Lament For the Hollow Crown: Elizabeth II’s empty legacy. By John Carter.
The land Elizabeth II inherited was exhausted from the wars, it is true. However, in most other ways it was a vastly better land than the one that she left behind.
Its demographic structure had remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years, with what incursions there were — the Angles, the Saxons, the Danes, the Normans — being cousin peoples whose blood and customs were not so dissimilar. The Church was strong, as was the family; the streets were safe; and the ancient liberties of the Englishman to property, to self-defense, and to speak his mind were honoured by law and custom.
The same was true of England’s strong young daughter colonies in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand–– while necessarily rougher around the edges than their more settled and genteel motherland, they had immense social capital, their people tough and confident, their institutions well-run and honest.
The contrast between the fair land she inherited, and the grimy dystopia of Loicense Island, are obvious and painful to behold.
Elizabeth sat placidly by as, one by one, the ancient rights of Englishmen were stripped from them. No longer may they bear arms, or even defend themselves should they be assaulted or their homes invaded. No longer may they speak their minds, for should they speak too plainly they risk a visit from the police, who may either arrest and charge them with hate speech for saying unflattering things about any of the myriad protected groups, or simply be hassled over ‘non-crime hate incidents’ should their blaspheming not quite cross the deliberately fuzzy legal boundary between that which is permitted and mandatory, and everything else.
Worse, and possibly irreparable, has been the violent demographic shift that has taken place. The United Kingdom was 99.5% white when Elizabeth became Elizabeth II; now, it is around 87% white, and rapidly declining. The Church having fallen into apostasy, its pews empty, its support of the family gone, the birth rate of the indigenous population has cratered to far below replacement. Meanwhile, the trickle of immigrants from Commonwealth countries — Jamaica, India, Pakistan, and so on — that began when Elizabeth was crowned, has over the last two decades become a relentless flood. London is no longer a recognizably English city, and the same is true across much of the rest of the land.
The native population are now treated like second-class chattel in the land of their fathers. Outrages such as Rotherham, in which Pakistani grooming gangs feel at liberty to groom pre-pubescent girls with addictive drugs in order to then use them as rape toys and rent them out as disposable cum rags to their friends, are enabled by authorities who refuse to investigate or prosecute lest they be perceived as racist. The hate speech laws that have gutted freedom of speech are largely in place to protect the newcomers from any criticism. The prohibitions on self-defense largely serve to criminalize the native population when they try to protect their persons and property from predation by the New British.
Diversity hiring policies openly discriminate against the indigenous population, while the New British are increasingly to be found dominating the upper reaches of commercial, cultural, and political influence. The national broadcaster makes historical dramas in which British monarchs and heroes are replaced with Indian and black actors, retconning history so that the youth will begin to subconsciously believe that Britain was always ‘diverse’. Periodically the newcomers, not content with the riches and favours showered upon them by the British establishment, will riot, tearing down statues that have been accused of racism … in some cases for some real connection to the slave trade, in others simply for depicting a white man.
It has not only been the people of the United Kingdom that have suffered these humiliations. The same drama plays out in all of her daughter colonies.
Many argue that Elizabeth Windsor could not have done anything to stop any of this, for she was a mere figurehead. …
To give Elizabeth Windsor her due, she carried out these formal duties admirably. She was the very embodiment of dignity and grace, providing for the public the appearance, at least, of an immovable rock in the midst of the chaotic whirl of the late 20th century.
That she was the rock on which modern Britain was built, however, is to damn her with faint praise. …
The monarch is meant to be the champion of the people, a sort of hereditary tribune of the plebs who serves as a counterbalance to the economic and political weight of the aristocracy. The arrangement is mutually beneficial: alone against the oligarchy, the Crown is easily neutralized; similarly, the leaderless and disunited people are powerless against the oligarchy … but when the Crown becomes a magnetic pole around which the iron filings of the peasantry self-organize, the combination is unstoppable. The Crown is the trump card against the excesses of the nobility.
This dynamic between Crown and pleb is rarely articulated but instinctively felt, and is why the monarchy inspires such passionate devotion. Peasant revolts are rarely against the king, but more often in the name of the king, against those intermediary powers whom they consider to have perverted the positions granted to them by the king. They revolt not to rid themselves of the king, but to get the king’s attention, that the king might set things right. …
Imagine if she had just acted:
The Crown’s social power is immense.
What should have been the reaction, one wonders, had Elizabeth II spoken publicly about the unfortunate events in Rotherham? To ask the question is to answer it: public opinion would have united behind her, and the authorities would have scrambled to set things right.
Better: what might have happened if, decades ago, Elizabeth had voiced even a mild criticism of the replacement immigration policies of Tony Blair? A political crisis would have ensued, to be sure. Nativist sentiment would have united behind her and become an indomitable political force. It may have led to an effort to remove her as monarch, yes; but on the other hand, it would have been possible for her to indicate that Blair and his coven were themselves morally illegitimate, to have then dissolved his government, called a new election, and if Blair had resisted (as well he might), well … the armed forces of the United Kingdom make their oaths of service not to Parliament, but to the Crown. Military men take their oaths seriously. And they were no fans of Blair. …
She acted over Zimbabwe and South Africa, but not the UK:
The fact that she intervened in Rhodesia over 40 years ago, and in South Africa some 30 years ago, suggests that she was far from naive about racial politics and the implications of racial strife for social stability, just as it indicates that her supposedly entirely ceremonial status is not the entire truth. From this, the only possible inference is that she did not intervene in the destruction of Britain and her colonies because she could not, but because she chose not to. She lacked the inclination.
That doesn’t mean that she was hostile to her own people. I doubt that very much. Rather, I think it’s just the usual, peculiar pathology of the elders of our time, who go to great lengths to express concern for the Other, and who bend over backwards to do everything in their power to help the Other … but say little and do less to assist their own, whom they neglect at best, actively hinder and undermine at worst. …
Like a rich aunt who didn’t send Christmas cards and left everything to UNICEF:
It’s for that reason that, upon hearing of the death of a woman who had reigned as my liege since long before I was born, I felt … nothing. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not happy she’s dead. I take no pleasure in it. I’m simply indifferent …
I feel like I should feel something. I should be sad to see her go, I should feel like I’ve lost a dear, beloved member of my own family. Instead, to continue with the familial analogy, it’s as though a distant, rich aunt, whom neither I nor anyone in my immediate family had ever gotten so much as a Christmas card from, had died, leaving her fortune not to her blood relatives but to UNICEF. …
The lament for what could have been:
Given the long and intimate ties between the institution of monarchy and my people, an intertwined history that disappears into the mists of the Northern European bronze age, the echoing nothing of this yawning indifference is a more scathing commentary on the fallen state of our dying civilization than any merely political outrage.
I mourn, not the Queen who was, but the Queen who should have been.
An empty throne could have done as much
She did nothing when she could have acted. Such a waste. The monarch of decline, who declined to save her people. The uniparty loves her.