This is presumably not an account of how she has signed off on every loosening of the ties.
Either the Queen or her equally revered father also signed off on every nationalisation, every aspect of the Welfare State, every retreat from Empire, every social liberalisation, every constitutional change, every EU treaty, and even every alteration to the doctrine, discipline and liturgy of the Church of England. If they could not have done otherwise, then why bother having a monarchy at all? What is it for?
Is it the job of a monarch, if not to acquire territory and subjects, then at least to hold them? If so, then George VI was by far the worst ever British monarch, and quite possibly the worst monarch that the world has ever seen. And is it the job of a British monarch to maintain a Protestant society and culture in the United Kingdom? If so, then no predecessor has ever begun to approach the abject failure of Elizabeth II, a failure so complete that no successor will ever be able to equal it.
For all her undoubted personal piety, I am utterly baffled by the cult of the present Queen among Evangelical Protestants and among those who cleave to a more-or-less 1950s vision of Anglicanism, Presbyterianism or Methodism. What has either the monarchy or the Queen ever done for them? During the present reign, Britain has become history's most secular country, and the White British have become history's most secular ethnic group, a trend that has been even more marked among those with Protestant backgrounds than it has been among Catholics.
I support the monarchy, because it keeps sweet a lot of people who need to be kept sweet. But I am entirely at a loss as to why it has that effect on them.
Either the Queen or her equally revered father also signed off on every nationalisation, every aspect of the Welfare State, every retreat from Empire, every social liberalisation, every constitutional change, every EU treaty, and even every alteration to the doctrine, discipline and liturgy of the Church of England. If they could not have done otherwise, then why bother having a monarchy at all? What is it for?
Is it the job of a monarch, if not to acquire territory and subjects, then at least to hold them? If so, then George VI was by far the worst ever British monarch, and quite possibly the worst monarch that the world has ever seen. And is it the job of a British monarch to maintain a Protestant society and culture in the United Kingdom? If so, then no predecessor has ever begun to approach the abject failure of Elizabeth II, a failure so complete that no successor will ever be able to equal it.
For all her undoubted personal piety, I am utterly baffled by the cult of the present Queen among Evangelical Protestants and among those who cleave to a more-or-less 1950s vision of Anglicanism, Presbyterianism or Methodism. What has either the monarchy or the Queen ever done for them? During the present reign, Britain has become history's most secular country, and the White British have become history's most secular ethnic group, a trend that has been even more marked among those with Protestant backgrounds than it has been among Catholics.
I support the monarchy, because it keeps sweet a lot of people who need to be kept sweet. But I am entirely at a loss as to why it has that effect on them.
No comments:
Post a Comment