Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Crawling king snake?

The young girl who was crowned Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 is now 80 years old. In a reign that has been, on the whole, disastrous for her country, she's been a model of monarchical dignity and poise through thick and thin. Of course, plans are already being made for the succession, when the present Prince of Wales will be anointed King Charles III (I guess; I don't think British monarchs can choose new names for themselves, like Popes).


King Charles the Diverse

Tim Walker, writing in the Speccie, muses on what can be expected on that momentous day. He asks — hands up, anyone who's surprised — "Will Charles be the first multicultural monarch?" And answers: "While he has always revered his mother, Prince Charles is understandably keen that his coronation should bear his imprimatur and that it should be seen to mark the beginning of a new era and a new kind of reign." Walker continues:
He wants the event also to acknowledge the religious diversity of the country that he will be ruling. In 1953 the Queen pledged solemnly to do her utmost to ‘maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law’. In what will be regarded as a dramatic break with convention, I am told Prince Charles is drawn to the idea that, following the formal Christian ceremony in the Abbey, in which he will be crowned ‘by the grace of God’, there should be a separate interdenominational ceremony in Westminster Hall in the Palace of Westminster to reflect his desire to represent the peoples of all religions. …

In doing this he would simply be fulfilling his promise to his biographer Jonathan Dimbleby in the 1994 television documentary Charles: The Private Man, The Public Role, that he wished to be seen as a ‘defender of faith’ rather than ‘defender of the faith’, the form of words used since the time of Henry VIII.
The change of wording is hardly unreasonable. The question is, what lies behind it? Britain in all the years since Henry VIII has had non-Anglicans, including Jews, Hindus, and Muslims among its people. Since the early 19th century Catholics have been legally recognized as having the same rights as any other British subjects. Nobody got fussed about "defender of the faith." It was just an acknowledgement that Britain had an established Church, which in itself is neither good nor bad.

Charles's Muslim sympathies are well known, even to the point where it is rumored that he has secretly converted. That's probably bunk, but it's hard to doubt that he has openly converted to the most widespread Western religion of our age, the Church of the Holy Multiculturalism. Walker adds:
‘It is no secret that the PoW [Prince of Wales, not prisoner of war, although that may come later if the U.K. doesn't become an Islamic Republic fast enough to suit the imams] has long felt passionately about this matter,’ the courtier adds. ‘His determination not to yield so much as an inch of this ground has been strengthened a hundredfold by the events of recent weeks. It has dismayed him to see the people who will one day be his subjects turn upon each other on the basis of their religious convictions. As sovereign, he will wish to demonstrate that he is apart from the politicians who have been sounding off so much lately on, among other things, the issue of veils and that he can set an example for the entire country to follow.’
You don't have to be an alarmist to worry about what example he plans to set.

The British monarchy is a ceremonial role, the carrier of a tradition that until recently gave English, Scottish, and Welsh something to tie them together in a history and nation. It is meant to be old-fashioned, backward looking, unchanging. Change is the job of politicians and citizens, not those who emerge from aristocratic wombs to play at colorful pageantry. Elizabeth II has always understood this, as has every monarch since Victoria — and even the very assertive Victoria knew there were limits.

Charles, it appears, doesn't. He has eyes to be an enthroned social worker and expects the Crown, like almost every other institution in modern Britain, to explain to the proles how to live. If that means throwing a multi-culti party after the coronation and crawling before leaders of the Islamizing Britain Project, just say the word. Charles isn't about to (as the English expression goes) "over-egg the pudding" with too much dignity when he accepts his new lid, either.
I am told that, in the early years of the 21st century, Prince Charles is of the view that much will have to be done differently from the coronation of 1953. It will not be possible, for instance, for the five tiers of the hereditary peerage to wait in attendance on him in the way they did for his mother. Tony Blair’s ‘reforms’ have, of course, rendered them all but obsolete. Although his mother permitted television cameras from the BBC into Westminster Abbey to transmit live pictures of her coronation, they were required to withdraw at certain points in the ceremony which she felt, together with Dr Geoffrey Fisher, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be too sacred. Prince Charles, for his part, recognises that such deference no longer pertains. He understands that if the event is to be accorded full live coverage by the major channels, it must be truncated from the three hours of pomp and circumstance that kept more than 20 million Englishmen and women enthralled in drab, postwar Britain into a ‘less unwieldy’ and more ‘focused and telecentric’ event for blasé modern viewers.
Charles. Let me tell you, Reg old boy, this isn't going to be their Mum and Dad's coronation show on the telly, you can ride that one into the stable.
Reginald, TV producer by appointment to His Majesty. No, Sir.
Charles. I figure 50 minutes, tops, with a break at the bottom of the hour for a BBC hate-America session.
Reg. Very good, Sir.
Charles. Oh, Reg, do give over that "Sir" wheeze. Call me Chuck, like Elton does. Or Al-Wazir, like Fouad and Mohammed do. Now, were you able to get good footage of the Burundi dancers and Croatian carolers and Dervish chaps for the cut-ins when the Archbishop goes all plodding?
Reg. Yes, er, Chuck.
Charles. And remember, none of that 'sacred' tosh. Make it go, man! Lots of billowing smoke, coloured strobe lights, that lot. Make sure the cameras pan over all the show biz celebrities in attendance, but watch that crowd, see to it that the ladies are all covered up with those berserkers or whatever you call them — no, now I think on it, dress them in that clobber with the face coverings and eye slits, and make sure they stand and walk well behind their gentlemen friends. I'm determined to show my Muslim mates we respect our women.
Reg (warming to the new dispensation). Hey, Al-Waz, way to go. Now as to music …
Charles. I say, can you play 'God Save the King' on the buzuq and tablah?


Mr. Spog said...

The Queen could be around for 20 more years, though, considering that her mother lived to be 101. Charles' ideas about multiculturalism might have been revised by that time.

Rick Darby said...

From your keyboard to God's ear, Mr. Spog!

Anonymous said...

The current queen was crowned in 1952 not 1953 and therefore had her 25 year silver jubilee in 1977 and her 50 year golden jubilee in 2002. Get your facts right!!!!