As dawn broke on London this morning, the long line of people moved slowly towards Westminster HallThe oldest building in the British parliament.. Some had been out in the open all through the night. All looked forward to paying their respects to the monarch they admired and loved.

Today is the first full day of the Queen's lying-in-stateThe display of the coffin of a public figure so people can pay tributes.. People will continue to file past her coffin until Monday morning. Hundreds of thousands are expected.

Across the world, commentators have saluted her as a monarch who crossed political divides. Many have shared tales of her kindness to ordinary people.

In the US, however, some have been critical. For them, the Queen represented an empire which did nothing but bad - and they hold her partly responsible for its evils.   

Uju Anya of Carnegie Mellon University described her as "the chief monarch of a thieving and raping genocidalDeliberating killing or destroying large numbers of an ethnic group. empire".¹

Elizabeth Kolsky of Villanova University pointed out that a rebellion against the British in Kenya was violently put down a few months after she became Queen. Kolsky complained of a "'fairy tale' rendering of the past that exoneratesAbsolve from wrongdoing. her of complicity in colonial torture."

More moderately, Harvard professor Caroline Elkins states that there is no evidence that the Queen knew of "systematic violence and cover-up in the Empire." She claims, though, that the Queen's image of "imperial benevolence" helped hide "the fact that the Empire itself was intensely violent."

A few commentators in Britain agree. In The Guardian, Nesrine Malik claimed that the Queen "provided not a bridge but an alibi" for the country.

Many are shocked by such views. They point to the Queen's role in the success of the Commonwealth, and her bridge-building: for example, on her historic visit to the Republic of Ireland.

But others welcome this as a chance to challenge the view that Britain's empire was a terrible thing. In The Spectator, Robert Tombs emphasises its role in suppressing the slave trade. He also points out that some countries asked to join the Empire, but were turned down.²

There was, he admits, "harshness and disastrous error." But in many war-torn parts of the globe, the British Empire managed to "bring relative peace and order, and in some regions create substantial economic development".

Yes: Politics should not be allowed to intrude at a time of grief. We should focus on the Queen as an individual, not as the representative of a system created long before she was born.

No: Respect does not mean the suspension of reason and discussion. This is a fitting moment to consider both the highs and the lows of Britain's relationship with its former colonies.  

Or... More important than the Queen's death is the fact that King Charles's reign has begun. This a time to look to the future rather than the past, and consider what good Britain can do.