Thrones

London and Tower Bridges from Millennium Bridge, 2010, Josephine Trotter

Charles, first of his name, was executed by Parliament in 1649. His unwilling sacrifice enacted the transfer of power, actually unfolding over centuries, from the feudal landed to capitalist industry. Perhaps because he was the first of his sort to be so removed his bloodline would soon be permitted to keep their throne, unlike his brethren Louis and Nicholas. But the English monarch would now be observed rather than obeyed.

Elizabeth's repose in Westminster is a final ritual of observation in a life dedicated to the role of being seen. The affection lavished on her has much to do with her workmanlike precision in playing that role. In Lennon's words "she doesn't have a lot to say". Her heir, the current Charles, will probably also not have much to say beyond mourning his dear mother as he previously mourned the mother of his heirs, who actually perished in the act of being observed.

Public attention has already shifted from the king to his two children. In their own lives they embody an ambiguity about the throne and, more, about public personality. The elder quietly abides while his younger brother publicly renounces.

Whatever the fate of a particular throne the idea of the nation has historically been bound to monarchy. Britain clings to its own throne as it clung by a narrow margin to its insular status. When it has buried its queen its mind will inevitably return to the many contradictions of nationalism. In this it is not unique among nations, whether republics or not.