The Queen’s death has drawn extraordinary media attention. In contrast, the death of Gorbachev was almost a secondary topic in the media. The Queen was undoubtedly a century figure worthy of respect. The paparazzi coverage of the tabloid media, which tells in detail who found out about the death and when, and what is to come for the royal family, is probably inevitable to a certain extent. Even the ARD has treated itself to special programs with its own “ARD royal family expert”. What the special emotional charge in this case possibly stands for, such as a longing for social security and stability in times when these have become fragile in many western countries, has already been discussed next door.
The fact that the person of the Queen is obviously suitable for projections of social security also needs to be acknowledged. It would certainly be different with Putin and it would of course be better if people’s hopes associated with this could be based on real living conditions instead of the Queen as a symbol, as an “illusion”, as Kurt Kister put it yesterday in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. This inevitably goes hand in hand with the suppression of aspects that do not “fit into the picture” and the visualization of which is quickly perceived as “inappropriate”.
But how to deal with it in an appropriate way? The problem is illustrated with an example. After initial media reactions to the death of the Queen and expressions of condolence from politicians around the world, there are now more and more reviews of her political work and, in turn, critical voices, especially with regard to her role in connection with the British colonial past. Some links as an example:
• evangelisch.de: https://www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/205648/10-09-2022/die-queen-und-afrika-von-der-kolonialherrscherin-zur-umstrittenen-freundin
• Zeit.de: https://www.zeit.de/zett/politik/2022-09/elizabeth-ii-grossbritannien-kolonialismus-rassismus
• Tagesspiegel: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/historiker-jurgen-zimmerer-die-queen-hat-sich-nie-zum-kolonialismus-geaussert-8630203.html
• Hamburger Abendblatt: https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/article236396759/hamburger-historiker-queen-hat-persoenlich-von-kolonialismus-profitiert-koenigin-elisabeth-kronjuwelen-raubkunst-kriegsverrechte.html
• Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/10/queen-death-colonies-atrocities-british-empire
• CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/10/africa/colonialism-africa-queen-elizabeth-intl/index.html
• Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/10/britain-colonial-brutalities-queen-elizabeth-death-commentary/
• Reuters:
Getting the tone right isn’t easy, as expectations of a respectful response to the Queen’s death and expectations of historically accurate reporting tend to conflict. This can end unhappily on both sides, such as a comment of the WORLD points to a bad tweet by the American professor Uju Anya, which WELT in turn exploited for its fight against everything “Woke”.
However, the links listed here show that you shouldn’t make it so easy for yourself. The American professor’s tweet may not have been linguistically or humanly appropriate, but who has the right to deny her emotions? The world? And does the Queen’s role in British colonial history have to be kept silent, just as she herself was silent about it? This also applies to well-intentioned political expressions of condolence. For example, how compatible is Winfried Kretschmann’s theorem, the Queen was “a great role model for all of us in her sense of duty”, with the Queen’s silence about British colonial crimes? He certainly didn’t mean that this silence was part of their exemplary sense of duty and should also be a role model for us.
So does the subject of colonial crimes belong in retrospects of their reigns, perhaps at a later point in time, but not, for example, in expressions of condolence by politicians? Or should it be considered there, but not explicitly addressed? Or are African politicians allowed to do this because they represent the countries concerned, but not European politicians? Like the Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, for example, on the occasion of Gorbachev’s death critical of his role in the attempted suppression of the independence movement in the Baltic States could express, but it might have been the wrong tongue move for German politicians? Or does the right to state the historical facts have to apply at all times and to everyone, or every woman?