The Fuss over the Jubilee
Britain has spent the long weekend partying in honour of Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, the only occasion on which such a milestone has been reached. Ordinarily, our cultural leftist establishment and mainstream media tend to regard Britain’s history, traditions and patriotism as either an embarrassment or an active target for denigration. Her Majesty, however, seems to be spared much of this vitriol; instead, we cling onto her as a vestige of pride in an era struggling to find little else to celebrate.
And yet, indeed, one has to wonder precisely what it is that we were supposed to be celebrating.
The first half of Elizabeth’s reign was a long slide into a massive, socialist experiment: widespread nationalisation of key industries, a cradle-to-grave welfare state, and a full embrace of the so-called “Keynesian consensus”. The infliction of these diseases produced nothing other than the “sick man of Europe”, marked by sluggish growth, high taxation, inflation, industrial strife, the three-day week and an IMF bailout.
The second half saw us us hollowed out into a garrison of the neoliberal, globalist-corporatist empire, accomplished in tandem with the decimation of the manufacturing industries in favour of a consumer/services based economy. Our social and cultural life is now crippled by the cancer of wokeness, an agenda set by a bare handful of urban liberal fanatics.
During all of this, Elizabeth barely uttered a peep, at least not in public. She is supposed to have had her weekly audiences with the Prime Minister, all of which remain private, undocumented and, thus, immune to any scrutiny. But given the results which actually transpired, either she has failed to act as a roadblock to the destruction of a once great nation, or she has been fully complicit.
Particularly notable is that, for more than four decades, we sat as a golden goose to be plucked by the crumbling experiment in transnational, transcultural governance known as the European Union. Some of the Queen’s predecessors of prior centuries – her own father and grandfather included - fought wars in order to keep British sovereignty out of the hands of a foreign power. It was left to a rare display of public revolt by her own subjects to bring at least a formal end to this status.
As I have explained recently, the monarchy could provide a much needed restraining influence upon Britain’s exceptionally centralised system of government. Instead, all we have is a figurehead whose role is to do little more than cut ribbons and wave from balconies.
No doubt, there has always been a tacit understanding between the Palace and the government that this should, indeed, be the arrangement – “Keep schtum, Your Majesty, or you’re out!” After all, they gave the boot to her uncle, the unreliable and interfering Edward VIII, for the dubious excuse of his marriage plans. But it was critical, during these past decades, for us to have had a monarch to muster the courage to stand up to this, one who would display the resilience necessary to help prevent what this country has become - even if it meant risking herself and the very institution she leads.
Ironically, though, it may be her eternal public silence which ends up jeopardising the centuries-old continuity the monarchy represents. Much of Elizabeth’s popularity is personal to her, ranking far ahead that of any other royal; like that of her late mother, her longevity has served to cement her as an institution in her own right. There is little indication that either of Princes Charles and William will muster this kind of popular support - especially not if they complete the transformation of the Crown into just another leftist/environmentalist outpost. Without a role that is seen to be substantively critical to the UK’s constitution, Elizabeth’s passing could well prove to be a watershed moment in public support for the monarchy as a whole.
In short, Elizabeth has failed every test which has been required of her during these past seventy years, and I see little reason to celebrate her reign.