The right: against monarch, for monarchy
It seems timely to set out the case of the political right against Queen Elizabeth II.
It seems timely to set out the case of the political right against Queen Elizabeth II. Seemingly paradoxically, opposing the Queen is not necessarily either anti-patriotic or anti-monarchical. Indeed, anyone who cherishes both Great Britain and the principle of monarchy (as opposed to the institution of constitutional monarchy of the Windsors) cannot fail to acknowledge the failures of the current monarch. Only the ageing Queen stands between her descendants and our governance, a prospect relished by few social conservatives or political reactionaries.
It is expected that the Queen will be succeeded by a series of monarchs, each of whom has displayed worryingly non-traditional tendencies. Prince Charles has stated he wishes to be coronated with a pledge to act not as a “defender of the faith” but “defender of faith”. So, the monarch of Great Britain and head of the Church of England would be defender of Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Islam, each religion claiming superiority. Prince Charles considers that it is his prerogative to alter the wording of a title conferred in 1521 by the Pope upon Henry VIII. When it comes to eco-alarmism, Prince Charles has long tied his colours to the globalist mast. His Royal Highness is of the party of Davos Man not of Derby Man. Prince William, frequent visitor to Davos and self-appointed freelance spokesman on mental-health issues, looks no sounder.
Until this year, on balance, most conservatives and reactionaries viewed Her Majesty as a good monarch, an unalloyed asset. She was hardworking, stoical and Christian. No problem there. However, the remaining attributes have become to be seen less favourably. Her impartiality and public silence on constitutional matters was formerly considered sagacious restraint, defending the royal family from accusations of political bias. Yet silence and neutrality have never been mandated for British royalty. They were not part of the Queen’s coronation oath.
Since the death of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, two serious lapses have crystalised doubts about the Queen’s judgement (or perhaps the Palace’s position; the ambiguity is unfortunately deliberate). The September statement that the Palace supports the Black Lives Matter movement and the November statement (supposedly unplanned) of the Queen, expressing irritation about the slowness of the implementation of international eco-activist law, both rocked the rightist assumption that the Queen was naturally sceptical and socially conservative. The right’s respect for her fortitude and diligence has been lately tempered by a realisation that the Windsor monarchy is not their ally.
In an informative video-stream discussion on Apostolic Majesty’s YouTube channel, the host set out failures in the reign of the Queen. That analysis was a response to discussions on the reactionary right about the capitulations that define the slow decline of the power of the crown. Despite admiration for the Queen’s service, it was clear there is a legitimate interpretation of the Windsor monarchy as a cumulative failure to defend British traditions. A warning was a 2002 speech praising Britain’s embracing (or rather, the elite’s forceful unmandated imposition of) multi-culturalism.
The truth seems revealed weekly to the right in Britain: the Queen and the Windsors are part of the Cathedral (the political establishment plus the media). They are not opponents of progressivism but defenders of it, acceding at every step to secularism and non-intervention advanced by civil society, politicians, a progressive Anglican clergy and the media. The continued existence of the British monarchy actually causes people to overlook massive changes wrought in British society over the last eighty years. Nominal conservatives point to Her Majesty and say “At least, we have her”. No, you don’t. Queen Elizabeth is as much an asset to progressive politicians and anti-patriotic NGOs as she is a defender of the British peoples. She is a hapless shield, providing the radical managerial technocracy with a fabricated vestige of continuity. Even more than the electoral viability of the Conservative Party, survival of the Windsor monarchy is the greatest impediment to advancement of traditionalism.
The only bulwark of national protection against globalisation and its associated proponents cannot be here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians (their eyes already set on future lucrative speaking tours, board appointments and global foundations), but a monarch tied to land and people. A monarch is an elite with no escape route and no interests outside of the nation. A monarch has “skin in the game”. For the traditionalist, the monarch is a tangible embodiment of God’s pact with the people, as servant of both God and people. The monarch lives to protect and serve the people under his or her dominion and no other place, and to serve no other cause. The Queen has served her country but she is also wedded to maintenance of constitutional monarchy, even if that requires that institution be stripped of power, prestige and dignity. For a traditionalist, this is nothing worth preserving.
The traditionalist says what is needed is a real monarch – one who will defend the Anglican faith (and the Christian Church more broadly), the British peoples and the land of that people, even to the death; one who will abdicate if he or she cannot carry out such duties. For the monarchist, the end of the Windsor monarchy and the ascension of a new royal house cannot come soon enough.
