Speaking ill of the dead? We can't ignore Queen Elizabeth's complicated legacy

"Do not speak ill of the dead." I've long had that adage drilled into my head as what’s considered good behavior or proper etiquette. The media has overwhelming subscribed to this notion since Queen Elizabeth II's death Thursday, as we’ve been reminded incessantly of her "strong sense of duty," her "constant and reassuring" nature and her legacy as a woman with "enduring equanimity and grace."

In many ways the queen’s life has been whitewashed, with the narrative broken only on rare occasion, such as her failing grade at the time of Princess Diana's death, the dissolution of most of her children’s marriages and the allegations of racism leveled by the former Meghan Markle, Prince Harry’s wife.

Amid this week's mostly glowing commentary, there have been other voices – strong, powerful and ugly voices, celebrating the monarch's passing. Criticisms have included calling her out as a "colonizer" who "has been sucking up the Earth’s resources" since her birth. In the hours before her passing, one American professor wished Elizabeth II an "excruciating" death.

It's easy to condemn those voices as at best inappropriate and at worst vile and mean-spirited. But that’s not the real problem, even if Emily Post might have hung them out to dry.

This reminds me of an American president's passing

As is too often the case when a notable person, like a head of state or monarch, dies, there’s all too little context or texture in the retelling of their life story. Suddenly, the narrative is intended to bolster their legacy rather than make sense of their place in history.

An example that has long stayed with me is the 2004 death of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who was mythologized by the media. "There was a virtual media prohibition on expressing a single critical utterance about what he did as President and any harm that he caused," Glenn Greenwald wrote in 2011. The rationale was simple: When death calls, put politics aside.

More from USA TODAY Opinion: 

►Only monarch we've known: With the queen's death, Britain faces the unthinkable

►I wasn't raised to admire her. Queen Elizabeth inspired me nonetheless.

►Be kind to King Charles: He'll help the monarchy survive the queen's death.

One of Greenwald’s examples focused on Judy Woodruff, then a CNN anchor, who appeared to strike a tone of neutrality on the day the late president’s casket arrived in Washington, when she noted how "politics is put aside, while we pay respects and deep honor to this president, who literally changed a generation, if not more, of American students of politics."

Reagan was regaled – by the media and others – as reflecting our national greatness, manifest destiny and winning the Cold War, as giving us "Morning Again in America" (his signature television ad from 1984).

Far from being a "neutral" take on Reagan’s legacy, Woodruff and others provided no sense of balance. The prohibition on speaking ill of the dead meant we heard almost nothing about the impact of Reagan’s "trickle-down economics" on so many Americans, his funding of terrorists in Nicaragua, his slashing of domestic programs, or his refusal to acknowledge the HIV/AIDS epidemic until well into his presidency. By the time Reagan was interred, his standing as a world leader had been heightened, the myth of our movie star president spun over and over.

When and why to set aside norms of post-death politeness

When it comes to most of us – that's to say ordinary, private citizens – not speaking ill of the dead is the rule to follow. There’s a time and place to speak about darker truths, but not at a time of grief or loss.

My father, a noted journalist and professor, was lauded by me and many of his colleagues when he died in 2017. Was that the entire picture? Of course not. Later, after the window of grief closed, I spoke and wrote about his darker moods and behaviors. Timing matters.

When a public person, like a president or the queen dies, it’s a different story. Balance must be paid to their record. One-sided accolades are inherently biased and limited – or, as Greenwald wrote, "deceitful and propagandistic."

There’s much to be said and recorded about Elizabeth II’s role as the face of an institution, specifically the monarchy’s responsibility in maintaining systems of oppression. In a statement, a South African political party said its members will not mourn the queen's death because "to us her death is a reminder of a very tragic period in this country and Africa’s history." Point well-taken.

Acknowledging shades of gray in a leader's legacy is quite a bit different from kicking up your heels in celebration at their demise or wishing "excruciating" pain upon them. How does the latter help to deepen our understanding of the recently departed monarch's life? It doesn’t.

Our task, when a world leader dies, must be to consider what deeper truths and unresolved problems their legacy represents. Responding with unbridled fury doesn't get the job done, just as failing to speak frankly doesn't get the job started.

Rather than asking whether it's polite to speak ill of Queen Elizabeth II, let's focus on asking, "What lessons can we take away from her life that will help us in the future?"

More from Steven Petrow:

►I felt like a bad son. My 'complicated' mom made me hate Mother's Day.

►Am I the schmuck? I got COVID (again). I'm staying home (again).

►Finally. We can call 988 suicide hotline when we are at risk.

Steven Petrow, a writer on civility and manners and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is the author of five etiquette books, including "Stupid Things I Won't Do When I Get Old." Follow him on Twitter: @stevenpetrow

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Queen Elizabeth's death not a time to ignore her complicated legacy