By Suresh de Silva   Queen Elizabeth II, the great mother, has died. Britain has lost its queen. The world has lost its penultimate monarchical icon. She belonged to an epoch as a larger-than-life symbol, in an age where our inner culture extracts the divine feminine, exudes the universal mother, and exemplifies the matriarch of all, broadly speaking, a representation of all of the above. The Queen is an expression of the archetypal potent female symbol defined definitively beyond womanhood, signifying female power – her tenure and reign a reflection of ideals and values. In some ways, the globe has lost perhaps its greatest matriarchal, political, social figurehead that is an exemplary instance of an enduring regal brand that is as meaningful as it is controversial, arguably integral, as it is also a universal monogram of something powerful, financially significant, and a longstanding sense of antiquity that has magnified interest for two thirds of a century. One cannot imagine Britain without the presence, very attendance, and emblematic significance of perhaps its most pivotal cultural figure. One could muse that in the last century, only Winston Churchill, The Beatles, and Princess Diana have had a near equal impact, not only upon all that is England, but also as cultural movers and shakers around the globe.    A global brand   Queen Elizabeth II in many ways is the very embodiment of British culture. She is the longest-serving monarch in history, having ascended to the throne in 1952 at the age of 25. She is the quintessential nonpartisan symbol of constitutional continuity, and moral authority – the Head of State, but not the head of Government.  However, she did play a part in approving new governments, formally approving legislation, appointing officials, and granting State honours, and was predisposed to execute other constitutional duties. The Crown did possess reserve powers to be able to unilaterally override other branches of government. Her passing has now raised many questions, of course. Some of these questions are deep-set, and even ingrained, into the most sublime, visceral components of our consciousness. What is democracy? What time of culture or society do we want to live in?   Let us not forget that Queen Elizabeth II was and is queen of more than a dozen other independent countries that were once subjugated and under British colonial rule.   Therefore, how should power be organised in today’s context of what the capacity truly represents? The UK is one of the world’s largest and perhaps last grand monarchies with a geographic reach that is unparalleled. How will those nations touched by British colonial rule – even those that sought and gained independence in the wake of World War II – respond to this transition of power now? What does it mean for those nations that were impacted by the British empire to gaze either in respect, awe, or resentment, as the world mourns the loss of this symbol of privilege, power, and ubiquitous presence?   How will the pre-existent empirical, centralised authority benefit all of humanity or the world now, with Prince Charles III in power?   How will communities come together in this time of immense transition? How will other nations of power respond, react, and recover from the ricochet of this gargantuan loss? But how did Queen Elizabeth II kindle so much universal loyalty and affection, especially in the wake of her position as the Head of State of 15 Commonwealth realms spanning over 100 million people? The Queen is certainly portrayed as a symbol of kindness, discernment, integrity, cognisance, and consistency. For the past seven decades, Queen Elizabeth grew into the most familiar female icon; her image adorned on coins, banknotes, portraiture, literature, brands and products, stamps, etc., which has helped sustain global interest and intrigue. One cannot also overlook the “life of service” she committed herself to, despite the numerous changes, challenges, and conditions that the world faced during her reign. In some ways she never forgot that while the legal ownership of monarchy resides in the monarchy itself, its emotional ownership is vested in the people. Queen Elizabeth achieved brand equity by fulfilling her brand promise and brand success inimitably.   British Imperialism   As a constitutional monarch, Queen Elizabeth II is naturally suspect and scrutinised for standing by and letting the outcome of British colonial rule have its organic cause and effect. She portrayed her role as the ceremonial Head of State and the leader of a large dysfunctional celebrity dynasty well. British imperialism had an enormous impact and effect on the colonised countries’ welfare, their ability to be self-dependent, demolishing those nations to subordinate rule via taxation on local manufacture and exports, often dividing people of a single country, or even polarising nations against each other – the aftermath of which still long ensues even after these countries gained pseudo-independence. Britain exploited and gained a wealth of natural resources, creating local markets that benefitted the UK economy. Many subjugated nations were subject to famine and poverty by being blocked from having an active role in governing themselves. While many would argue otherwise, British imperialism forced the idea of monoculture, promulgating elitism and classism, and conceived unfair trade and utilised government economic policies with little regard for native populations.   But one cannot deny the benefits that also arose from the education system, improved human rights, and the promotion of a more nuanced society and a balanced civilisation by abolishing internal and domestic conflicts, carving economic opportunities by introducing trade, exportation, and the utilisation of resources. Britain sought to expand its power with land, trade, goods, and resources.   Did she not know?    While focusing on its own profitability, Britain also engineered opportunities for the colonised continents with privatisation (while Britain integrated and did business with private entities like The Plymouth Company, The East India Company, and The London Company, etc.). Britain pushed for its colonies to be self-sufficient. The British Empire was also cognisant of other empires with pre-established trade routes, mainly The Ottoman Empire, The Chinese Empire, and the Mughal Empire, which the Brits had trade relations with, helping expand the element of global trade. One might point out that the above-mentioned colonisation via British imperialism took place long epochs before Queen Elizabeth took to the throne. Can we overlook the violent subjugation and exploitation of the British Empire through her complicity of subtly obscuring cultural progress, never fully omitting the systematic racism nor abdicating extreme violence in the 70 colonies comprising hundreds of millions of colonial subjects she ruled over? Brutal post-war end-of-empire conflicts marred the first three decades of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, from unleashing wide-scale detentions, illegal deportations, and inhumane relocations of subjects to forced labour. The Queen herself may have not have directly participated in the crafting, diffusion, destruction of incriminating evidence, and cover-ups, but when you look at what transpired in Kenya, Cyprus, Nyasaland, Aden, Northern Ireland, and India, to name a few colonies, it bears to question how much the Queen actually knew, and if she wasn’t ignorant of the acts and violations, then could she not have done something when the crimes were committed in her name? It's even a tad ironic that a lady renowned for her vast knowledge of foreign policy and assiduous work ethic was oblivious of what transpired in many of the countries.   Transcendence         When Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne, the cultural revolution of the 60s was still in motion, followed by the metamorphosis of those ideals in the 70s, the emergence of individualism of the 80s, the hyper reality of the 90s, and the technologically, atomised culture of the 2000s – she lived through it all. She was the symbol of transition in a time of renewal. Today, tradition is a sort of bygone ideal, a mere cultural tool that humanity has lost connection and contact with. In many ways she kept tradition alive through the changes. She defined an epoch and sustained that connection.  Queen Elizabeth II was the guardian of Britain’s imperial past, and the curator of its present and future. She presented herself gracefully, conducted herself with benevolence, and personified exceptionalism. Being respectful of her legacy is a subjective factor. There are those who will perceive her as the last great monarch who defined an epoch of transition, while to others she would be viewed as an authoritative instrument of elitism ingrained into our collective consciousness.  Queen Elizabeth deployed the charisma of the crown with great skill, immeasurable calm, confidence and occasionally with immense triumph. We are all entering a time of reflection – where reality is now illusory. We will witness a transference of power; it remains to be seen what that truly means, and the actuality of its shape, nature, and form.   An individual who devoted her life to play the role of her duties and responsibilities as best as she could – through time, through constant change, she remained a constant. It’s the ending of a time as it were. The ending of an epoch. Whatever our personal views, the world needs its anchors and constants now more than ever. Long live the Queen. The Queen is dead.