Her Majesty was the heart of our family of nations

If it hadn’t been for the personal efforts of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, it seems inconceivable that the Commonwealth of nations would exist today. She sat at the heart of the organisation, and its disparate and far-flung members united around her.

When she ascended to the throne 70 years ago, the British Empire was disintegrating. India and Pakistan had already become independent, and over the next decade or so the British government was willingly granting independence across Africa, Asia, the South Pacific and the Caribbean.

The independence movements that gradually assumed power throughout the former British Empire weren’t just (understandably) anti-colonialist. In many cases their leaders were antibritish.

More than that, they typically – although not universally – opposed the liberal market economic system, favouring a collectivist model more akin to the Soviet Union than Great Britain. Some, such as Ghana, were explicitly socialist, with close Soviet ties.

In that environment, it was easy to imagine the governments of the newly independent, post-imperial countries would want to move away from Britain as fast as possible. The idea of maintaining a voluntary association with the UK must have seemed, on the face of it, a bit far-fetched. Certainly, it did not fit comfortably with the zeitgeist of the time.

Yet there was one factor which helped to maintain a sense of family amongst the newly independent countries and the old traditional former dominions of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and of course the UK itself: that was the Queen.

The Queen captivated leaders of what became Commonwealth countries. They all wanted to meet her, be photographed with her and be associated with her, regardless of their own political perspectives.

This is an extraordinary thing in itself, bearing in mind so many of them would have had a sense of resentment and antipathy towards the UK. The Queen, though, was something very special. She personified many universally admired human virtues. She herself was a good God-fearing woman; an attractive quality in many Christian Commonwealth nations. She had a strong sense of duty, always putting her responsibilities to others before her own personal comfort and convenience.

The Queen never complained, blamed others for misfortune or appeared to demonstrate petulance or anger. Crucially, she showed a genuine interest in the Commonwealth nations, and in their leaders, past and present. She did not engage with them for personal advantage or political purpose but instead treated them with humanity, respect and grace.

To these personal qualities, she added an extraordinary instinct for wise diplomacy. The Queen never appeared to resist decolonisation or expressed regret at the passing of the Empire. She empathised with the leaders of the newly independent states and kept well away from the economic and social controversies that inevitably engulfed them. In that sense her position was quite different from that of the British government, which had a range of different political and economic positions and priorities which often put them at variance with newly independent states; such as their relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

For her part, the Queen left those debates to her governments, and instead engaged at a personal level, respectfully and without vanity, with the leaders of those states. She navigated her way through many Commonwealth disagreements to maintain the organisation’s unity.

Her presence at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings – known as CHOGMS – was often critical in ensuring they were fruitful.

In particular, she handled the controversies over Zimbabwe’s independence, and the dismantling of the apartheid regime in South Africa with consummate skill and tact. In retrospect it was always clear what she wanted – an independent Zimbabwe and certainly the end of apartheid in South Africa. Through her subtle use of influence she was able to help the Commonwealth achieve satisfactory solutions to those problems.

Today, the Commonwealth comprises 56 countries, some of which were never part of the British Empire. Its continuing existence and the convening power and networking that it offers its members will be one of the Queen’s greatest legacies.

The last Commonwealth heads of government meeting the Queen attended was in London in 2018. Almost every head of government attended. Many said they were resolved to come just to spend time with the Queen. Whoever they were, dyed-in-the-wool monarchists, hardline socialists or committed republicans, all were determined to have a few moments with Her Majesty.

For the Commonwealth, the Queen had a certain magic. No wonder so many people in my faraway home town of Adelaide have wept over her death. Tears will be shed from Kingston, Jamaica, to Nairobi, from Kuala Lumpur to Apia, Samoa.

King Charles III will endeavour to carry on this role as head of the Commonwealth with the same diplomacy and aplomb as the Queen. So far all the signs are promising. He has already assumed many of his mother’s functions at recent Commonwealth meetings, fulfilling his obligations with the appropriate diplomacy and impartiality.

The King is well known throughout the Commonwealth, having been partly educated in Australia and having visited most Commonwealth countries as the Prince of Wales.

When Commonwealth governments considered in 2018 who would succeed the Queen as head of the Commonwealth, they unanimously chose the then Prince of Wales. There was no controversy, no rancour and no dispute.

That augurs well for His Majesty’s relationship with the Commonwealth and for the health of the Commonwealth in the 21st century.

‘To her personal qualities, Her Majesty added an extraordinary instinct for wise diplomacy’