If a country’s greatness can be measured by its enemies, Britain can set fears of national decline aside: we’re still doing pretty damn well. Now that the Queen’s funeral has taken place, the dignitaries have been despatched, and the corgis are in good hands, it seems like the right time to take stock.
Most of the world’s leaders, from president Biden to president Putin, have paid their respects to Britain’s late monarch, and sent their sorrow to Britain’s mourning people. The exceptions have been few, and noisily promoted by American media organisations desperate to make every world event somehow a commentary on domestic US politics.
The best response to this is simply to ignore it. Sometimes, however, bad ideas from across the pond threaten to embed themselves over here. On those occasions, it’s better to kill them off before they get a chance to take root. In this case, the big falsehood is the claim that Queen Elizabeth II was somehow personally culpable for – or at least played a part in covering up the effects of – colonialism, slavery, empire, decolonisation, and indeed all of its associated costs and benefits.
Britain did not become wealthy because it had an empire, but had an empire because it was wealthy
In the New York Times, Maya Jasanoff declared
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in