For all the discussion in recent decades of our decline, it is clear that much of the soul of Britain remains intact. In this instance the bonds between us have been highlighted amidst shared loss.
Watching the funeral of the late Queen Elizabeth II was an occasion for so many ideas central to conservatism take their physical form. Whilst we often speak of the nation, and of our shared bonds, their abstract discussion is easier than their physical conjuring. Yet during the funeral, that the nation is a contract between the dead, the living and yet-to-be-born took on a self-evident, undeniable form.
The pageantry and splendour on display – the breast-plated cavalrymen, the Tudor uniforms of the Yeomen of the Guard, the beauty of the Christian service – spoke to us as a nation. Its historical profundity echoed down the ages to us, briefly shaking off the confused fug of modernity. Even the most ardent republican would have found it difficult not to feel the draw of our common identity so magnificently on display.
Yet, here it all was – so much of what makes us British. The quandary of what exactly ‘British values’ are has troubled many an asinine modern mind. Usually hollow notions such as ‘fair play’ and ‘a sense of humour’ are mentioned, as if other nations believe themselves to be humourless cheats.
Rather, it is in great part our institutions, derived from our unique political settlement. The crown passing seamlessly from mother to son. Beyond him, two more male heirs wait their turn. Rarely in our history has the monarchy’s future seem so secure. That this has taken place against the backdrop of a change in government is all the more remarkable. For much of our past, and for many nations at present, having two such seismic events occurring simultaneously would result in civil strife and conflict.
Centuries of wrangling, fighting and negotiating have resulted in our settled constitutional norms. They are not systematically written down, but are passed on from one generation to the next in an organic process. We have largely avoided the temptation to rationalise these matters into coldly worded constitutions, as we know that it is only a people’s unity and consent that can guarantee this process.
There is much destruction in a nation. Humanity, also has a tendency towards catastrophising, with people in every era predicting an imminent downfall, or at least steady degradation. Occasions such as the funeral should give us some heart that the fight is not yet lost.
However, it does not mean we are off the hook. During the late Queen’s funeral, those responsible for such a goodly proportion of our relative decline – the likes of Johnson, Blair, Cameron and Brown – added a dollop of political repellence to proceedings. The opportunistic sharks of Meghan and her ginger imbecile affixing their own tawdry mark of modern celebrity, in all its vacuousness.
And while the nation has been largely united in these historical moments, other events remind us that we are not a country undivided.
In Leicester (a typically ‘diverse’ Midland town) running fights between Hindu and Muslim youths have been happening on and off since August 28, after a cricket game between India and Pakistan which was played in Dubai.
Dozens have been arrested amid continued violence. Videos on social media paint an alarming picture: youths of different religions scuffling on the street, vandalising each others’ property. People from further afield have been travelling into the town to bolster their favoured side in the ongoing fights, all the while chanting provocative slogans.
Not that religious tension is new in Britain, just that we spent a few centuries working through our own internal divisions – largely Catholic and Protestant. From the moment Henry VIII declared England’s separation from the control of Rome, matters of conscience became an incendiary issue for centuries, adding fuel to the violent upheavals of the English Civil War and being a vital ingredient in the bloodless revolution of 1688. Having solved our own quandary, we import those of others.
Wishful thinking has had it that the second a man or woman hits the verdant terra firma of Blighty that they become as British as a cup of tea and biscuits. Reality, however, is less generous. Assimilation is a long process, and one made practically impossible by the foolish attempts by so many to deny the very existence of a British culture. Nobody watching the Queen’s funeral could entertain so absurd a notion.
Events in Leicester are merely a reminder of the sundry other problems we face, which straddle our social, political and economic life.
It could well be the case that the sight of our accumulated historical inheritance will remind people of what we have lost, and what we stand to lose before long. But I am not hopeful. My fear is that the tidal wave of emotion is focused on the individual of Elizabeth II, and not the monarchy – together with its role in our national life and, hence, our own. Charles III, with one of the hardest acts to follow in British history, faces an uphill challenge.
Was the funeral a timely reminder of who, and what, we are? Or is it a closing hurrah of a Britain that people have neither the understanding nor desire required to keep going? Time will tell. What is impossible to deny is that the dead have left us with so much to treasure, and we are proving its unworthy custodians, imperilling the birthright of the yet-to-be-born.
I truly sympathise with the yearning for a sense of permanence and the need to value one’s own culture and traditions. I have watched the collapse of everything over my adult life and have grieved.
There was a recent piece on TCW in support of the new king: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-we-need-a-king/
I found the comment section interesting, however, in that they were overwhelmingly negative toward the monarchy. These were coming from people who, we would expect, would likely be most supportive (except that they are awake to the NWO and global agendas etc.). For example, here is the top comment (satire):
“I was never particularly a monarchist but the way the monarchy opened up its many residences to the nation and dug deep in its very deep pockets during the recent "pandemic" and the way the recent monarch so eloquently defended people's right to choose which medicines to take,and the way all the monarchy have spoken out so forcefully against the erosion of the English people and culture and mass immigration and the way none of them are elitist entitled rich radical activists has completely changed my perspective now I realize they care about the people and country they reign over as opposed to just caring about themselves and the current minority ideologies.” Zakisbak
I don’t think Charles will be popular at all — after all, he sees himself as the WEF King of the NWO. To give my own answer to the question posed:
“Was the funeral a timely reminder of who, and what, we are? Or is it a closing hurrah of a Britain that people have neither the understanding nor desire required to keep going? Time will tell.”
This will be neither a return to monarchistic tradition, nor a people abandoning themselves and laying down to die. Rather, it will be the end of something, and the start of something new.
'Charles III, with one of the hardest acts to follow in British history, faces an uphill challenge.' What? doing what he's told to do, smile, shake hands and be polite and not being allowed to be any way political is par for the course, no? Sounds a doddle to me.