Queen of Dhimmis, Empress of the anti-Empire, Defender of the Islamic Faith, Head of the Surrender of England

A commenter at The Thinking Housewife thoughtfully condemns Queen Elizabeth’s shocking and disgusting assumption of Islamic dress and head covering during her visit to the United Arab Emirates (also discussed by me earlier in “The deliquescence that is Britain”).


I’ve been saying for years that when push comes to shove in the confrontation between the West and the Muslims in the West, the liberal elite will surrender to Islam. I was too optimistic. Push hasn’t even come to shove yet, and already the Queen of England has spectacularly submitted. Symbolically and in principle, the worst has already happened. All that is left is the practical unfolding of its implications. Which doesn’t mean that we surrender. It’s the liberal elite that have surrendered, and we must resist them to the death.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

My question about the Queen wearing Islamic dress is, when did she start doing this? I found out that she was, apparently, the first British monarch to visit the Middle East when she did so in 1979. Pictures from that visit show her wearing normal Western attire—gloves and a hat—as well as what I think is customary royal garb. I also learned that this current visit is apparently the first visit in which she visited a mosque, raising the question of why such a visit was necessary this time when it wasn’t necessary on previous visits.

LA replies:

I think the answer is that the British royal famly has made a conscious decision to facilitate the Islamization of the West.

Since I support the British monarchy, this raises the question, not of ending the monarchy, but of removing the Windsor dynasty and replacing it. I wonder if there any qualified descendants of Victoria, Edward VII, or George V who are not hopeless liberal decadents like the Windsors and who could be raised to the throne, just as, when the Tudor line ran out, the English went back to a descendant of the first Tudor king Henry VII, James I of Scotland, and that was the beginning of the Stuart line; and just as, when the Stuart line ran out, they went back to a descendant of the first Stuart king James I, George of Hanover, and made him king. The Windsor line hasn’t run out, but it has become destructive and dangerous to the survival of England, and therefore must go.

I hate referrinng to the famously staunch and stolid Elizabeth as a “hopeless liberal decadent,” but her kow-towing to Islam is a deal killer as far as I’m concerned.

Is there anyone in England who feels the same? Or is it only a handful of right-wing Americans who actually care whether England lives or dies?

Timothy D. writes:

I think you are in error about the British Royal family but I wish I had better evidence to adduce to persuade you. Charles is unsound on many fronts, being something of a high-minded follower of every wrong idea passing through society (global warming, organic farming for instance but not in relation to bad architecture, on which he was 100% right). By contrast, the Queen dressing like this is being merely polite, in my view. She would wear a hat and veil in a Catholic church, or to meet the Pope. That does not make her a Catholic.

You are usually right about everything, but on the Queen in mosque-going dress, I think you infer too much. (But I wish I were more certain).

Be well

LA replies:

Sometimes my mind works by logic, sometimes by seeing the revelation of an essence. My response to that photo of the Queen is in the latter category.

Yes, I understand that my interpretation of the meaning of the photo will sound extreme to many people. My reply is: res ipsa loquitur—the thing itself speaks.

Timothy replies:

I appreciate your candor. One’s intuition is the best defence against excessive reasonableness.

Evan H. writes:

You wrote:

I wonder if there any qualified descendants of Victoria, Edward VII, or George V who are not hopeless liberal decadents like the Windsors and who could be raised to the throne, just as, when the Tudor line ran out, the English went back to a descendant of the first Tudor king Henry VII, James I of Scotland, and that was the beginning of the Stuart line; and just as, when the Stuart line ran out, they went back to a descendant of the first Stuart king James I, George of Hanover, and made him king.

I won’t be surprised if you receive a 10,000 word email from Mencius Moldbug about how the Stuart dynasty was illegally displaced from the British monarchy (the warming-pan legend about Charles Edward Stuart and subsequent invasion of England by William of Orange—the “Glorious Revolution”), and that the rightful holder of the British crown is Franz, Duke of Bavaria, and that hopefully his grandnephew Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, who was born in England and will someday be a monarch himself, will convert to Anglicanism and claim the English throne and restore Britain to glory.

James R. writes:

Well, if the House of Windsor is what it is, you could always support a restoration of the Stuarts, in the form of the son of Prince Hans-Adam of Lichtenstein, who apparently is the heir apparent to the Stuart line.

There are worse things than being a Jacobite. It’s not at all like being a Jacobin. The problem is if you came out in favor of restoring the Stuarts, you’d have another Moldbug visitation.

LA replies:

“The problem is if you came out in favor of restoring the Stuarts, you’d have another Moldbug visitation.”

You mean, because the the Stuarts aren’t far enough back for Moldbug, we have to go back to Henry VII?

Stephen Hopewell writes:

Have you seen Daniel Pipes’s article, “Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam?” While the idea may seem far-fetched, Pipes presents enough information to show it’s not a silly question. My assumption about the Queen was that her son’s great fondness for and involvement with Islam was probably a concern and embarrassment to her. However, having seen those pictures of her in the mosque, I fear you are right that “the British royal family has made a conscious decision to facilitate the Islamization of the West.”

LA replies:

The Pipes article is highly recommended. It is a running catalogue of information, posted from 2003 to the present, showing Charles’s intense involvement with and promotion of Islam. The cumulative impact of the information Pipes presents is devastating. Indeed, it almost doesn’t matter whether Charles is formally a Muslim or not, since his all-out support for the religion could not be greater than it is.

I used to think that the idea, which the media recently pushed again, of the succession skipping Charles and jumping directly to William was silly. Having read the Pipes article, I don’t feel that way any more. Charles’s total identification with an alien and threatening religion disqualifies him from the position of head of the Church of England. It disqualifies him as the head of state, even if a figurehead, of a Western nation. But what good will it do to remove Charles? Now that we see that Elizabeth has become as bad as her son, it seems the entire royal family is aboard the religion of peace train. This is as serious a matter as James II’s Catholicism and the likelihood of a Catholic succession in the 1680s, which was what led to the Glorious Revolution in which James was removed and replaced by his Protestant daughter and son in law. At the very least, Charles must be excluded from the succession and a law passed to assure that whoever succeeds Queen Elizabeth will be loyal to Christianity and not a Muslim believer or Muslim agent like Charles. If it can be established that William or his brother fits the bill, fine. If not, then, as I said above, the Windsor family must be removed from the royal succession and a new monarch found who is not a Muslim or a Muslim agent.

James H. writes:

I wanted to write to you concerning the British royal family on several occasions but hesitated. My concern always seemed so off subject, however bothersome it was to me. I have long favored skipping Prince Charles in the line of succession. However, my concern with Prince William is that he lacks the very masculine verve of his brother Harry. Prince William has the typical manner of your average upper-middle class demasculinized white male. I have often wondered about what thoughts of Islam go on under that fiery red hair of Harry’s. Also, I always get this sense of foreboding when I see Prince William on television. Maybe it is that he seems to have so much his mother’s personality. William, King of England? I just do not think it is meant to be. I hate it when I get this feeling but, that is the feeling I get.

December 2

A female reader writes:

The Queen’s clothing may not be as strange as you think. If you look at old photos of Queen Mary, consort of George V, you will see that she wore elaborate headware and long, old fashioned dresses. QE may have thought, well, this isn’t so different from how Grandma used to dress, haha.

LA replies:

There is no comparison. The Queen is dressed all-out as a Muslim.

December 3

Earl Cromer writes from England:

With regard to your entry “Queen of Dhimmis”:

As a patriotic Englishman, I have thought long and hard about what you’ve written, and I must reluctantly agree with part of your analysis—the Queen did indeed seem to be deliberately prostrating herself before Islam. It cannot be dismissed as simple politeness, because if that were so, then the western-style hat she normally wears when appearing in public would have sufficed as a head covering—meaning she could show respect to her hosts without making any kind of political or religious statement.

When I was at primary school in Kent, our teachers decided we should visit a Sikh temple, a Gurdwara, in a nearby town. As with a mosque, you must cover your head and remove your shoes in order to enter a Gurdwara; but we were not compelled to wear turbans or foreign style head coverings, but simply to bring any cap or hat—as long as one’s head was covered, the requirement was met. They conceded we were showing an interest in their faith, had made an effort and compromised on the details.

I can only conclude that the Queen was indeed making a statement by donning the garb she did; I don’t know if this was simply to appease the growing presence of Muslims in the UK or increasingly politically correct politicians and advisers (our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary now both send annual Ramadan messages).

I’m not sure where this leaves Britain—as you’ve pointed out, Prince Charles is even more enamoured with Islam (indeed, he wants his Coronation oath altered to make him “Defender of the Faiths”, taking him away from championing the Church of England as its rightful Head and closer to championing every faith now present in Britain.

I’ve always seen the Queen as steadfast, a product of her generation; I always imagined she viewed what had happened to Britain with something approaching horror, but was afraid to speak out for fear of jeopardising her position (and in her case those of her heirs)—and many British people are cowed like this. To think she may actually be in agreement with it all is almost too much to bear.

As an aside, I’d like to direct you to this video: This is where many British children get their skewed notions of history and self-loathing from. Count the factual inaccuracies—but if I were to complain to the BBC, they’d dismiss it as “light-hearted”—which apparently means they can lie and propagandise all they like.

LA replies:

Thank you for this thoughtful response to what I said about the Queen. I can tell that it cost you something, because it meant seeing something about her, something new, that is hard to bear. It’s hard for me, too. But it’s harder for you, as an Englishman.

Philip M. writes from England:

I had a big argument about this with my father and one of my nephews a couple of weeks ago. Many people in the BNP are quite bitter and resentful about the royal family. The Queen is still widely admired amongst the British, particularly amongst people of my father’s generation. I suppose she is the one beacon of stability they have left.

My father came out with all the usual cliches—how it’s not her fault, she isn’t able to say anything because of her position and so on. But my feeling about that is that if the Queen cannot say anything about the racial and cultural dissolution of her own people, what on earth is the point? When she came to the throne, Britain was a white country. What has happened has happened on her watch. People will defend her by saying that she has no real power, but this is not true. She has a huge amount of popular support. She should have made her stand years ago. She should have said “to Hell with convention, I will not stand idly by and watch the destruction of my own people.” She should have demanded an end to immigration and the denigration of “her” people, and dared the Government to depose her. Even if they had, monarchy is about more than the official blessing of the State, she would have had the people behind her, she would have remained the true monarch, even if the Government had stuck a Quisling in to replace her—and what credibility would such a monarch have had? None. But she made a pact with the Devil, she has decided to hang on to her palaces as long as her sclerotic fingers would allow, until the Muslims come and prize them off and cart her and her family away. She could have made all the difference. She chose to let her people die, and now every year at Christmas she delivers a speech, to her “subjects” about how we need to embrace tolerance and diversity. This woman, who has had the best of everything for her and her family since the moment she was born, deigns to lecture us, we who are living in a virtual jungle where expressions of our own identity have become a crime, about the need for tolerance (i.e. passive acceptance and surrender). She isn’t the Queen we needed, and she isn’t the Queen that some of us deserved. I despise the woman, and I despise her all the more for the fact that she made me feel this way about an institution I revered.

I don’t think my father will be bringing up the subject of the Queen again. But British people need to hear this, they need to have their security blankets ripped away, they need to be forced to understand that everything they have has been taken from them and turned against them with the aim of destroying them. They need to understand that we have no friends, no one on our side, and no one in a position of influence who wants us to exist.

December 4

R. Janssen writes:

I’m an avid reader of your website from The Netherlands. Your postings on Queen Elizabeth reminded me of a similar incident in 2006. Our Queen Beatrix visited a mosque in the Hague with the same grotesque deference to Islam. Google “Beatrix” and “Moskee” and see the ghastly truth. There are still some pictures left on the Internet, even though the Government Information Service (spokesbody for the Dutch Royal House) has a reputation of browbeating media into censorship.

Not only did Beatrix take her shoes off, the Muslim men were relieved from shaking the hand of the impure infidel woman. And that in our own country!

Since I’m not a skilled polemicist like you are, I always keep it simple when I have to defend my country from obnoxious foreign scolds. I simply recapitulate these and similar incidents. At least it’s something they will remember. They are not very interested in my elucidation anyway.

On a positive note: when establishment types tried to smooth over this sort of behaviour, a derisive nickname for them entered our vocabulary. Since then we call them “ermine fleas.”

Earl Cromer writes from England:

Some further thoughts on “Queen of Dhimmis”;

Thinking about the Queen in that way did cost me something. Given what’s happening to Britain, I suppose it is natural that so many of us cling to whatever sense of continuity we can, indeed whatever sense of continuity we’re allowed. It’s not the first time, I’ve seen her in such a light, however. I remember watching her Christmas speech last year, and it made me very uncomfortable, so I sought it out and watched again.

After paying tribute to those who have sacrificed all in Afghanistan and their families, her thoughts turn to the Commonwealth (which isn’t so surprising, as she is the Head of this organisation and Monarch of many of the countries in it).

However, I was surprised to learn that the main purpose of the Commonwealth is “promoting diversity”—and that this “diversity” is the “face of the future” (this from her own mouth). It becomes clear that she is actually talking not about the Commonwealth as a whole, but about the way immigrants from it and other parts of the old Empire have transformed Britain—because we are treated to a lecture that would be more suited to someone such as Tony Blair or Barack Obama—apparently, the connection of the Commonwealth, which “transcends race and culture” has “enriched every area of our lives” in Britain.

I’m not sure the parents of those young girls groomed by Pakistanis in the north of England, those whose London estates have been turned into a veritable war zone by violent Afro-Caribbean gangs, or any of those other unfortunates who have met their diverse, tragic ends at the hands of imported Third Worlders would agree—but then they can’t hide in palaces behind armed soldiers and police completely in denial about reality.

I began reading Philip M.’s comment certain I would disagree with it; to my shock and horror, I cannot, although I’m perhaps not yet ready to go quite as far as he did.

Before we totally condemn her, however, there is one thing we might have overlooked (and I would be interested in the view of you and the other contributors): She’s not a politician who has climbed the greasy pole, consciously sacrificing her positions and principals as she went; is it in any way possible that she could be trapped in the mindset that so many British people are—a kind of strange positive reinforcement—i.e. this mass immigration occurred, so someone wanted it to occur, and clearly these transformations have happened, so they were desirable to someone—and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a relic stuck in the 19th Century?

Given how quickly Britain changed and how quickly many ordinary people embraced that change for whatever reason, is it not possible that she might have thought, as someone far removed from ordinary society, it was something, like so many things I imagine, that she could never understand but must be desirable because that was always the message? [LA replies: Yes, that’s entirely possible.]

I know I’m clutching at straws here, but I know so many “dissidents” on the issues of immigration and diversity who started out thinking there was something wrong with themselves because everyone else was busy celebrating it—not realising that some, if not most, people act that way through fear. I mean, does the Queen ever have unimpeded contact with “Commoners”? What has she got to go on other than the media and the words of politicians? I’d like to think the transformation of her Kingdom from a homogenous, safe nation to a violent dystopia might have caught her attention, but is any modern monarch that grounded in reality? Can they be?

Katherine B. writes:

The gentleman who wrote about the Queen did so magnificently. A point worth making is that, even though the Queen may have been compelled by the Foreign Office to do what she did (dressing as a Moslem), she has, nevertheless, given credibility to a ”religion” whose laws regarding apostasy would require death for any who leave it to join the Church of which she is the Supreme Governor.

Kilroy M. writes from Australia:

I voted against the republic during our referendum in 1999. I did this not because I found a great deal of substance in the figurehead of the Queen, but because I support the ideal of a Crown Constitutional Monarchy. I refuse to support a republican model of government because of its ultimate democratic fetish, which reduces political culture to the lowest common denominator. The Crown is also non-political, which can have a great unifying value to all members of the nation. That value also became obvious during our Constitutional Crisis of 1975: without the Crown intervention, the country would have ended very unhappily indeed. Of course, you and your other correspondents’ critique of the Queen and her passivity is legitimate. I often remark to my monarchist colleagues that I wish the Queen actually believed in the institution she has custody of. The people are sovereign when the Monarch is sovereign; but if the Monarch acts (or refuses to act) in such a way that the nation, the greater family of which the Monarch is Head, loses its sovereignty, then the Monarch loses the claim to be sovereign over the people. This is what we’re witnessing in the UK. The Kingdom is being subsumed into the European superstate and the Queen does nothing; it is being colonised by its former colonies, and she embraces this. If the head of state rejects the particularism of nationhood, she has no natural law right to remain in office. I will continue to vote for the institution of the Monarchy, but I nurture a hope that we will have a man of courage and honour on the Throne one day.

Lydia McGrew writes:

It’s my perception, which others with more knowledge can correct, that Elizabeth II has been a “progressive” monarch on controversial issues for quite a while. I recall some twenty years ago hearing that she was in favor of female ordination in the Anglican Church. I recall a few years back reading a story by a Muslim servant at the palace applauding the Queen to the skies for having set aside a prayer room in Windsor Castle for all the Muslims who worked there. (I can’t now remember if the prayer room was only for Ramadan or was permanent.) This latter story had a strong implication that the Queen was perceived by her Muslim retainers as pro-Islam and as “progressive” in this respect.

So her dressing in the way that she did to go to a mosque didn’t come as a great surprise to me. I haven’t had the impression that she is, in fact, horrified by what is happening to Britain.

December 7

Spencer Warren writes:

Succession to the British Crown is governed by the Act of Settlement of 1701, which requires that the monarch take communion in the Church of England. At that time, King William III, who, as you explained, had been brought over from Holland when the Catholic King James II was thrown out in the Glorious Revolution, was aged, ill and childless, and his wife, Queen Mary, the daughter of James II, had died. Also childless was the heir apparent, Anne, William’s sister-in-law. James was still plotting to regain the throne, possibly with the support of arch-enemy France. Therefore, the law also settled the future succession on the House of Hanover in Germany. Today’s Queen and Prince Charles owe their status directly to this law.

In the case of Charles, if he is an adherent of Islam but insincerely continues to take communion in the Church of England, he would be in violation of the spirit of the Act of Settlement. Indeed, substitute Islam for the Catholic supporters of the dethroned James, and this 300 year-old statute is as important as the day it was enacted. But who would demand it be enforced? Certainly not Parliament or the Church of England.

Following is the main section of the Coronation Oath sworn to by Queen Elizabeth in 1953. Its text is governed by the Coronation Act of 1688 and should be the same text sworn to when and if Charles is crowned (unless the “Conservative” government amends it, not only to include Catholicism, as has been suggested, but also to appease multicultural sensibilities of the new Britain).

The Archbishop of Canterbury asks: “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?”

The Queen: “All this I promise to do.” Whereupon, as prescribed by law,

the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premises: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Archbishop … and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and be brought saying these words: “The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.” Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

The monarch then takes Holy Communion and is presented to the people, as Handel’s imposing choral anthem rings out: “God save the Queen / God save the Queen / May the Queen live forever …”

Should Charles ascend to the throne, what many may look down on as an antiquated ceremony would take on the same crucial significance it had in 1689, when William of Orange and Mary replaced the deposed James II. And, as the embodiment of the true Britain herself, it likely will become highly controversial in the eyes of the left and its Muslim friends.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 01, 2010 08:40 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):