For Javier Urrego Jimenez
Historians usually determine the beginning and end of historical periods not by the dates of the end of the century but by circumstances. Thus, the 19th century did not end in 1899 but in 1919 with the end of the First World War. Why? Because with the First World War the hegemony of the monarchies in Europe ended. A change that had been taking place since the French Revolution but that could only be concluded with the end of the First World War, in which the Romanov dynasty was dissolved, with the Russian Revolution; the Austro-Hungarian empire, which included almost half of the European countries: Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, etc.; and the Turkish-Ottoman Empire that also grouped what are now several countries in Europe and the Middle East such as Bulgaria, Hungary, Turkey, Egypt and others.
The king is dead, long live the king
But a monarchy that, superficially, did not seem to fall either with the French Revolution, or with the First World War, or with the Second, or with the Cold War, is coming to an end today. Because it is no secret to anyone that the figure of Queen Elizabeth was the entire monarchy. A monarchy that is left today with a withered heir and that with the next generations will disappear. Because you can think that his heir can achieve what Queen Elizabeth achieved at the time, which was to restore the confidence of the English in the crown as Queen Victoria, great-great-grandmother of the late Elizabeth II, did in her time. But well, the comparison is also petty when one takes into account that during the reign of Queen Victoria England dominated almost the entire known world: India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, Australia, New Zealand and in South America the Malvinas Islands, among many other countries. In addition to being the grandmother of almost all the kings of Europe who participated in the First World War. It is not for nothing that the nineteenth century bears his name. Given the magnitude of what was done by her predecessor, we could say that Queen Elizabeth only lived to see the end of what was at the time the greatest European empire.
We are witnessing, then, the end of the 20th century. Because there is no one left who can be said to have been decisive for some important event. And it is that with the death last week of Gorbachev, the Russian revolution and the Soviet Union were left behind. Reagan and Bush Sr., who were also architects of the end of the USSR, have also died. And that only happened thirty years ago. That for us is a lot (more for me who was in the peace of non-existence) but for historical time it is rather little. Nothing remains of the great Soviet Union of Stalin's times, which brought together what are now almost twenty countries. And the United States is also on the brink of extinction.
With so many dissolutions and fallen empires in less than five hundred words I fancy remembering a poem by an illustrious Englishman, an illustrious English poem monarchies that add nothing to existence. Percy Shelley, the forgotten husband of Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, wrote a sonnet titledozymandias, which I want to quote at this moment because it encapsulates, not without irony, what is for me the end of the English monarchy:
I met a traveler from an ancient land who said:
two huge stone legs
they lie trunkless in the desert.
To one side, in the sand,
semi-submerged, a shattered face is found
Whose frown, and wrinkled lips,
and cold grin of command
reveal that their sculptor
correctly read those passions,
that still survive stamped
on lifeless objects
to the hands that carved it
and the heart that fed them.
And on the pedestal these words are read:
"My name is Ozymandias,
King of kings, behold my works,
O mighty ones, and despair”.
Nothing stays by your side.
circling the decay
of these ruins
colossal, endless and naked
They stretch far away
the flat and lonely sands.
PS: This poem also names the best episode in television history.
September 9, 2022
