The Queen

I don't think Americans really get the point of a monarch. Certainly we see the British royal family as celebrities and are curious about their lifestyle. We also seem to relish their foibles and eccentricities. The Queen gives us a behind the scenes look at Elizabeth II in the midst of a very trying period. It reveals someone who in many ways is out of touch with what most of us see as the real world, but also who carries a great deal of responsibility beyond what we might recognize.

The story begins with Tony Blair's election as Prime Minister. Technically, he isn't elected as Prime Minister, as leader of the majority party, the Queen asks him to form a government -- but it is her government. As the head of state, she is theoretically in charge of the nation. Practically, she is effectively powerless. She represents the history and institution of the nation in a line going back many centuries.

We tend to think of her as no more than a symbol. In many ways, she is, but symbols are important. Institutions are important. In a time of trouble, people look to these symbols for strength and support.

That is what causes the problem in The Queen. A few months after Blair's election, the death of Princess Diana filled the news. The relationship between Diana and the royal family was strained. Many people saw her as the victim of the royals' closed minded traditionalism. The royals saw in her a rejection of all that they had been brought up to believe. At Diana's death, the Queen and the rest of the family followed strict protocols. Since she was no longer part of the royal family (in spite of being the mother of a presumed future king), the family made no statement of any kind. The Queen (and others) thought it was better to stay out of the affair.

But the people, grieving Diana's death, understood the silence as a cold disdain. They saw in Diana a bit of themselves, since she had been a commoner prior to marriage. People took this perceived rejection personally. In only a few days, the royal family was quickly falling into disfavor.

The interaction between Blair and the royal family opens them up to help lead the people in national grief. Blair recognizes that the nation needs the symbol of the monarch. He serves his queen well in his advice, even though it is something she may not understand.

The film shows the royal family to be off in their own world without any real reference to the way most people live. Yet, there is also a sense that the Queen is acting in the way that she understands to be in the best interest of the people, in that it maintains the tradition of the nation. What she deems as appropriate decorum, others read as cold aloofness.

The real issue in the film is the relationship between tradition and change. Tradition often gets a bad rap. There were many in Blair's government who saw this as a chance to get rid of the monarchy. But Blair recognized that the institution was far more than just pomp; it reflects the soul of the nation. That is why he leads the Queen to do things that don't fit into the tradition she is trying to maintain --not for the sake of change, but to bring the institution in line with the needs of the nation at a difficult time.

The film shows a bit of the balance that needs to be maintained between tradition and institutions (and they are there for good reason) and change and modernization. Tradition without change can become stagnant. Change without tradition has no root and cannot long survive.

Americans may not understand the pomp and circumstance that attends the monarchy, but we too face the clash of tradition and change -- in politics, in church, and even within families. We scorn either at our own peril.