As dawn broke on London this morning, the long, long line of people continued to move slowly towards Westminster HallThe oldest building in the British parliament.. Some had been out in the open all through the night, proudly wearing the wristbands issued to them as they joined the queue. All were sustained by the prospect of 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. They are expected to number hundreds of thousands - perhaps three-quarters of a million.

Across the world, commentators have focused on her many virtues. They have saluted her as a symbol of stability, and a monarch who crossed political divides. Many have shared tales of her kindness to ordinary people.

If there has been little criticism, it is partly through respect for the old Latin adageA short statement about a general truth.: "Mortuis nihil nisi bonum" ("Of the dead, [say] nothing but good.") But it is also because people struggle to find fault with her.

In the US, however, there have been dissenting voices. For them, the Queen represented an empire which did nothing but bad - and they believe her to be at least partly responsible for its evils.   

Uju Anya, an associate professor at 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, an associate professor at Villanova University, pointed out that a few months after the Queen's accession, a rebellion against British rule in Kenya was violently suppressed. 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 "absolutely no extant documentary evidence" to show that the Queen knew of "systematic violence and cover-up in the Empire". She claims, though, that by projecting an image of "imperial benevolence" the Queen helped obscure "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, her historic visit to the Republic of Ireland.

But others welcome the debate as a chance to challenge the view that Britain's empire was altogether a bad thing. Writing 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 for many violent and disturbed parts of the globe, the British Empire managed to stop endemicCommon to a particular place or community. warfare, 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.