Queen Elizabeth II, who died on Thursday, broke records, one after another, in terms of remaining on the throne, and became a queen and symbol for a long time in a country where she remained on the throne for 70 years, even after his features changed completely, lost his empire and were subjected to social unrest.

Some commentators describe her reign as a "golden age" similar to that of Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled England 400 years ago during a period of growing power and cultural prosperity.

Valerie Amos (a former politician and the first black person to be awarded the old Knights of the Garter by the Queen) said, “I think somehow we are seen by the Queen... the consistency, the wisdom that she has shown; all that is clearly reflected in the way people view her. Britain".

Others say the 96-year-old's impact on the nation has been less profound than that of her predecessor, with the throne's powers diminishing since the first Elizabethan era.

Critics say it left no tangible impact;

Just an inappropriate institution in a world of egalitarian aspirations, disrespectful comments on social media, and round-the-clock media scrutiny.

Nevertheless, her legacy remains remarkable: ensuring the survival of the monarchy in an era of rapid change.

Elizabeth ascended the throne at the age of 25 on February 6, 1952, after the death of her father, George VI, when Britain was shaking off the dust of World War II, and the quota system was still in place, and Winston Churchill was prime minister.

Since then, successive presidents, popes and prime ministers have come and gone, the Soviet Union collapsed, the British Empire collapsed, and it was replaced by a Commonwealth of 56 countries that Elizabeth played a key role in creating.

British constitutional history expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor said, "None of the other imperialist powers have achieved this (...) and in Britain enormous social and economic changes have been carried out in a peaceful, consensual manner; this is very remarkable."

A second Elizabethan era?

Elizabeth I reigned for 44 years in the 16th century, a period in England's golden age, when the economy grew and the country's influence expanded and William Shakespeare wrote his plays that are still performed and performed around the world, and are among the most influential in all languages.

"Some people have expressed the hope that my reign will be a new Elizabethan era; I say it frankly: I do not feel at all like my great predecessor (Elizabeth) Tudor," the Queen said in a speech broadcast on Christmas 1953.

Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) (Getty Images)

Since she has not been interviewed or her personal views on political issues have been revealed, it is difficult to ascertain her own assessment of her longest reign in British history.

A senior aide to the royal family told Reuters she views her legacy as a matter for others to judge.

Constitutional historian David Starkey said the Queen did not see her role as the embodiment of a historical period, but was merely performing a function.

In 2015, he wrote, "She has neither done nor said anything that will be remembered by anyone. It will not be mentioned because of her age (because it is not of her making or choosing) or because of anything else, I believe."

He added, "I do not say this to criticize, but it is simply an admission of the truth. Rather, it contains a bit of flattery, and I think that the Queen will take it as such, because she came to the throne with only one idea: the continuation of the royal presence."

Other historians and biographers say Starkey's views are unfair about the Queen's performance.

"In an increasingly chaotic world, she has given (Queen Elizabeth) a sense of stability," said Andrew Morton, whose 1992 biography of Princess Diana caused rifts within the royal family.

Some say that the Queen's insistence on performing her role as best she can and her reluctance to express opinions may cause any abuse to give her moral authority beyond the limits of anything she was commanded from the reality of her position as Queen of the country.

"What the Queen has been able to do is (...) bring the monarchy into the 21st century in the best possible way," her grandson Prince William said in a 2012 documentary.

"Every organization needs to look at itself a lot, and ownership is a constantly evolving machine, and I think it really wants to be a reflection of society, it wants to move with the times and it's important for it to do that for its survival."

Kingdom and Empire

In a 1947 speech in South Africa, then-Princess Elizabeth declared that she would dedicate her life "to the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong".

The concept of the "imperial family" reflects the idea of ​​the British monarchy as a symbol of an empire imbued with ideologies of white supremacy and colonialism.

The British Empire, which spanned several centuries, was described as never setting the sun;

Its influence included many countries, most notably India and the regions of Greater Africa, North and South Africa, and also expanded overseas in Asia and the Americas.

World map showing the expansion of the British Empire in 1902 in red (Getty Images)

This idea also plays a role in international royal visits, and these visits had colonial dimensions throughout history by portraying the king as a "white savior", according to an article published on the "The Conversation" website of the academic Laura Clancy at Lancaster University in Britain.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's tour of the Caribbean on the occasion of the platinum jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II - which came this year - was criticized for the historical connection of members of the royal family to colonialism and slavery, and an open letter from Jamaican public figures stated, "We see no reason to celebrate the 70th anniversary of your grandmother's ascension." to the British throne because her leadership and the leadership of her ancestors ushered in the greatest human rights tragedy in human history.”

Reactions included demands for reparations from the era of colonialism and slavery, but for many Britons the history of the empire represented the culmination of their nation's civilized rise.

A new book by American author Caroline Elkins - a professor of history at Harvard University - traces more than 200 years of the history of the British Empire, and "The Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire" reveals an imperial racist doctrine that adopts an excessive and continuous use of violence to secure the interests of the empire.

The 2006 Pulitzer Prize-winning historian outlines how the ideological underpinnings of violence took hold in the Victorian era (from Queen Victoria's accession in 1837 until the early 20th century), examines policies to punish "indigenous" rebellions, and how forms of violence became more systemic over time, and concludes that when Britain is able to control the violence it has provoked and enacted;

The empire declined.

Drawing on more than a decade of research across 4 continents, Legacy of Violence discusses aspects of the politics of imperial violence and its cover-up, by showing how and why violence was the most salient factor in shaping the British Empire abroad, national identity at home, and the fluctuation of myths about the violence of the British Empire abroad. colonists upside down, and sheds new light on the role of empire in shaping the world today.

soft power

Constitutionally, the king has little practical powers and is expected not to take sides.

However, historians say Elizabeth wielded "soft" power and made the monarchy a unifying focal point of the nation amid great societal divisions, exemplified by her reassuring broadcasts at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although her position transcends political struggles, she would meet the Prime Minister in a special weekly appearance.

"They tell me what's going on or if they have any problems, and sometimes one can help in that way as well," she said in a 1992 documentary.

"They know that one can be neutral, so to speak. I think it's kind of good to feel like a kind of sponge," she added.

Former leaders said that her many years of experience has been very useful, allowing them to speak frankly without fear of making their conversations public.

"You can be quite frank, or even unreserved, with the Queen," said John Major, British prime minister from 1990 to 1997.

Tony Blair, who replaced Major and served as prime minister for a decade, said: "She assesses situations and difficulties and can characterize them without ever giving any indication of political preference or anything like that. It's great to see that."

Some historians say the Queen will be considered the last of her kind, as a monarch from a time when elites were undoubtedly respected, but she may be one of the greatest figures in the country.

Anna Whitelock, professor of property history at City University of London, said: "There is no doubt that she is one of the greatest monarchs, not only because of her longevity, but for her period of change."

She added that, "Like Elizabeth I, she has an extended influence on Britain and Britain's standing in the world."