The reaction of Romanians, especially in social networks, to the death of such a special personality as the Queen of England is very interesting. Along the way, I picked up a few trends.

Unbridled anti-monarchists with proletarian fury rail at the corruption and excess of privileges of the English monarchy, spreading the palette of defects to the monarchy in general, not losing an opportunity to tarnish the image of King Michael a little more and with little or no reference to Queen Elizabeth II.

Monarchists emphasize the achievements of the English monarchy – the calm majestic representation of the country at the world level, the role accepted and given by law to balance the political and social principle in a country that was not and is not free. from the imbalance and crudeness, the romantic splendor, the success with which he catapulted his subjects into a fairy tale, making them part of the script, the way he cultivated the population’s attachment to the story that gives it its identity. But they are trying to extend the qualities of a system tried and tested by centuries of history to the infinitely worse possibilities of a history marked by significant geographical misfortunes and enormous natural cataclysms. The late sovereign appears in their posts more as an argument than as a central element of the thought process.

Queen Elizabeth also seems erased in the comments of simplistic critics who are not overly informed and who do not care much for information: at the center of their pain is the reception given to the Chausti family on the occasion of a state visit in 1978 and the famous coach in which the Queen transported them from the railway station in Buckingham Palace, where he received them. It would be useless to explain to them that in the English system the monarch acts as an intermediary between the English state and the rest of the world, and that, as head of state, it is his duty to represent the state in relations with the heads of state, so that what the sovereign thinks should not meaning, the state visit was organized by the government, which did not need the consent of the monarch. Moreover, in May 2020, the English press amused its readers with an anecdote that came to light late: the story of a meeting in the garden of Buckingham Palace between the queen, who went for a walk with her dogs, and the Ceausescu family: seeing them from afar, Elizabeth II got fed up to death from the idea of ​​talking to them, hid in the bushes in her own garden – for the first and last time in her life. But how to convince detractors that the monarch does not always sit on the throne and sometimes fulfills his duties, gritting his teeth?

Even the ultra-simplistic demonstrators do not pay much attention to the person of the sovereign, loudly and rhetorically asking “what has she done for the Romanians?”. What has he helped us with?”, without explaining to him that among the Queen’s many obligations to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, there is none related to the population of Romania, to which Her Majesty obliged. , as a man, it’s kind to look at her—I’m sure he did—but no more?

Among so many personal assessments, fierce or favorable about the monarchy, the throne, former, past and future rulers, I rarely found a word about the person Elizabeth, about the queen who gave herself to the service of the country, subordinating her life to this goal and putting the interests of the state above her own thoughts and her own pain, of a mother who tried to raise her offspring in the light of the same ideal and who, when the children were grown, did everything in her power to protect them from the evils of the world and from her own mistakes, of a wife who respected her husband beyond the status of a queen, about a person who sometimes violated the set of roles assigned to her, revealing treasures of kindness and humor Read the full article and comment on it at Contributors.ro