Was Queen Elizabeth II a Restraint on Societal Decline?

Thoughts on the year since her death

One year ago tomorrow, Queen Elizabeth II departed from her reign on Earth to enjoy the reign of Christ in Heaven.

Her passing was not easy for this Anglophile Texan, who just a few weeks before had joyously celebrated her Platinum Jubilee in London wearing a red cap slightly altered to read, “Make America Great Britain.”  I even broke down in tears when I spoke about her good example to a Christian study group I lead — and I wasn’t embarrassed about it although I certainly tried to keep my composure.  I greatly admired her and mourned her passing and had no problem with my friends and, well, just about anyone knowing that. Nor am I ashamed that I wept writing this.

I still miss her.

And, one year later, I am thinking that even I and the British who so loved her did not realize just how vital was her presence with us.

Yes, the British had stripped the Monarchy of most of its concrete powers by the time Elizabeth ascended to the throne.  She was not even supposed to let her political views be known except in the strictest privacy.  The series “The Queen” has her disliking that early on.  Given that she was a woman of conviction, I suspect she did.

I can only imagine what she thought when, wearing her crown, she was expected to read the many versions of The Queen’s Speech at the opening of Parliament through the years, all written by whatever political party happened to be in power.  I sometimes amused myself by wishing she would interrupt a Queen’s Speech by saying, “This is rubbish! I’m not reading this crap!”  Of course, she did no such thing, but was she ever tempted?

Yet she influenced none the less.  Several of her fifteen Prime Ministers (U. K. Prime Ministers.  By one count, she had a total of 179 PMs of various realms.) noted that they valued her input during their private meetings.  The PMs would be dolts not to — she had been privy to so much through the decades to buttress her wisdom.

On rare occasions, she influenced the public also on pivotal matters in spite of the restraints on her.  I most remember that subtle comment before the Scottish Referendum on independence.  She was leaving church — or kirk — in Scotland when she told a well-wisher, “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future.”  As soon as she said that, the referendum never had a chance against The Queen’s love and hopes for Scotland.  It wasn’t even close after her comment.  “No” won by over 10 points.

But the year since her death perhaps has revealed her influence that much more, making her passing that much more sad.  It is both hard not to notice and distressing to notice how the United Kingdom and the Church of England have accelerated their declines in the past year.

Three days before her death, The Queen somehow managed to receive her last Prime Minister, Liz Truss.  I was among those who had high hopes for Truss.  I knew she would not be another Margaret Thatcher, but expected her to be the closest thing to Thatcher since that great Prime Minister or at least quite an improvement on Boris Johnson.  The Conservative Party membership seemed to like her, too, selecting her by a 57-43 margin over Rishi Sunak.

Well, the Tory MPs would not have a PM the grassroots Conservatives actually liked, who even had a whiff of Thatcher.  They ran her off after only 50 days . . . after The Queen’s passing.  Truss’ time as U. K. Prime Minister was the shortest in history.  In her place is the useless tool, Rishi Sunak, who having stabbed Boris in the back, helped dispatch Liz as well.  The Tories did not even bother with a membership election to put him in place.  And the invasion and decline of Britain accelerates under him.  He is already an utter failure.  But don’t complain too loudly, or you might lose your bank and more.  For basic British freedoms are in speedy decline as well.

As for the Church of England, where to begin?  And where to end that dying church?  The General Synod passed same-sex blessings in February of this year.  In July, the Archbishop of York poormouthed the Lord’s Prayer as “problematic.”  Morale, and likely faithfulness, among clergy is declining.  The Church of England is what is problematic.  It has become just another dying LibChurch, just with nicer old buildings . . . that it’s struggling to maintain.

It’s almost as if the United Kingdom and the Church of England, out of respect for Her Majesty, waited until after her passing to go full speed ahead into the abyss.  Which has me thinking . . .

There is an interesting tradition of interpretation of 2nd Thessalonians 2:6-8.  St. Paul was writing about “the man of lawlessness,” “the son of perdition”:

And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. (ESV)

One interpretation has it that the restrainer Paul is referring to is the Roman Empire.  He did not come out and write that because saying that the Roman Empire would ever end was just not done.  This passage and interpretation influenced the medieval apocalyptic tradition of the Last Emperor, that there would be a godly and strong Last Emperor who, after defeating the enemies of The Faith, would give up his power and lay down his crown at the Mount of Olives.  After that, AntiChrist would appear and the times would become very interesting.

Now I am uncertain how accurate this interpretation and tradition is, and I do not think Elizabeth II was the Last Emperor.  I certainly do not think Rishi Sunak is the AntiChrist. The Son of Perdition will surely be more competent.  Nor am I as Anglocentric in my eschatology as several interesting English writers of the 17th Century.  But I wonder if she is a precursor or at least an example of how important a Christian ruler can be, both in reigning and in passing.

In her last years, was there any prominent ruler in the world who was as committed and outspoken in her Christian faith?  Is there any now?  Watch her most recent Christmas messages for samples of that.  As a Christian, I am convinced that a committed Christian ruler who prays makes a difference.  And the absence of such makes a difference as well.  And The Queen was a woman of prayer.

If you’d rather leave God out of it, England revered Elizabeth, especially in her later years.  Surely in the back of the minds of many actors in church and government, there was at least a slight hesitancy to do anything that would grieve The Queen.

I think the case can be made that by her prayers to the Lord, by her godly example, and by the love and reverence she had earned from her people, Elizabeth II was a restraint on the decline of the United Kingdom.  Perhaps Liz Truss was more right than she knew when she said upon The Queen’s death:

Queen Elizabeth II was the rock on which modern Britain was built. Our country has grown and flourished under her reign. Britain is the great country it is today because of her.

With no Christian ruler of her faithfulness and prominence in the world today, one can wonder if her presence restrained decline well beyond the shores of Britain.

Whether so or not, I still miss her.  And I suspect the world has no idea how much it should miss her.