Her parents had chosen her the first name of the famous “Virgin Queen” who reigned over England and Ireland for 45 years, between 1558 and 1603. But Elizabeth II did not seem to share many traits with her illustrious ancestor, from Elizabeth I, at least at first sight.
Other times, other mores, Henry VIII, the famous Bluebeard, had the mother of Elizabeth I, the pretty Anne Boleyn, beheaded. This may have inspired her daughter, who had become queen, to execute her cousin who overshadowed her, the very Catholic Queen of Scots, Mary Stuart. Elizabeth II did not go through such bloody episodes: only the premature death of her father, the divorce of three of her four children, the accidental death of her daughter-in-law and the fire at Windsor Castle in 1992 will have diminished happiness. of a relatively peaceful life, at least compared to the Tudor era.
Politically, if the two sovereigns faced different challenges, both lived under the threat of invasion of their beloved islands. Elizabeth I had to overcome the religious war between Protestants and Catholics by establishing the Anglican Church, and to face the powerful Armada of Philip II of Spain well on its way to invade England. Perched on her horse, in a white dress and silver cuirass, she had galvanized her men with these words: “I know that my body is that of a weak woman, but I have the heart and the guts of a king. , and what is more, of a king of England.” The Armada was duly decimated in the North Sea by English naval forces. If the young Elizabeth II did not have to harangue her subjects in dress and cuirass, the Nazi threats and the bombings of the Blitz during the Second World War will have deeply marked her.
“The greatest sovereigns should never have reigned”
In reality, the two Elizabeths mostly had in common: the fact that neither of them was destined to become queen. As historian Tracy Borman, author of numerous books on the British monarchy and specialist in the Tudor era, recalls, “there is a belief that the greatest English sovereigns are those who should never have reigned.”
We can also say that 400 years apart, these sovereigns were strategists in terms of communication and management of their image. And perhaps Elizabeth II owes her grandmother the veneration she received during her very long reign. “Thanks to Elizabeth I and her intelligence, the English have developed a predilection, even a love, for their queens,” says Tracy Borman.
Moreover, according to Kate Williams, author in particular of Young Elizabeth, The Making of Our Queen, both were also able to thwart the sexist prejudices of their time. While Elizabeth I knew how to make her virginity a virtue, presenting it as the guarantee of her political independence, “Elizabeth II, a young mother, queen at 27, fought to be taken seriously but also to keep her name and not have to adopt her husband’s. She was blamed for that at the time.”
The commonalities between the two Elizabeths end there, however, for historian Alison Weir, author of Six Tudor Queens. “Elizabeth II was not kind to the Tudors. She never had their arrogance. When she signed her statements, she used the expression Your Servant. Ultimately, the sovereign who was a true inspiration to her was in fact her great-great-grandmother Victoria.”
A dignity that could pass for coldness
By succeeding in winning the affection of her subjects during her 64-year reign (1837-1901) through her moral rectitude, Victoria certainly contributed to strengthening the institutions and founding the constitutional monarchy for a long time. With Victoria, Great Britain became a model envied throughout the world: a quiet power but sure of itself. Everywhere on the planet, the name of Victoria was given to the great lakes, islands, bays, desert, peaks, cities, valleys, capes and bridges. A strong character, Victoria, queen at 18, also knew how to impose herself. She first buries any hope of regency with her mother; and then ensures that her future husband, Prince Albert, will not share any of her royal prerogatives. The sovereign succeeded little by little, with flair and rigor, in restoring the image of a monarchy which had lost all credibility after the disastrous reigns of its predecessors: a debauchee, an inconsequent pleasure seeker and even a madman, in the person of George III . Victoria also knew how to give the illusion of a bourgeois life at the very moment of the advent of this triumphant bourgeoisie by embodying the values of work, order, and puritanism.
Victoria undoubtedly inspired the conduct of her great-great-granddaughter Elizabeth II, even providing her with the red thread of her reign: not so much moralism, but a sense of duty established as a cardinal virtue. Elizabeth II even tried to surpass her grandmother. “When Queen Victoria lost her husband, her dear Prince Albert, she retired ten years in grief. When Elizabeth II lost Prince Philip, she was back in business and in the public eye after only 4 days,” says Tracy Borman.
This dignity and this rigor could sometimes pass for coldness, and even a certain harshness. In 1996, after the tragic death of her daughter-in-law, Princess Diana, she had to, with the help of her Prime Minister Tony Blair who had felt the wind of opinion change, show that she also had a heart. . The survival of the Monarchy was at stake, it was believed at the time. British director Stephen Frears captures this key moment of his reign in The Queen for which Helen Mirren received the Oscar for Best Actress. Elizabeth II chose to reveal her feelings and thereby regained the affection of her subjects, her position as monarch finally strengthened in the ordeal. So much so that, according to Kate Williams, “she ended up embodying the monarchy. She disappeared, we must expect profound changes. Nothing will be like before.”