Doth any doubt that Elizabeth II is the best advocate for Britain’s monarchy? She has maintained a standard of propriety and integrity that few world leaders can emulate. Having worn the Royal Commonwealth crown for well past 70 years, she not only embodies monarchy, but, in the view of many, “is” the Crown.

And a lonely crown it is turning out to be. Other monarchies survive in the world, such as in Scandinavia or in Japan and Thailand, to name but a few. None, however, enjoy the quite the same degree of prominence nor the public scrutiny that Britain’s queen must bear.

With Her Majesty in the twilight of her reign, questions on the fate of the crown, beyond this Elizabethan Age, are unavoidable. Given the dismissiveness toward the political significance of Britain’s monarchy within the Westminster parliamentary tradition — as well as in British society — many fear that the monarchy could enter a period of steep decline when Elizabeth passes from the stage. 

Conventional wisdom holds that while the heir presumptive, Prince Charles, does not enjoy the acclaim of his mother, sufficient residual respect would reside to carry him through what many imagine, given the actuarial facts, to be a relatively short reign.

More optimism has obtained for the second-in-line to the throne, Prince William. Now nearing 40 and attuned to the popular zeitgeist (for good and ill), William, it is hoped, would have time and good-will to model the monarchy to the needs of the mid-21st  century.

Yet William and Kate’s tour of the Caribbean has been proving a bit of a damp squib for the “woke” royals. An event in Belize had to be canceled after locals objected to a helicopter landing without prior permission.

Jamaica proved little better. The royal couple were treated to an awkward announcement by Prime Minister Holness that the country was intent on transitioning to an independent republic. In response to tensions, William tried to soothe with a speech condemning Britain’s role in the slave trade. Calling it “an appalling atrocity,” William said that “slavery was abhorrent and it should never have happened.”

Such a remonstrance, though, appears adapted more toward an ad hoc response than a true rhetorical reckoning. Arguably, it was neither the time nor place for such a speech — even if Britain was one of the first global powers to end the slave practice within its own jurisdictions and then placed its Royal Navy in service of stamping out the evil transport on the high seas.

If, in any event, such a reaction awaits the “woke” royals, what fate awaits monarchy itself? We hope the reception in the Bahamas proves a positive note on which to end the tour. Queen Elizabeth may see the monarchy mirror her own march into the sunset. She herself is no longer immune from criticism. One newscaster in India, commenting on the Caribbean protests, castigated the royal family: “What goes around, comes around.”

Attention to the question of the monarchy will next swing to the memorial service for Prince Philip at Westminster Abbey next Tuesday. The Duke of Edinburgh died in April, amidst the coronavirus lockdowns, and this tribute is meant as a public opportunity to pay respect to his service.

It will inevitably be a gauge of the future of the royal family itself. The queen is said to be resting so as to be able to attend. Prince Andrew will make his last public appearance, bowing out of the public gaze for the present. Prince Harry sent his regrets, amidst controversy over “security concerns.”

Prince Charles and Camilla will — as next in line — doubtless take a prominent part, as will William and Kate. Yet perhaps most important, what will be the public response? Will it be demonstrably supportive of “The Firm”? Or will the royal family be greeted, instead, by waning interest? Is this how Britain’s monarchy ends, “not” — to paraphrase T.S. Eliot — “with a bang but a whimper?”