Was Queen Elizabeth a feminist?

Probably not.

But she was a woman in charge.

Yeah, sort of.

Does that make her a feminist?

Not necessarily.

But this is still a question worth asking, especially now that she has passed. She served as queen for 70 years — and 7 months. It is worth taking a look at her life from this perspective.

Let’s start with this: not every woman is a feminist. And certainly not every woman in charge is a feminist.

But the queen served a symbolic purpose. In seeing her on the throne for seven decades, we became more accustomed to seeing women in positions of power — even if inherited.

No, not all positions of politics are positions of power. And there is a distinct difference between women’s presence and women’s power — especially when it comes to politics. And, to complicate the question further, the queen’s status was deliberately… apolitical. What is feminism, after all, if not inherently political?

But still, this is a question worth asking.

It was 1952 when she was crowned queen. And she was only 27. Today it is impossible to fully understand what she was able to achieve during her reign, but it is worth highlighting some key moments that may help us answer the question.

To start, she’s not the first of her name. Elizabeth I became queen of England more than 450 years ago. She too inherited the throne in a fundamentally patriarchal world. By the time Elizabeth II assumed power, patriarchy was still entrenched practice. Not much had changed.

A woman in politics today constantly bears the burden of having her competencies questioned, her life scrutinized, and her every move judged “because she is a woman.” She must work twice as hard to get half as far. And still, we allow men in politics much greater room to maneuver, to exist as independent beings, and to choose the color of their suits without critique!

The point is that it remains hard to be a woman in power. Surviving that — and for 70 years! — is already no small feat.

Some of her work can be viewed as positive in terms of women’s rights. For instance, in 2013, she signed a new charter for the Commonwealth recognizing that “gender equality and women’s empowerment are essential components of human development and basic human rights.”

This is a big deal in large part because it ensured gender equality in royal succession, meaning that a female firstborn could be first in line. Previously, the practice of primogeniture prohibited this — instead allowing the younger son to assume the throne instead of an elder daughter. Boys first, at least then. The queen leveled the playing field for royal heirs — first come, first serve.

At the same time, her actions during her tenure were labeled as “sneakily feminist” — maybe because that was all she could actually get away with?! She might have been the head of the country, but did she actively believe in — and advocate for — women’s rights and gender equality? Could she have done more of this during her time? Probably yes.

The monarchy itself is a patriarchal institution, and is guilty of a great deal of oppression. Being the sovereign and a female doesn’t necessarily make her a feminist, when the crown she wore could also be perceived as a symbol of inequality, many have argued.

It is our politics, not our position, that makes us feminist. Or not.

I asked a feminist from a colonized country, and this is what she had to say:

In this case a female head of state is no more than tokenism because the institution she represents is so patriarchal. This monarchy is an oppressive, undemocratic, colonizing, racist, misogynistic institute that keeps wealth, bloodlines, and upper class ideations. If we are to argue for more women in power, I would rather abolish this system than put more in here.

When Madeleine Albright passed in March of this year, I asked the same question: Was she a feminist? It is actually not for us to judge who is more “feminist” than whom, or how “doing feminism” should be measured. The point is that they broke new ground and ruled at a time when women ruling was an anomaly. But here we are, 70 years later with too few changes to show.

Women in power and politics are still “the first” or an exception. They are still referred to as the “female head of state” or the “first woman leader” of so-and-so. We still are not used to women with real power.

This is true globally. The political gender gap remains the most visible, because there women are rendered virtually invisible. Only 25% of national parliamentarians are women, and even less when it comes to ministers. At present, only 23 countries are led by a woman. And too many states have never even had a female leader.

Still today, power wears a man’s suit, and no matter how many advances women make, we still have much farther to go. And with the queen’s passing today, and the passing of the reins to her son, we now have one less woman to count. In the end, the argument needs to be made for more feminist women in power — elected, not inherited. Take for instance newly-appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party Liz Truss, in office for all of two days. There lies a missed opportunity for a feminist in power. Again.