about Princess Diana, and her own,
if you like, the sense of creation of the myth around her.
So you know, I'm wondering how much we need to take that into account
when trying to explain the level of criticism that was meted out.
I was only going to make the point,
I agree entirely agree with what Andrew said,
it was a very strange episode in our history, all of that,
but I think what's also become clear with the passing of time
is that actually the care that she showed to William and to Harry
through that time, which they've now sometimes spoken about,
shows a whole other side that of course we didn't see.
Was it her personal popularity and status
that stifled any republican movement from gaining traction?
That's a difficult one, because she ruled for 70 years,
so when you say a republican movement, you know,
you need to be more specific about when and where,
because this is a long period of time. I mean, you know,
we had someone like Malcolm Muggeridge in the 1960s,
early 1960s, saying that the English are bored of the monarchy.
You know, there is a sense of... But he wasn't a movement,
he was just Malcolm Muggeridge.
But what I'm saying is, disenchantment with the Queen
as head of the constitutional monarchy is not new in Britain.
But one of the interesting things that I think we need to recognise
with the constitutional monarchy in Britain
is that it is a perfect microcosm of the British nation,
which has historically always preferred evolution to revolution.
Well, you were a republican once, Andrew, weren't you?
I would describe myself as a Queenist, not a monarchist,
is what I would say. So the Queen tempered your republican instincts?
Absolutely, and for various reasons -
most important one being, I think, her gender, actually.
Having a woman at the top of the British state for so long
somehow softened us as a country, I think.
I was talking to Harriet Harman, the Mother of the House,
about this, and she said, "Do you know what, very straightforward,
"the Queen was the most important woman in the 20th century, bar none.
"And by being there, she has made it easier for us
"to have female prime ministers,
"and made female authority less weird in this country."
And I think there is something in that.
Will King Charles be an asset against republicanism?
I think it's very significant, that the Queen's gender
mattered a great deal, and of course when she inherited, I mean,
the excitement of having a woman as the monarch was just overwhelming.
And it did colour the whole trend
of the way the country developed after that.
Charles will have different problems
and he will need to be perhaps circumspect
more than he might naturally be,
because he has a lot of strong opinions,
and I'm sure he has views on feminism
and all sorts of social issues.
But one of the interesting things about the Queen
was that she did not follow her nation
in becoming touchy-feely in the way that Diana did.
She didn't ever unbutton her emotions,
and she came from a generation where that was seen as a virtue,
but we've lived through an age in which to confess all your feelings
and show how upset you are
is considered authentic. The highest virtue.
And that what's so interesting about her.
In a sense we all live in a society
driven by kind of trivial media celebrity,
where being the utmost you can be is the best thing you can be,
and the Queen always went in the other direction.
I mean, I think there were... Those who wanted a republic
knew it was going to be tough going as long as the Queen
was still on the throne, because of her personal popularity,
and that rubbed off on the institution to some extent as well.
But now it's King Charles, does he, Archbishop,
does he have the emollience, does he have her ability
always to remain gracious and polite?
To bite your tongue when you really want to let go? Can he do that?
Well, I would say again what I said a moment ago,
that I think the early signs have been actually rather moving.
Not only the way that he's spoken about her,
but the things that he's spoken about
in terms of the way he intends to inhabit this role.
And the thing about King Charles, as we know, is...
It would be true of any 73-year-old man, wouldn't it?
He comes with huge life experience in the way the Queen didn't,
and some of that's been pretty tough.
But I think it's given him a gentleness and a humility.
And the other thing is, about that,
"If you stand still long enough you're a radical" -
the most important issue facing our planet at the moment
is how will we inhabit the planet itself?
And we know that that's an issue which matters deeply to him,
and to see that now at the centre of constitutional monarchy,
somebody who will hold a witness to that, which I'm sure he will...
He'll have to be very, very careful how he does it,
but I think that will be welcomed. I agree.
Well, who is the real Charles, though?
Who's the real Charles?
Is he the one who greeted the crowds, as we all saw,
as he entered Buckingham Palace,
something we hadn't really seen him do before, or is he the man,
as we saw here, who can be very demanding?
There, asking someone to...
Well, I was there, I was standing there -
I nearly stood forward myself to move that.
He's not being demanding, I mean, it was precarious,
there was about to be ink spilt over the whole thing.
I can't imagine the Queen doing that. Well, I think...
I think you're being a bit unfair.
It was clear to everyone in the room the ink's about to be spilt,
so I was about to go forward.
On the underlying question,
I mean, we all know because we've seen him all of these years,
he can be tetchy, he can be difficult, he can be self-pitying.
Like the rest of us, he's a human being with real flaws and faults.
But I think he's also a very intelligent man
who has studied the role as his mother did it,
and studied the problems in the past.
The whole royal family has been very much aware of
when things have gone wrong in the past.
Queen Victoria, you know, retreating to Windsor after...
After the death of Albert. The Widow of Windsor.
There was republicanism in the country then.
Stronger then than there's been in the past 50 years. Absolutely.
And I think they're very aware that in a lively,
disputatious democracy, which we are all part of,
constitutional monarchy is never quite safe.
It always has to explain itself
and reach out and change again and again.
And I think he understands that.
Chandrika, I'll come to you, then to Joan.
I think this is, you know,
part of the myth about the unchanging Queen.
This is simply not true.
If you look at the kind of evolution,
both in terms of the Queen's own role,
but also in terms of the adjustments made in the institution
of the constitutional monarchy,
I think we need to separate those two,
you know, the individual from the institution.
I think in both those...
If you actually study, there has been a great deal of evolution,
and after all, it was the Queen who said, "Lessons must be learned."
Albeit in a different context, but she said that.
Even her voice changed over time. It did. Indeed.
I mean, I think you're absolutely right,
and I think a little change we've seen in Charles, I think,
in the last couple days, is he's saying "I" not "We".
Just little changes which start inhabiting
the role in a different way.
When we look at Charles, Joan, unlike his mother,
who hardly ever opined on anything -
we really didn't know, we kind of thought we knew,
but we didn't know what she thought about the issues.
I mean, we know a lot about Charles thinks,
from architecture to good grammar to climate change
to industrial farming. Does that make a difference?
I think it's fair to say he has an opinion about everything. Yeah.
I mean, he's a lively, intelligent person... Now he's King!
..and he's been fed with information every time he goes anywhere,
so he's an authority on a great many things, and he has opinion.
You can see him talking knowledgeably to many, many people.
So he has a thirst for knowing things.
And on this subject, we are all of us hypocrites.
When we agree with him, we think it's fantastic,
and when we don't, we're inflamed and furious.
But he's going to find it very, very hard to swallow his opinions.
What happens when the Brazilians
bring a delegation of ministers over, given his strong views
about what they're doing to the Amazon?
What happens when the Chinese come over and he's head of state,
has to greet Chinese officials, given what he thinks about
their treatment of the Uighurs or Tibet?
He is going to find it extremely difficult.
But he's gone on record as saying already in his public statement,
"I know now, now that I have become the King,
"that I will not be able to indulge the sort of opinions
"that I have been doing so far, and I must leave them,"
he said rather pointedly, "for others to take up,"
nudging the Prince of Wales, I think.
He knows it in his head, but does he feel it
and can he act it in his heart?
Because he feels strongly about these issues. Exactly.
He might not be able to help himself.
However, maybe he'll learn from the Queen and her discipline.
I think the conversations with prime ministers
will be very interesting, don't you? ANDREW CHUCKLES
Archbishop, while we've got you here, I mean,
you met the Queen many times in private. Well, several times.
Was the women behind closed doors different from the one
in the constant public gaze? Yeah. Well, I'd just say two things.
Well, of course, because that's true of all of us,
but more true. Tell us how.
Well, the two things I noticed was one,
which has often been mentioned, incredibly good humour,
which you didn't tend to see in public.
You saw her sometimes bursting out laughing,
but she was very witty, and enjoyed a joke
and could make a joke, and I saw that on several occasions.
But the other thing I would come back to is her Christian faith,
which indeed is also very true of Charles.
Er, these are both people who say their prayers, who go to church,
who understand that as a motivation for life,
and I think it's that more than anything
which has made the difference.
So how would you advise Charles to men remain disciplined
when he comes up against people that he strongly disagrees with?
Well, it's going to be hugely hard. The Queen wouldn't say a word. Yeah.
But I think he has looked and learned from his mother
for a long time, and I have confidence
that he will learn how to do that.
But on the question, may I quickly...? Yeah.
Just to say that he has already backpedalled a great deal.
You know, what was that about Defender of Faith
as opposed to Defender of. You know, he's already,
you can already see... He talked about being Defender of Faiths,
plural? Faith, as opposed to Defender of THE Faith. Yes.
I mean, that was a long time ago,
but also, I think as the role has become closer,
I think he's also understood, you know,
a high tide lifts all the boats.
I think he knows, as indeed other faith leaders know,
that a strong.... I mean, you might see I would say this,
but a strong Church of England serving the nation in a generous way
is good for all faiths. Sure. I totally agree with you.
And I think he understands that. I totally agree with you.
But we were talking about the difference between reality
and, you know... And the inner and the outer. Indeed. Sorry, I... Yeah.
This is a good example of him
let's say understanding how he will have to inhabit the role.
Or it could be a minus,
because maybe he was right about faiths rather than faith.
But let me... We're coming to the end of this particular segment.
Let me just ask you briefly, these are big shoes to fill,
obviously, as we've been talking about.
Is the monarchy safe in the hands of King Charles?
Well, if I pick up, you know, Charles III with the three Cs,
if I may, you know, climate change, the countryside
and the Commonwealth, I think if he tries to stick to those three
and does a good job on all three, I think it's fairly safe.
It depends on him.
I think even now, he must be thinking continually
of how he can be effective in areas where he wants to be effective,
which he certainly will, and how he can sustain
the required neutrality of a constitutional monarch.
And he will be applying himself to that,
and whether he succeeds or not will colour the future of the monarchy.
Stephen Cottrell. Even kings have to bend the knee to someone.
The Queen really knew that.
The most moving bit of her coronation
was when she walked steadfastly past the throne and knelt at the altar.
And if Charles does the same, which I believe he will, then yes.
Andrew Marr? Is the monarchy safe in the hands of Charles III?
We don't really know him properly yet,
we've just been discussing that. He has to make us love him somehow.
He has to get us to warm to him in a way that hasn't happened
quite so much when he was Prince of Wales.
He is changing, he has changed,
but, you know, I think he understands it's the job ahead.
And by the way, I love the three Cs, absolutely.
Climate change, Commonwealth and countryside.
As you said, that's because you agree with them.
That's because I agree with them. So do I!
And that's why you mentioned it. Thank you all.
Now, in a moment, we'll move on to talk about
what the second Elizabethan era really stood for.
Since 1952, I have witnessed the transformation
of the international landscape
through which this country must chart its course.
This has been matched by no less rapid developments at home...
..in the devolved shape of our nation,
in the structure of society,
in technology and communications,
in our work and in the way we live.
Change has become a constant.
The way we embrace it defines our future.
I believe that many of the traditional values
etched across our history
equip us well for this age of change.
We are a moderate, pragmatic people.
We are outward-looking and open-minded,
well suited by temperament and language to our shrinking world.
We are inventive and creative.
Think of the record of British inventions over the past 50 years,
or our present thriving art scene.
We also take pride in our tradition of fairness and tolerance.
The consolidation of our richly multicultural
and multi-faith society, a major development since 1952,
is being achieved remarkably peacefully and with much goodwill.
So how will we define and judge the Second Elizabethan Age?
I'm joined now by Baroness Valerie Amos,
former president of the Privy Council
and the first black person to join the Order of the Garter
in its 700-year history.
Actor Adjoa Andoh, who made theatre history
when she directed Richard II
and it became the first major play
in which all the cast and crew were women of colour.
You may recognise her also from Bridgeton.
And Joan Bakewell and Andrew Marr are with us still.
Now, the Queen was our monarch for 70 years.
Many, many things happened over these seven decades.
But Valerie Amos, does that make it an Elizabethan Age?
Well, I think it makes it an age
where we saw a huge amount of change.
We saw huge change in Britain,
we're now a multiethnic, diverse society.
We have seen our international reputation
shift and change.
I think the challenge about talking about this
as an Elizabethan Age is that you have a constitutional monarch
who has had a huge influence globally
as well as in our own country,
but there are also lots of other things associated with this.
You know, what successive governments have done, for example.
So we like to label things,
but I think it's slightly problematic to start to say
all of these changes are just because of the Queen.
I guess that's the point I'm making,
that probably nearly all of these changes would have happened
with or without Elizabeth on the throne.
So does that make it an Elizabethan Age?
Well, she has been... She is Elizabeth, she has been Queen
over this whole period, it's an Elizabethan Age.
I think there's something tonal about the Queen
that I've sort of watched and delighted in.
I've only met her once, but...the curiosity.
If you see her being interviewed or talking to somebody,
you know, it's an actors' thing - she leads from the eyes.
She's there, she's listening, she's paying attention,
she's being delighted, she's curious.
And I think that, that engagement, that curiosity,
and then the access to all the information, all the places,
all the heads of state, all those meetings with, you know,
from Winston Churchill through to Liz Truss -
I mean, that's an enormous amount of information
that she's been absorb... Look, look there, she's just, she's so...
She's really paying attention,
and I think there's something about that which colours her age.
She's interested in people, she's interested in development,
she's interested in how one deals with tricky situations,
and I think we have come tonally to lean into her interest.
So you know, watching the Queen's speech,
"Can you say something of use to us, please, Your Majesty?
"Because we seem to be flapping around in a void."
You know, I think that she's been terrific at all of that.
Well, I agree with Adjoa in relation to that,
but I think the challenge is, and if you look at
what's been happening for example in some of social media,
and some of the critique that we have been seeing,
is that there is a sort of conflation, I think,
that begins to happen,
which is the role that the late Queen played as monarch,
but also some of the things that successive governments have done,
which have not been about her and her role,
which have been challenged and questioned. So...
And that's why I say that, you know,
how we define the Elizabethan Age has to be...
You know, there are nuances related to it.
So Adjoa is absolutely right,
this is someone that oversaw seven decades, but at the same time,
there are some other aspects of it
which I think we have to be cautious and careful about.
This is a very different country from the one
that the Queen came to the throne in.
Do you think that on the whole,
she was largely comfortable with all these big changes?
To a large extent, I think so.
I think what was important for the nation,
and which therefore coloured the years to come,
was that when she succeeded, she was young, and she was a woman.
And both of those were new,
since Victoria.
And the fact that you were led, as it were, by a young woman
had a psychological effect that people weren't quite aware of.
It opened up sort of avenues of creativity, of sensibilities,
of attitudes to family life,
of attitudes to what a good society might be.
Didn't always thrive on that.
But I think those two characteristics
made a big difference, set a template for people's thinking.
Do you think, Andrew, that her reassuring presence
and seeming permanence, as well, for all of our life,
or all of the lives of people here,
do you think that made change more palatable
for those who were wary of it?
I think it maybe went even beyond that.
I mean, we've talked about how, when she came in,
Britain was not only a very hierarchical society,
it was an almost entirely white society.
And I think her deep engagement with the Commonwealth...
There's that very famous photograph
of her dancing with Nkrumah early on,
when the colour bar was still across the States,
when South Africa was still going through apartheid.
I think that meant that she was bringing
to the apex of British society an open-mindedness.
She talked about being open and outward-looking and tolerance,
and it did make things easier and allow change to happen faster.
And that, I mean, the photographs of her with Nkrumah,
I mean, she's gorgeous, she's gorgeous,
she's grinning from ear to eyes.
She's having a good time, isn't she? Absolutely having a good time.
He seemed quite happy too! Well, why would you not be?
"I'm the first democratically elected president,
"here I am dancing with the Queen. Hurrah."
But there's something about that legacy.
I know people... My father's family are from Ghana.
I know people who were there, who remember how fabulous it was.
And I've also heard people in the last few days,
in this country and in Africa,
talking about how they feel like they've lost Mum.
And Mother is a term of respect for an older woman,
and it's a really emotionally sincerely held feeling,
that sense of loss,
of focus having gone away
from something that felt trusted and sincere.
I think in answer to Andrew's question,
which is a difficult one to answer... It is. ..which is
did she really make a difference, I do think her gender was important.
I somehow think a lot of those changes,
had we had a kind of militaristic, male, bristling King,
you know, during the 1960s and the 1970s,
things would have felt different and harsher,
and those changes would have been harder.
Yes, but I think there's an additional thing, which is that,
I think for those of us who, as it were,
grew up over time with her,
watching what sometimes were very subtle changes,
but also quite major changes, we were able to see that progression.
I think for younger people coming through,
sometimes they felt the change wasn't fast enough. Mmm.
So how you marry up and balance those two things
I think is a major challenge going forward.
Joan. It's hard to remember
how prejudiced the country was when she became Queen.
I mean, it was bigoted, it was racist, it was, you know,
"No blacks, no Irish" in windows. I mean, it was intolerable.
And she sailed through that
through her love of the Commonwealth,
and she made a huge difference,
so that when people arrived from... On the Windrush,
they came because she was their... She was their mother.
She was the figure, she was their Queen. And that...
And she felt that too, and I think she was,
she was instinctively a pioneer
in the greater tolerance that we have today.
Well, we're certainly a much more diverse country
than we were in 1952.
But have we become less class-bound,
or has the monarchy been a hindrance to changing class in Britain?
Well, class is the C word we never talk about, isn't it?
I just did! You just did. Yeah.
I think class is still as deep and intense as it ever was.
It may just have a variety of faces now,
newer faces, but I think we are still
incredibly class-bound in this country.
And had the monarchy been a hindrance to changing that?
Well, you know, I think the Duke of Edinburgh Award,
I think the Prince's Trust...
The Prince's Trust is a fantastic organisation.
I think there are ways in which those, that sort of focus
is making inroads into shifting the possibilities of people's lives.
But, you know, we live in a monarchy.
It's a hierarchical structure that we operate within.
But I think there is something about, you know,
economic disadvantage,
about the fact that we don't like to talk about class,
the way that class imbues so many different areas of life
that actually is incredibly difficult
and challenging for us to address.
And I think we can say the same about race as well.
I think that there are some real conversations that we have to have,
open conversations, about our history,
what that means for us collectively,
and how we can work through that
to create the kind of society that we really want to have.
And part of what we do,
and we kind of say it's a national characteristic, is that we sort of
button up and don't talk want to about those things.
We have got to talk about them,
and the impact on our young people in particular.
And we are talking about them right now.
My question to you, Andrew Marr, is this.
A criticism of monarchy, of royalty, is that...
particularly in this country,
probably not as true in Scandinavia or Holland,
but in this country is it represents the apex of a class system.
A, is that true, and B, if it is,
did the Queen really do anything to change that?
Well, it's a bit true.
I mean, it's true that the royal family
don't regard themselves as part of the aristocracy
because they think the aristocracy are a bit below them.
So to that extent, they're not tied into the aristocracy.
But I don't know about you, Andrew, but I felt a slight shiver of,
I don't know, unease, at those words like liege,
and we are, you know, he is our liege lord, and we are subjects.
I don't feel like a subject.
And I think there is a lot of that language
still embedded in the monarchy, which is difficult.
On the other hand, I'd say that
almost every Western market-based society has an elite.
Look at the way the French elite has been able to entrench itself
at the top of that society through the Grandes Ecoles in Paris.
They are quite democratic, the Grandes Ecoles.
Yeah, well... It doesn't matter who you were born into.
They're democratic until, well,
once you've got into that level, then you are part of
a very, very powerful and often quite resented elite in France,
and yet they have a presidency,
they dealt with their monarchy some time ago, so I don't think monarchy
and elite structures necessarily are the same thing or go together.
But I do think that this monarchy has been part of a system,
a kind of pyramid, and they're at the top of it
and we are aware of our place and that has kind of been bad for us.
And very much so. As a family, they are an extremely
rich family with several very large houses, lots of property,
they send their children to public schools,
they behave like the moneyed class.
They haven't made any concessions to that, in the way
they conduct their own family life,
and I think it would be quite interesting to see whether Charles
can have any influence on that.
I think it would be interesting for example to watch the education
of Prince William's children and see whether there is a broadening into
the different class system
rather than being part of it, which they are.
Do you regard yourself as a part of the Elizabethan age?
Um, I do to some extent.
My grandfathers were factory workers and I was a scholarship girl
who joined the middle classes by virtue of going to university,
so I'm, you know, yes, I am part of it.
I am rather typical in that way, I think.
On the issue we're talking about the relationship
of the monarchy and class and whether that could change,
it seems to me that King Charles has got off to a strong start.
His address to the nation was wildly received,
his meeting the people outside Buckingham Palace,
other things, he just seems to have set the right tone.
But I don't see him as someone who is really going
to change the apex of a class society position
that the monarchy is in. He is part of that.
He is part of it,
and I think he will follow in the footsteps of his mother in that way.
But I hope that he will take some of those three Cs concerns,
we heard about earlier, that he will pull some of those things
along with him and to soften, expand,
put more breath and air into this iteration of the monarchy.
I met him through the Royal Shakespeare Company.
You know, "flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."
I will be saying that at my parents' funeral as well,
it is the most beautiful thing.
He has an interest in using culture as a way of expanding conversations
and allowing people into their own creativity
and, you know, their own sense of what they can make of themselves
in the world. That is where we have to go,
free people up to be their best selves, to use
their ingenuity and their intuition and education and their instinct,
and I think he has a sniff of that about him.
I think that is one of the great strengths of the Elizabethan age.
I would say it has been defined by the blossoming of
cultural expression at every level, right through our society.
A bit like the first Elizabethan age. Pardon?
A bit like the first Elizabethan age.
Indeed, in that respect, yes,
we have seen the most amazing and continuing creativity.
But less burning of Catholics. Yes.
It has made Britain what they call a soft superpower.
In soft power, we are a superpower.
Because of our creativity.
Well, our, the soft diplomacy is a very important part
of our world role.
And the Queen was part of the soft diplomacy, as well.
Yes, she was. Very much so. You want to say something.
It was really to go back to Adjoa's point,
because I do think that, as it were, the passions
that King Charles had as Prince of Wales,
if you think about issues around young people,
concerns about inequality,
concerns about education.
He came to my college in May to talk to young people about not just
getting into Oxford, but what was it like once they had got there,
because they came from these backgrounds where traditionally
those young people had NOT gone to Oxford.
He was very, very interested in,
what with the things that were holding them back?
What did they think their employment opportunities were going to be
as a result of coming to Oxford,
but, as a result of also having these backgrounds which were
very different to people who had traditionally gone to Oxford.
So all of this, I think, has the possibility of feeding through
into what comes next.
It's fine to talk about an Elizabethan age, but a lot of people
won't feel they're in one. At all.
People will be struggling to pay their energy bills this month,
and so on. Well, absolutely.
I mean, it's had its failures as well as its successes.
I don't think that it's there to do all that stuff.
That's what governments are for.
I think, as I was saying, what the Queen did with her Queen's speech
was sort of pull people in and put a bit of an arm around them,
and acknowledge people's situations.
That is what people want a lot of the time, and there is something
about the long-term vision.
We have governments that go from election to election,
everything is short term.
There was something long-term about her vision,
and hopefully with King Charles's it will be the same,
that people need a sort of spiritual sense to keep them going.
The pragmatism of how I'm going to keep the electricity on,
that's is what we elect our politicians to deal with.
Quite right.
If there is a case for monarchism in the modern world
it is that long-termism, it is that the new King
is thinking 100 or 200 years ahead,
about the condition of the countryside and about the planet,
and biodiversity and all of that, in a way that elected politicians
frankly can't be bothered to,
because they have an election coming up before too long,
and that's what they're focusing on,
so it may be that it puts into the system a kind of long-termism that
wouldn't be there in an orthodox, elected system,
in a presidency.
People talk about the good things that happened in the second
Elizabethan age, under the Queen,
but is there anything good that happened during her reign
which is now in jeopardy now that she's gone?
Are we at risk?
I think it's too soon to tell.
I do think that our role in the world as Britain,
and some of those watching this programme would have seen
the reports over the last 24 hours in terms of what has happened
to our currency, what has happened to our economy,
we are at a moment, globally, given what is happening with energy,
given what is happening with living standards and so on
where we are going to have to really grasp this
and show real leadership as a country,
but coming back to the point that Adjoa made,
this is about that government
and what you want from your constitutional monarch
is a degree, a sense of stability, and a sense of continuity.
Which is what the Queen did admirably.
And she did very well.
I would agree. We are at a stage,
all of our Western societies, for reasons that we understand well,
are under huge pressure,
and some will buckle and splinter, and some will not, and the question
is, does monarchy help keep us together in a way that is healthy?
Again, I think it is too early to say about the new King.
He has started quite well,
but he really had to think very hard about the role of the monarchy
and what it brings, because in the end, I don't think anybody
around the table, anybody listening to this programme, perhaps, really
defends or accepts the idea of the theory of monarchy, the idea that
there is one God-given bloodline that rules over the rest of us, and
therefore, to make monarchy work it has to be pragmatic, and it has to
think constantly about the condition of the people question, if you like.
And so all of those things that Charles has been involved in
in the past, with the youth work, is incredibly important.
I thought the fact that Prince William was out
selling The Big Issue recently was a good sign.
We need to see more of that, we need to have a sense that
right at the top of the country, right at the apex of the state
and society there are people looking out for everyone.
We're going to talk more about this in the third part of the programme.
But is the Queen's legacy that,
at least for the foreseeable future, we remain a constitutional monarchy?
I think so, yes.
I think that continuity and that sense of that soft,
overarching perspective is going to continue.
I mean, all of it is an accident of birth, whether you are born into
a family where you think you are going to be the niece of the King
and now you are suddenly going to be the Queen,
or you are born of West African and British parents like me
and grew up in the Cotswolds, it is all an accident of birth,
and it's having that sense that we are all part of that
accident, and how we take care of each other within the frame of that
understanding, that's what I hope from this constitutional monarchy.
Was it an accident that you are on here tonight?
No, it was carefully planned, and I think the plan's worked.
In the final part of the programme,
we'll be asking what the Queen's death will mean
for the future of Britain, the Union and the Commonwealth.
These 25 years have seen much change for Britain.
No longer an imperial power,
we have been coming to terms with what this means for ourselves
and for our relations with the rest of the world.
The problems of progress,
the complexities of modern administration,
have helped to revive an awareness of historic national
identities in these islands, but I cannot forget that I was crowned
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this Jubilee is a time to remind ourselves of the benefits
that union has conferred, at home and in our international
dealings, on the inhabitants of all parts of this United Kingdom.
That was the Queen making another extraordinary speech in 1977 -
the year of her Silver Jubilee.
So if she was, indeed, the glue that held
so much of what we know together, will Britain, the Union
and the Commonwealth now come unstuck?
I'm joined for the final part of the programme by Ruth Davidson,
the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives,
Canadian High Commissioner Ralph Goodale,
social commentator Patrick Vernon,
and the journalist - and republican - Polly Toynbee.
Welcome to you all.
Ruth Davidson, the Queen embodied the union.
Now that she's gone, is the union now in more danger?
Well, I think there's been quite an interesting thing that's happened
in the last week. There's been a lot of London-based commentators,
even some of them Scottish, if I may say, Andrew,
who have been quick to write that story, that this
is an aspect we need to look at,
and people in Scotland haven't wanted to talk about this.
They've not wanted to claim this for either side.
And to be honest there have been a lot of people that have been
a bit narked by columnists and journalists sticking microphones
under people's noses in Scotland to ask them this, because we want
the same space and time to look at what has happened, to process it,
to grieve in some cases, to pay tribute in others,
as everybody else in the United Kingdom,
and actually neither side in the constitutional debate
in Scotland and people that have lived this debate since 2011
want to start making political points on this.
We just want to give of our best to a great lady who's gone.
But is the union in more danger or not?
Again, this is not, there is a time and a place
to have a conversation all about this.
She's not in the ground yet, Andrew.
This is not the time. It's not the place.
Polly Toynbee?
I think the union is under great threat.
I think she was some of the glue that held it together,
simply the weight of history, that most people alive can only
remember her, and she did bind the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland
together, so I think it is a moment of extra danger, but the real danger
to the union has been the difference of opinion between Conservatives
in London and non-Conservatives for 55 years in Scotland,
and in Brexit, where neither Northern Ireland nor Scotland
voted for Brexit, and the referendum happened in such a way that it
didn't require their permission, as well, which is a grave affront.
So I think all these things come together to make a crack
that I deeply regret, you know, and I hope it doesn't happen.
But I think it is very perilous indeed.
But I would say, if I might, Polly, that people said first of all
that Brexit would be the thing that would encourage a great
spike in independence support in Scotland, and it didn't, or that
Boris becoming Prime Minister would have a great spike, and it didn't.
And you can look at the polls since the referendum in 2014,
and all of these, and even just the passage of time because of
the demographics, if you voted on both sides,
and again, that's proven not to be the case.
The travelling of the cortege from Balmoral, to Aberdeen,
and then south to Dundee, and then across the Firth of Forth,
into Edinburgh itself,
therefore taking it through some stunning parts of Scotland,
with wonderful pictures, as we can see there.
There was, Patrick Vernon,
a certain unionist symbolism in these pictures.
The Queen had died in Scotland and that the Scottish people,
who she felt very strongly about, were getting
their chance to grieve, which would not have happened if she had died
in Windsor or Buckingham Palace? It was fortuitous for the union.
It could be. But I think the point is, what happens after,
when she's buried?
There's going to be lots of conversations
in England, in Scotland, don't forget Wales.
There will be lots of conversations about the future of relationships.
And I think the King, there will be reflection about
the King's role in all of that, and particularly the Commonwealth.
Already, you can see clear evidence, and signs that the Commonwealth...
I will come on to the Commonwealth,
let's start with the union to begin with.
Start parochially then we'll move out globally.
That's where the focus goes.
But I mean, there are always conversations about the union.
Well, it's always been that.
It's like a love-hate relationship, isn't it?
The question is, in terms of the union,
there are certain aspects of the union, and I think the interesting
thing about what will happen next, particularly in Scotland, will
Nicola Sturgeon still push hard for independence, or will she listen to,
you know, maybe people are now reflecting,
maybe we should see what happens.
But does the departure of the Queen make a difference?
That's the issue tonight,
not the rights and wrongs of Scottish independence,
but the departure of The Queen.
Does that change the atmosphere in which the debates
that you are talking about, will take place?
I think we all recognise, because of the way she reigned for
a long time, 70 years, she dealt with 15 prime ministers, a whole
range of people, north and south of the border, and so she was the glue.
And that creates uncertainty.
And the question is, when you have a gap or uncertainty,
what fills that void? That's the big question.
She was the glue, and things can become a bit unstuck, but that's
different, getting a bit unstuck, you can put things together again.
That's different from a fissure.
That's different from something being cut down the middle.
Then it begs the question, will Charles be that glue again,
or other members of the royal family?
And that's a question we'll have to see in polls
over the next coming months.
I mean, I think the case for the United Kingdom,
I don't particularly like calling the union the union -
we are a country,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
it needs to be made again and again and remade for every generation.
I absolutely accept that.
But I don't think, you know, from being actively
and acutely involved in 2014,
I'm not entirely sure that The Queen was necessarily
one of the big issues that was discussed then.
It was the SNP's position to keep the constitutional monarch
in an independent Scotland.
It continues to be their stated position.
As a political party. And a referendum?
Well, let's see what the Supreme Court says about that!
No, what I mean is, if they were to win an independence referendum,
would they not at some stage have a referendum
on whether an independent Scotland should then become a republic?
My understanding is, certainly going into the 2014 election,
if that was a position, it was wheeched right offstage.
The position of The Queen was not in jeopardy at the time.
You know, you saw hundreds of thousands of Scots,
people on both sides of the constitutional argument were there.
It's not a black and white unionist and royalist, monarchist issue.
I want to move on to the Commonwealth, but Polly,
a final word on the state of the union?
We know very little about the Queen's view on anything at all,
but she did "purr," it was said, when she heard the result...
That was David Cameron who said that. David Cameron.
But, more than that, we've seen the speech from 1977, on the record.
I mean, she did say she had been crowned
Queen of the United Kingdom - that wasn't just passing the time.
Yes. And she clearly has a deep love of Scotland.
The place where she was happiest. She's more Scottish than English.
More Scottish than English, a bit German!
More German than English, as well!
Let me come onto the High Commissioner, Ralph Goodale.
The Queen was pivotal in the creation of the Commonwealth,
and, at times, in keeping it together. Mm-hm.
Is the Commonwealth diminished by her death?
Oh, you lose a personality of that magnitude,
70 years of incomparable depth and experience,
obviously we are all diminished in her absence now.
She was such a grand person in so many ways.
We are showing pictures, High Commissioner,
of the Queen in Canada now.
Yes, I recognise some of those. I thought you might!
When you think of the Commonwealth,
that started back in her early days, the eight or ten countries,
and now 56, it's one of those few international organisations
that's actually growing.
More countries are joining it than are contemplating leaving it.
It's now 56. Two more in the last year.
She nurtured all of that over a very long period of time.
And think of what it is.
56 countries, every continent in the world except Antarctica.
One-third of the world's population.
Countries that are big and small, rich and poor,
north, south, east and west.
It has such enormous diversity.
You can't think of a forum similar to it.
And if you tried to create it today, you couldn't.
It's an accident of history.
Which the Queen played a role in constructing.
She played a great role.
But I think she would be the first today to say,
well, the monarchy has assisted and supported and contributed to
the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is not dependent on the monarchy.
The new King, Charles, will have to determine
the kind of role that he will play in relation to the Commonwealth.
But what will determine the future of the Commonwealth
is the Commonwealth itself.
Does it have strong administration and leadership and organisation?
Is it transparent and accountable?
Does it have a clear set of priorities...
And purpose. ..and focus that are relevant?
It shouldn't try to be like every other international organisation
and mimic what they do.
It should decide what it does better than other organisations
and focus on those priorities, and it will survive.
Patrick, you mention the Commonwealth earlier.
I said we would come to it. So I'll come back to you.
What did you want to say?
The Commonwealth is not
really an act of history, it was part of Empire.
So, the fact we have just quoted, that the colonisation of the Empire,
that Britain, in inverted commas, "ruled the waves,"
and obviously that transition from countries, starting firstly
with India, Pakistan, then leading to Ghana in 1957,
and bit by bit, countries said, we want our independence.
So you have this kind of umbilical cord between the Commonwealth
and the Royals, particularly The Queen, and the royal family.
Growing up in the Midlands, you know,
any West Indian household,
they had a picture of the Queen,
Jesus and the West Indian cricket team.
And bit by bit, the front room is changing.
And that reflects where we are now.
Because what we have now is a situation where, bit by bit,
even though other countries have joined the Commonwealth,
and interestingly countries that have joined the Commonwealth have
not had that colonial history with Britain, which is interesting,
but it's countries who now say we want to be fully independent.
What was interesting, Prince Charles went to Barbados last year.
He was there when Barbados became a republic.
And I think that's the future.
Jamaica has already made an announcement
that they want to be a republic. You know what is going to happen.
One of the key issues around the Commonwealth is that relationship.
The Commonwealth will always be there.
The difference will be countries will have their own
independent sovereign state within the Commonwealth, as republics.
That's going to happen.
Would it be a very good idea if the British monarch
was no longer the head of the Commonwealth? Why should it be?
Wouldn't that make quite a break with those old colonial roots
that caused so much of the tension?
Wouldn't it be much better if they had what's called
an election to decide who the leader is?
Prince Charles WAS chosen.
It's interesting - relatively and actually, he was chosen
by Commonwealth leaders and the High Commissioner.
We had to decide upon that in Cabinet,
a cabinet decision of the government of Canada. Not forced on us.
I think an unwise decision... That's a different matter.
It might have been a better gesture for the Commonwealth.
It may be unwise, but he didn't inherit the position!
That's very true. But he wouldn't be there
if he hadn't inherited it, you see what I mean.
But what was interesting, I think, if you read the media,
I didn't realise that each Commonwealth country have to
say yes or no, almost like a mini, in-or-out type option, maybe.
But what was interesting four years ago,
when it happened, it was at the same time as the Windrush scandal.
And so the Commonwealth's heads met in London.
It was at the height of the Windrush scandal.
I was quite involved with that, with a whole range of people.
And I had this kind of vision that maybe The Queen said
to Theresa May, you'd better sort this out
because Charles is going to be anointed,
and, you know, "Don't rain on my parade," maybe - who knows?
Well, we never know what the Queen would actually say on that.
Hold that thought, though, because I wanted,
Prince William, when he was in the Bahamas this year,
he had something to say, which I think will inform our discussion.
Let's hear Prince William.
Next year, I know you are all looking forward
to celebrating 50 years of independence.
Your golden anniversary.
And with Jamaica celebrating 60 years of independence this year,
and Belize celebrating 40 years of independence last year,
I want to say this.
We support with pride and respect your decisions about your future.
Relationships evolve, friendship endures.
Polly Toynbee, what do you make of that remark?
No senior Royal has said anything like that before, I don't think.
I think it's essential that the monarchy, to survive itself,
it has to look as if it is in favour of democratic choices everywhere.
I mean, the fact that it is not democratic itself
is quite important.
So they have to be very generous, I think, in that way.
Is the Commonwealth, Ruth Davidson, in more difficulty without
the Queen, or will King Charles, who, as I understand it,
is a very strongly pro- the Commonwealth himself,
will he step up to the crease?
This is one of the ones where King Charles is going to have to
make sure the Commonwealth is given his attention, that he
puts in the time, the effort, that he shows he wanted to continue,
that he's willing to work hard for it and in its service.
But I think what is also interesting is the point that Ralph made
about the fluidity of the Commonwealth down the years.
It is not fixed, it's not served in aspic.
And it comes to something that Andrew Marr said in
the last section of this programme,
about, in terms of the principle of monarchy is,
if you think about it in its purest form,
on paper, it doesn't really work.
People don't really believe that these people are descendants,
you know, God's chosen people.
You wouldn't invent it now, is what you're saying.
Well, exactly, but there's a pragmatism to it.
And actually if you look at somebody like
the former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull,
who led the republican movement in 1999,
the last time there was a big push to not have the Queen
as head of state there, and his reaction to the death of Elizabeth,
it was one of the most touching things I've seen
in the last few days.
He was so moved, moved to tears on television,
and talking about what a great lady she is.
And I think this again comes back to this idea of,
you might not like, necessarily, the ideal of it,
but for some reason it works
and there's some kind of magic involved there.
And what would you replace it with? And once people start thinking...
That's the critical question.
Once people start thinking about what the options are,
to throw it out, and what does it get replaced with,
then you don't have the same number of people agreeing.
We have very good options.
But the reason Malcolm Turnbull lost in Australia in 1999
was because people didn't like the alternatives.
It wasn't that there was, you know a wellspring of support
for the monarchy, so much as,
"Nah, we don't really want that kind of politician."
Not the least worst option, but that idea of what do you replace it with,
becomes a contested space.
It has been said, Ralph, that with the Queen passing,
that, in those Commonwealth countries where the monarch
here is still the head of state,
there will be more republican movements.
But so far, and of course it's very early days,
Australia and New Zealand don't seem to be rushing
to embrace republicanism. What about Canada?
Obviously when there is a change of this magnitude,
first time in 70 years,
there will be people reflecting on that question.
It's logical to come up.
But I just know that our major newspaper in Canada today
wrote an editorial, very strongly against the idea
for a number of very practical reasons.
Against the idea of removing the head of state?
Yes, and the arguments were interesting, all very practical.
First of all, it would involve a constitutional debate that
would probably last a decade, and be rather debilitating in the process.
We in Canada have gone through those constitutional debates
in the past... With Quebec. and they're not very pleasant.
Thirdly, a lot of other things will get
pushed off the public agenda while governments
are focused on this issue, and the third one is,
can you assure us that the alternative will be better?
Not just hypothetically, but practically better.
And I guess the bottom line of that, if it ain't broke,
don't fix it.
It has provided remarkable stability, continuity,
over a long period of time.
Various controversies have been dealt with successfully.
It makes you different from America.
Exactly the point!
Is that an alternative that one would
necessarily want to emulate right now?
Most countries that are members of the Commonwealth do not have the
British monarch as their head of state.
That is an important point.
56 members of the Commonwealth, I think it is down to 15 who had the
Queen and now have King Charles as head of state.
That may be less in the years to come.
Is it important that the Commonwealth continues?
Let me ask Patrick here.
I think the Commonwealth will continue.
But it is important?
Interesting because if you break down the word Commonwealth,
people say where is the commonality?
If you go round the 56 countries of the Commonwealth,
they all have different economic, social, political challenges.
One of the big challenges which King Charles will face
and has faced already is the big
issue of reparations and the
history of Britain's past empire enslavement.
That is not going to go away.
The genie is out of the bottle, and for a number of those
countries in the Commonwealth, they will keep raising those concerns.
Caricom, the 14 English-speaking countries part of the Commonwealth
will raise issues... In the Caribbean.
Then you have other parts of the Commonwealth saying...
My question was whether it was important or not
that the Commonwealth continue.
You raised an issue.
Is that issue better resolved with the continuing
Commonwealth, with King Charles doing his bit to keep the show on
the road, or doesn't it matter?
I think when it comes to particular issues
around enslavement, it is
about how the King, with the British government,
have those conversations with those relevant Commonwealth
countries, because not all of the Commonwealth is raising these
issues, it is only particular countries,
and a lawsuit...a letter was sent to
all the European powers saying, we want to deal with this,
it wasn't taken seriously by the British Government at all,
and I think that issue is going to be there and will
come back time and time again.
Let me try one more time.
Is it easier to deal with this issue if you come
back to it with the Commonwealth as one of the institutions to do it,
or does it make no difference?
Ultimately it is the British Government, so it is not so much
about the Commonwealth, because all Commonwealth countries
will have their own issues around historical injustice.
Ultimately it's down to the King with the British Government.
You have met King Charles.
Is he committed to the Commonwealth, do you believe?
I believe so from everything I have seen from him, that the commitment
is very real, and I think he understands the points that you were
making, that he has got to pay attention to this.
The monarchy has evolved, the Commonwealth has evolved,
the individual countries within the Commonwealth have
evolved, and you have got to keep moving
with the times to show the kind of flexibility there in that clip
from Prince William, but you think
if the Commonwealth is properly administered, if it has got that
transparency and accountability, if it has got a credible set of
priorities, it can be an absolutely unique convening power in the world
because of or almost in spite of that vast
diversity that is included within the Commonwealth,
and it is well placed to focus on some really important issues
of good governance in those 56 countries.
Human rights, including gender equality and the
rights of LGBTQ persons.
Education as a powerful liberator of human potential.
Preparing for the next pandemic, and there is going to be one,
and the Commonwealth should be ahead of that curve, and dealing
with the problems of climate change.
Those are things that the Commonwealth can do particularly
well if it sets its mind to it. Thank you for that.
We are in the last few minutes of the programme.
Let's come back to Polly.
As long as the Queen was on the throne, republicanism was
to some extent put on hold.
Will it now have a new lease of life?
Some of us hoped that she would be gracefully
and quietly Elizabeth the Last,
but it hasn't happened.
Without anybody being asked, the moment
the last breath leaves the Queen's body,
we have a new King without anybody being asked if
that's what they want.
And the chances are most people do.
The popularity of the monarchy has fallen from 75% to 60%.
There are a quarter of people who would like to
do away with it, and increasingly the young, who say they don't think
it will still be there, the majority of them don't think it
will still be there in 25 years.
So you think the Republican movement has a new head
of steam behind it?
This is not particularly...
I understand not at this moment, we are still in
mourning for Queen Elizabeth, but as we move into the age of King
Charles, does republicanism get a second wind?
I think it does, I think people are less personally attached.
The Queen did represent all of our lives for 70 years,
and people reflected their own personal families
against the story of the monarch's family.
It was deeply embedded, and I think it just won't
be so quite in the same way.
I don't think we are instantly going for a republic,
but the question why we need good governance is because we
don't have a president to protect the constitution.
We have just had a rogue Prime Minister who prorogued
Parliament, who broke international law...
I understand, and we can talk about that on another programme
which is more about party politics.
Ruth Davidson, what do you think?
I think that this queen was unique because of the longevity of her
reign, because of being part of that post-war generation, and I think
that you could see that, right now, Russia, a global superpower is being
beaten back in Ukraine, yet is what is leading the news
in countries around the world is the death of the Queen.
I don't think when this happens with King Charles, we will
see that same change, she is an absolute unique figure.
But the idea that means there will suddenly be a hotbed of
republicanism in this country, I'm not sure...
I'm not talking about a hotbed, or instantly, I'm just
saying over time, do the Republican forces
gather strength again, as they did in Victorian England?
I think you have seen within the history
of the United Kingdom, and you can go back as far as you like,
that there are swings of movement,
in lots of different things, and it may well be
that in the next 30, 40, 50 years,
there is a swing towards republicanism and a swing
back, we don't know.
Briefly, High Commissioner?
In too many countries in this world, having this conversation
would be illegal.
The fact is, under our form of democracy, in a
constitutional monarchy, we are able to have these kinds
of discussions and evolve and grow, democracy
flourishes, and that has got to be some kind
of a compliment about the kind of system that allows that.
We have 30 seconds, I give you the final word.
Is republicanism coming back?
Republicanism has always been there, the question is what will happen.
It is all down to King Charles and his reign,
and if he can be inclusive, more engaging and have a new social
contract with the public and communities, let's see what happens.
Are you hopeful?
Let's see what happens. I'm hopeful.
You're hopeful, Ruth?
Yes, I think he has learned from the best.
And in our country, one of the things that will be very
important is how he relates to indigenous
people and the whole issue of reconciliation
and healing, that is important to the future of Canada.
All right, we will leave it there.
That is all we have time for this evening.
Tomorrow the Queen's coffin will be flown to London
by the Royal Air Force and taken to Buckingham Palace.
From Wednesday it will lie in state in Westminster Hall until her
funeral in Westminster Abbey next Monday.
You can follow events with our colleagues on Channel 4 News
throughout the next historic seven days.
But for now, thank you for being with us tonight and watching.
Goodnight.
Subtitles by Red Bee Media