The outpouring of tributes following the passing of Queen Elizabeth II has largely drowned out the voices of those who have chosen instead to express disdain for the British monarchy and its legacy. Many have found themselves conflicted in honouring her for her graciousness without honouring the institution that she symbolised.

Queen Elizabeth II has played a significant role in preserving the British monarchy, confounding critics, cynics, and sceptics, including the new British Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss, who, as a radical liberal democrat in her college years, called for its abolition. The grieving reactions to her passing demonstrate the loyalty the monarchy commands among the British people and the respect it enjoys across the world.

With her grace, charm, and empathy, Queen Elizabeth II has endeared herself to the British people; she was their matriarch and personified what they saw as the best of themselves. To many others around the world she was seen as an icon of stability.

I met her on a number of occasions, both here in Jamaica, when she visited, and abroad. On two of those occasions I had the opportunity to converse with her. I was impressed not just with her charm and grace but with how engaging and down to Earth she was. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Kampala, Uganda, in 2007, as is customary, she held a reception for newly elected heads of Government. As we gathered around her, cocktails in hand, she mentioned, without any prompting from any aide, the number of times she had visited Jamaica and recalled in much detail what she considered to be the most memorable events of her visits. I was amazed. She made countless visits to several other countries and I wondered whether she had similar recollections of those.

In 2008 I was pleased to receive her at Jamaica’s exhibition booth at the Chelsea Flower Show in England. I explained to her that we had opened the exhibition earlier that day with pomp and pageantry, Jamaican folk music, and authentic Jamaican rum punch. She left me in stitches when she asked with a mischievous wink, “And do you only serve that rum punch in the mornings?”

Queen Elizabeth II was good at carrying out her functions, such as they were. Most of the power once exercised by the British monarch was stripped away starting with the execution in 1649 of Charles I, having been found guilty of treason for defying the Parliament. The monarchy was effectively abolished for 11 years before being restored in 1660. The curtailment of its powers was cemented by the Bill of Rights of 1689.

Queen Elizabeth II didn’t govern the United Kingdom any more than she governed Jamaica, where she remained our head of State. She was merely a figurehead who was obliged to assent to laws passed by Parliament and make appointments recommended by the prime minister and Cabinet.

I was puzzled at times when some individual or group sought to petition The Queen when there was nothing she could do other than refer it to her Government. They would have been better off petitioning the British prime minister. I have found myself at loggerheads with some reparation advocates who insisted that the best strategy was to petition The Queen, as if she was unmindful of the fate that befell Charles I and could do anything not sanctioned or authorised by the British Government.

Much as I understand the passion involved, I thought the demonstrations targeted at William and Kate when they visited Jamaica earlier this year to have been misplaced. Although they may be seen to symbolise much of the imperial and colonial history that we revile, our animus should really be directed at the successive British governments. They were the principal actors — not the monarchy.

The brutal repression of what has been termed the Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s, which led to the killing of more than 11,000 people, was not the work of Queen Elizabeth II but that of successive British governments led by Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, and Harold Macmillan. It was not until 2012 that the British Government acknowledged its role in those atrocities.

Apart from the 14 Commonwealth countries (including Jamaica) that recognise the British monarch as their head of State, there are about two dozen other countries with monarchs. These are to be found in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific. In the majority of them, the power of the monarch is limited. Most are largely figureheads like the British. In a few cases, like Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), they wield enormous power.

What they all have in common is that succession is hereditary. So Prince George of Wales, all of nine years old, is perhaps too young to know that in another 40 years my grandchildren are likely to be among his subjects unless we “tek weh” ourselves before.

The rule of succession in Britain is blatantly discriminatory. The monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic or, up until 2015, the spouse of a Roman Catholic. So much for freedom of religion! Up until 2015, as well, the eldest son would ascend to the throne even if he had an older sister. Female children could occupy the throne only if there was no male child, as was the case with Queen Elizabeth II. So much for gender equality!

The Act of Supremacy stipulates that the British monarch, however “unreverend” he or she may be, is the head of the Anglican church, the “Defender of the Faith”. It is the monarch who appoints bishops of the Church of England and, almost unbelievably, on the advice of the prime minister and they then swear allegiance (almost unbelievably again) to the monarch. This is hardly a separation of Church and State. If I were an Anglican, I would find that repugnant to my faith.

I have a real conceptual difficulty with the monarchy wherever it exists. The always-sung and only well-known verse of the British national anthem speaks only of the well-being and happiness of the king or queen. The people don’t really seem to matter.

No monarchical country can claim that all men and women are created equal if every boy and girl cannot aspire to one day become the head of State. I find repulsive the notion that one’s entitlement to rule over other people is determined by bloodline and procreation. That’s how we breed racehorses, but if they don’t win races they are put out to pasture or donated to work for the mounted police on Tom Redcam Drive — not urged to procreate in the hope of getting a better progeny.

It remains a marvel to me that, in an age when equality; government by, of, and for the people; and equal opportunity are what define a modern society, the monarchy has survived anywhere at all.

We in Jamaica keep talking about removing The Queen (now The King) as our head of State. It doesn’t seem to matter to them one bit whether we remove them. We can’t visit the country where our head of State resides without a visa that is denied to the majority of us.

Our retention of the monarchy is an anathema to our Independence and self-esteem. In my recent television interview along with former Prime Minister P J Patterson, he indicated that the sticking point as to how the replacement of the head of State would be chosen can now be resolved. We must get on with it.

Bruce Golding served as Jamaica’s eighth prime minister from September 11, 2007 to October 23, 2011.