Support for Her Majesty to go down in history as ‘Elizabeth the Faithful’
MPS AND peers are supporting calls for the late monarch to be given the title “Queen Elizabeth the Faithful” in recognition of her lifetime of service and her steadfast conviction to Christianity.
Lord Farmer, the former Tory treasurer, has been leading the calls for the designation, which requires the approval of King Charles III and a change to the 1953 Royal Titles Act.
It comes after Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, described Her Majesty as “Elizabeth the Great” in a tribute in the Commons last Friday.
However, supporters of the change believe that calling the late Queen “Elizabeth the Great” is jarring because of its past association with despotic rulers. In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, Lord Farmer pointed out that more than 110 monarchs have been designated “Great” including “Herod who ordered the slaughter of the innocents, Louis XIV (whose rule made the French Revolution all but inevitable) and Genghis Khan”.
He writes: “As the whole world agrees she was unique, ‘the Great’ misses the mark.” It would be better to use a designation such as “Faithful” to ensure that she “stands out in the sweep of history for future generations and in future centuries”.
He added: “With classic British nuance, the name captures her respectfully, but unapologetically expresses trust in God and the fulfilment of the pledge she made on the cusp of adulthood to serve us her whole life. This she did to her last day.”
Tom Tugendhat, a Home Office minister, backed the idea earlier this week in describing her as “Elizabeth the Faithful, the most faithful of all our monarchs”.
Tory MP Sir John Hayes said: “It is a good idea. She was faithful to her duties, faithful to her God and faithful to her people.” And that was echoed by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP leader, who said: “Her Majesty was faithful unto death. She was faithful to her God. She was faithful to her people. And she was faithful to her family. That faithfulness should be immortalised in her name.”
SIR – The queues we are witnessing as people pay their respects to Queen Elizabeth II differ only in their clothing from the ones in the photograph on the front of Tuesday’s Features section, of people waiting to see Winston Churchill lying in state in 1965.
In that image there was a sprinkling of mink coats, and every female head was covered – but it is clear that the essential British character remains unchanged.
Audrey Lindsay
Over Peover, Cheshire
SIR – Seeing the procession of the late Queen’s coffin to the lying in state, I am reminded of the last time I saw her in Whitehall.
It was the State Opening of Parliament and, as three of us looked up from our desks in the (then) Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we decided to take a nonchalant peep.
Whitehall was deserted. The Queen went past, looked at us and waved. We completely lost our cool and waved frantically back. What a star.
Helen Taylor
Shaftesbury, Dorset
SIR – As a schoolboy at Wellington College in 1952 my husband, with other members of the Cadet Force, was proud to line the route of the funeral procession of King George VI.
He would be equally proud to perform the same service for the late Queen, but at 88 it is a dream too far. Jane Cullinan
Padstow, Cornwall
SIR – As the nation stops to mourn Elizabeth II’S death and celebrate her reign, we are experiencing a welcome period of reflection.
Of course, all the problems that were being reported in the news remain, but I am grateful for the present calm. Tim Fox
Beckenham, Kent
SIR – The Queen’s death is understandably dominating the news.
However, there are many other pressing issues that haven’t gone away: thousands of economic migrants continue to cross the Channel illegally, a war still rages in Ukraine, the cost of living is still crippling millions, knife and gun crime appear to be increasingly rife, and the NHS is still struggling.
I hope the new Prime Minister is busy with matters besides the preparations for the funeral. Stefan Badham
Portsmouth, Hampshire
SIR – Now is not the time for the NHS to be given a bank holiday.
Dr JP Foran
Sutton, Surrey
SIR – As the owner of a small business with 16 employees, I would normally dread the announcement of a new bank holiday imposed by ministers who have never run a business or worried about costs and cash flow.
But for our late Queen, closing next Monday in her honour is a small price to pay, and we will pay it with pride. Bernard Kerrison
London SW4
SIR – It is important to support the freedom of speech of those with whom you disagree (Letters, September 14).
Protesting against the monarchy during this period of mourning, though tactless and tone-deaf, is a fundamental right. Plus, as Napoleon probably never said, never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
Jonnie Bradshaw
Wallingford, Oxfordshire
SIR – If you were at a particularly tense football match, standing among the home fans, and you cheered on the visitors, you would be more than happy if the police got to you before the supporters did.
The police act in order to prevent the foolish from being harmed by the crowd. Brian Farmer Braintree, Essex
SIR – I am not sure I share the confidence of your Leading Article (September 14) that moving the late Queen’s coffin to London by plane rather than royal train was a missed opportunity, and that things would have proceeded smoothly.
There have been several occasions in recent years when reckless spectators wishing to see charter trains – notably those hauled by the Flying Scotsman steam locomotive – have trespassed on to the track, with no thought for their own safety, and caused widespread disruption.
Roy Freeman
Crowborough, East Sussex
SIR – Watching everyday folk lining the route of the late Queen’s coffin has indeed been like seeing the backbone of the nation (Letters, September 13).
We would, I am sure, be willing to help pay for a new royal yacht (Letters, September 14) to keep her legacy alive around the world.
David Dilly
Brill, Buckinghamshire
SIR – Of course a royal yacht would be a fitting tribute.
James Barton
Preston, Lancashire
SIR – The sense is growing that we need, collectively, to decide how to refer to the late Queen so she stands out in the sweep of history for future generations and in future centuries.
In the House of Lords, on the occasion of her Platinum Jubilee, I proposed we designate her Elizabeth the Faithful, partly in response to those referring to her as “the Great”.
Superficially she was indeed great, but more than 110 monarchs have been so designated – including the Herod who ordered the slaughter of the innocents, Louis XIV (whose rule made the French Revolution all but inevitable) and Genghis Khan.
As the whole world agrees she was unique, “the Great” misses the mark. When her subjects thoughtfully describe her – whether they are members of the public, commentators, politicians or others – they almost always reach for words that reflect her constancy, service and sense of duty: her faithfulness. Indeed, Tom Tugendhat, our new minister for security, referred to her as Elizabeth the Faithful outside Westminster Hall.
With classic British nuance, the name captures her respectfully but unapologetically expressed trust in God and the fulfilment of the pledge that she made on the cusp of adulthood to serve us her whole life. This she did to her last day.
King Charles would need to approve it and the Government might need to amend, very slightly, the Royal Titles Act 1953. With great respect, I would recommend that they do.
Lord Farmer (Con)
London SW1