God Save the Queen

Which God?

The coronation of the next monarch will include a role for people of other faiths besides Christianity, in a break with a thousand years of history, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt…

Church of England leaders have accepted the need to be “hospitable” to other faiths within any future service at Westminster Abbey, in order to reflect the spiritual diversity of modern Britain.

More here.

‘Spiritual diversity?’ That doesn’t matter. Britain will be a Muslim country within the next 50 years or so and then they’ll see how well they do with their ‘spiritual diversity’.

And almost as if to make my point:

A new analysis…

… shows that a decade of mass immigration helped mask the scale of decline in Christian affiliation among the British-born population – while driving a dramatic increase in Islam, particularly among the young.

It suggests that only a minority of people will describe themselves as Christians within the next decade, for first time.

Meanwhile almost one in 10 under 25s in Britain is now a Muslim…

And:

The flag of St George will not be flying over Radstock any time soon after town councillors decided it was inappropriate because of its links with campaigns against Islam hundreds of years ago.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson (Lab, Radstock), a university lecturer and teacher, said its use during the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries could mean the English national flag could be seen by some as offensive.

She added: “My big problem is that it is offensive to some Muslims…”

And this:

A disturbing story of child sex abuse has been gripping the people of Oxford, England.

Seven local men have been found guilty of rape, trafficking and arranging a child prostitution ring.

The convicted men are of Pakistani and North African backgrounds.

Their victims were as young as 11-years-old…

Along with the police chief, members of Oxford’s Muslim community are doing some some soul searching of their own wondering how the abusers were able to commit their crimes for so long.

Or this:

There are “hundreds” of Europeans now fighting in Syria, some of whom are with groups linked to al Qaeda, the Home Office told MPs.

The British-born jihadis are said to have joined the fight with Jabhat al-Nusra, the country’s most militant al-Qaeda gang…

Officials warned of the risk to Britain and other European nations posed by foreign fighters now gaining military experience in Syria…

 

In an Era of Feeble Bishops, the Queen has Helped Keep the Faith Alive

Damian Thompson:

Is Queen Elizabeth II the true Christian leader of our country? An odd question for a Catholic to ask, you might think, but consider the feebleness of senior bishops – Anglican and Catholic – during the 60 years of her reign. She has been served by great prime ministers, but no great Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Queen’s last few Christmas broadcasts demonstrate the intensity of her faith. She reminds Christians that the feast marks “the birth of Our Saviour”, the “Prince of Peace” who is “our source of light and life in both good times and bad”. In old age she has underlined this message more heavily than she once did – not in an obtrusive way that would cause offence to non-Christians, but boldly enough to make some of us sit up from our post-lunch slumber and think: “She really believes what she says”.

When she does so, she speaks as directly to Catholics as to Protestants. We papists may have been taught to reject the notion of a monarch as Supreme Governor of a national Church – but the concept of a Christian monarch is as old as Constantine.

Since the Queen ascended to the throne, churchgoing in Britain has more than halved; the Churches as institutions have suffered far greater damage than the monarchy. Indeed, this country’s overtly Christian royal ceremonies have held off the moment that the faith in Britain becomes as residual and meaningless as it has in parts of Europe.

The anxiety for Christians is that this effect depends on the personal convictions of Elizabeth II, who is not only more pious than her children but has also taken her religious duties more seriously than many of her predecessors. If the British monarchy of the future recasts itself as a mere guarantor of religious liberty – as Prince Charles seems to envisage – then the secularisation of public life will be complete.

That’s a miserable prospect, in my opinion, but not one we should dwell on today. For 60 years, the Queen has defended not “faith” in the abstract but the revelations of Christianity. That she has done so in such an unassuming and gentle manner makes her witness no less powerful.

 

The Diamond Jubilee: All Glory is Fleeting

Padre Steve has a point:

Whenever I see anything about Queen Elizabeth II, especially the grand celebrations that reverberate around the nations that at one time or another were the exploited subjects of the British Empire I am less than excited. Nothing against the Queen or her predecessors I am less than impressed by the tabloid  media spectacle that currently surrounds the House of Windsor. At one time the British monarchy meant something, it was the titular symbol of an empire that spanned the globe. It was the symbol of the world’s mightiest navy, and largest and most powerful economic system.  It was the symbol of a nation that had stood alone against Napoleon and Hitler, it was the symbol of stability in times of tumult that Britons of all political leanings could rally around. But it was a symbol, a symbol of a nation that pioneered the rule of law and rule by a government of the parliamentary majority in the House of Commons. While the monarch was and is the “Head of State” their influence since the 1701 Act of Settlement  has been mostly symbolic and the practical function of the monarch is limited to non-partisan activities such as granting honors and titles.

Today Queen Elizabeth reigns over a struggling nation and empire in name only. For much of her reign the Royal family has symbolized the decline of the empire with various members becoming the laughingstock of the world. While the Monarchy has recovered from the worst of its dips in popularity following the death of Princess Diana the the Royal family still surrounded by opulence and the splendor of history has with few exceptions seemed out of touch, indolent and irrelevant.  Some commentators have said that today’s “naval review” was important to give people a “sense of national pride at a time when the economy is in recession and people face deep austerity measures.”

The Fleet Review at Elizabeth’s Coronation (above) and Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee (below)

When I saw the news coverage of today’s “review” in the Thames I was happy for the Queen and how much it seemed to mean to a lot of the people present.  Yet at the same time I was saddened about the condition Britain. When King George VI, Queen Elizabeth’s father was crowned a real naval review showcasing over 200 warships from Britain and around the world were on display to pay honor to the new King. When Queen Victoria celebrated her Diamond Jubilee in 1897 165 ships of the Royal Navy were present. In the sense of history I found the motley collection of some 1000 small craft that paraded down the Thames to be less than impressive, a testament of sentimentality over substance, a triumph of merchandising rather than might. The presence of several dozen antique survivors of the Miracle of Dunkirk in 1940 in the parade was interesting and meaningful but it was a reminder of how a nation rallied to save its Army from certain annihilation in 1940 that said more about the British people than the current monarchy.

The British monarchy is in decline and even the question of succession provokes questions as to what shape and influence it will have in the future. The sad fact is that today’s parade on the Thames in honor of Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee is a celebration of past glory that provides momentary comfort to a nation is crisis. It is a reminder that indeed “all glory is fleeting.”

Fleeting indeed…