Where’s the Queen?
Kilroy M. writes from Australia:
Where is the British Queen in all of this? You’d think she might at least muster the strength to utter some liberal platitude urging restraint, but no, not even this. She’s absent without leave. Her silence is an abdication. Her privileged position is supposed to be paid for by her willingness to risk speaking truth, even if it’s uncomfortable to “her” feckless cowardly Ministers of State. I’m a monarchist, but I am beginning to really hate my Monarch, really hate her.LA replies:
You wrote:Kilroy replies:
But she does embody the nation, and in times of national disintegration her silence is more than just symbolic of the spiritual death of her people. Besides, when the nation is on the cusp of total dissolution, to hell with what she officially can and can’t say, to hell with the managerial Parliament, its sensibilities and its impotent institutions of state. Her silence in this time of crisis is the final in a long line of exhibits that prove she has no role to play in the national conscience except being a purely cosmetic archaism decorating a bankrupt political elite. If I understand correctly, the armed forces swear an oath to the Crown. It’s not like she has no influence. By choosing to remain passive, she implicitly acknowledges an acceptance of the status quo. She becomes, therefore, the enemy of those who love the institution of the Crown for the Traditions it carries.
Kilroy is quite right to despise the Queen. Here are a couple of quotes from an article in which the historian David Starkey is quoted about his experience meeting the Queen:James P. writes:
I get the feeling from Kilroy’s cri de coeur that he expected the Royal Family to take a strong stand for “tradition” in the face of leftist anarchy. There is simply no reason to expect this, because the Royal Family has no traditionalist or right-wing inclinations whatsoever. They are members in good standing of the leftist political elite. VFR has discussed this on numerous occasions, and I challenge anyone to cite a single example of them standing up for traditional principles or defying leftist orthodoxy. Those who think the Royal Family are somehow a secret bastion of traditionalism who have been muzzled by their leftist enemies are clinging to vain hope in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Royals are not hypocrites or puppets—they speak and act in accordance with their genuine beliefs.August 12
I don’t know that it’s true to say that the Queen has merely been blind and uninvolved in the fall of Britain. She was instrumental in persuading Margaret Thatcher against supporting Ian Smith’s attempt to form a compromise government with the non-Marxist black nationalists in Rhodesia. Cares a lot about having plenty of Commonwealth realms to visit.. not so much about whether they are still viable nations.Michael S. writes:
If Queen Elizabeth were really a traditionalist, she wouldn’t have knighted all those rock stars.Kilroy writes:
Thank you to Philip and James, and of course to Lawrence for your responses. I realise that the idea of Monarchy may seem a little counter-intuitive to your U.S. readers and perhaps a little exotic for others. The monarch is of course a product of her time, which is a serious problem. I would recommend the dissertation by Prof. Andrew Fraser which was published by the Samuel Griffith Society in 2005, “Monarchs and Miracles” (Chapter VI), in which he argues for a need of a “patriot King.” To those interested, it would give some insight also into Australia’s traditionalists and their position on these matters.LA writes:
JC in Houston points out that Elizabeth I was of course not a forebear of the present Queen in the sense of being a biological ancestor. Elizabeth II is a descendant of George I, the German prince of Hanover who was installed as king of Great Britain in 1714 because, when the Stuart line ran out with the death of Queen Anne, he was the nearest Protestant descendant (through the female line) of the first Stuart king, James I, who had died in 1625. The family name of the British royal family changed from Hanover to Saxe-Coburg when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg. The name was changed again to Windsor during the First World War because of discomfort with a German name, and the name Windsor was even kept when Elizabeth married Philip, whose own family history and name history is far more complicated, but whose surname was Mountbatten at the time he married her.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 11, 2011 09:53 AM | Send