God Save the Queen (From Ignominy)
How terrible when everyone says only good things about you, because their ancestors said the same things about the false prophets. [Luke 6:26]
The death of a human being is sad.
I don’t find Elizabeth Windsor’s death sad because she was a “queen.” And I don’t consider her passing a “loss” for the United Kingdom anymore than I would the dissolution of the monarchy itself—if the nation were to be so blessed.
This lady’s death is sad because she was a beloved human being.
Royal Blues
Aside from the very real and legitimate sense of loss on the part of those who personally knew and loved the queen, or “loved” her from afar—the reason I don’t consider her death a societal “loss” is because I don’t believe she (or anyone else!) should have been a monarch in the first place.
I’ve become convinced that monarchies are unBiblical. In the distant past, the first “governments” that we might recognize would have been the organic outgrowth of local elders conferring together over issues of mutual concern to their families or tribes. An elder team-up would have functioned in like manner to a government today, but with far less complexity and overseeing far fewer people. Inevitably there came a day when an elder decided he should be a “little more equal” than his fellow elders; he gathered supporters and/or used violence or threats to put himself in a “kingly” position.
Bear in mind here that the most natural and Biblical form of “government” is what I just described at the outset: a conclave of family heads. God created both families and family headship. As the total human population grew, it’s only natural that multiple family heads would need to confer about issues facing more than one family in a given region.
But the concept of one particular elder lording it over others?—that’s a violation of God’s design.
So, when God’s original “chosen people,” the Israelites, began to demand “a king to rule us like all the other nations” (1 Samuel 8:5), God told the prophet Samuel,
“They have rejected me. They don’t want me to be their king. They are doing the same thing they have always done. I took them out of Egypt, but they left me and served other gods.” [Verses 7-8]
Monarchies are an “other gods” phenomenon: the idolization and abuse of power.
Eventually the Israelites realized (12:19) that asking for a king was in fact a sin. But apparently it was too late: God intended to teach them a whopping big lesson by establishing an Israelite monarchy.
Generations later Jesus told his followers “that the rulers in this world lord it over their people” (Matthew 20:25 1). One person isn’t meant to have that kind of power over others.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth’s very position as a monarch is opposed to the Biblical worldview. Monarchies shouldn’t exist at all.
Royal Treatment
But even if we make room in our thinking for the concept of a monarchy, how should we evaluate Elizabeth as a “queen”? Was she a good ruler or a bad one?
Her position (and now that of King Charles III) was the result of a drawn-out transition in many countries from absolute monarchies (the king or queen having absolute power) to constitutional monarchies, “in which the king or queen’s power is severely limited, because they act only on the advice of the politicians who form the government.”
Which raises the question: What was Elizabeth actually the “queen” of?
“A stupid question,” you might retort. “She was the sovereign of the British realm!”
Was she, though?
She was treated like a queen, but in terms of actual political power, she had virtually none; she was merely a figurehead. A British monarch’s “powers are symbolic and ceremonial,” says the BBC, “and he [or she] remains politically neutral.”2 According to the Royal Family’s own website, “while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.”3
So, I have to ask: How can you be the sovereign of the realm if you’re not actually in charge? How can you be the nation’s ruler if you don’t actually, you know—rule? Even the word monarch—from the Greek monarkhēs, “sole ruler”—has been voided of substance.
Might as well redesign the royal coat of arms with a declawed lion and a hornless unicorn.
Nineteenth-century British journalist Walter Bagehot tried to argue that even though the Queen plays a merely ceremonial role intended to “excite and preserve the reverence of the population,”4 her “use” to the realm “is incalculable. Without her in England, the present English Government would fail and pass away.”5
I simply don’t believe him.
Royal Acquiescence
I agree with monarchists who “see the queen as a source of soft power in the world and a stabilizing factor: a bridge between the nation’s past and its present.”6
In other words: fictitious power acquiescing to whatever the nation wants to do.
On the occasion of her Platinum Jubilee, the queen practically acknowledged as much:
“These last seven decades have seen extraordinary progress socially, technologically and culturally that have benefitted us all; and I am confident that the future will offer similar opportunities to us and especially to the younger generations in the United Kingdom and throughout the Commonwealth.”7
No mention of the realm’s spiritual and moral decay:
The Christian tradition once formed the foundation of [British] society, but today minority religions, especially Islam, also receive significant attention and government support. Astrology, New Age, the occult, and old-world paganism (Druid/Wicca) are all slowly becoming more popular, but none as fast as spirituality and religion are declining. The “freedoms” of the 1960s had disastrous social consequences, and Britain has alarming levels of alcohol and drug abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, prostitution, gambling addiction, and personal debt.8
Indeed, she appeared to embrace the national repaganization:
Whether we believe in God or not, I think most of us have a sense of the spiritual . . . .
This spirituality can be seen in the teachings of other great faiths. Of course religion can be divisive, but the Bible, the Koran and the sacred texts of the Jews and Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs, are all sources of divine inspiration and practical guidance passed down through the generations.9
That point of view was complemented twenty-two years later when Elizabeth claimed that her record seven decades on the throne “affords me a time to reflect on the goodwill shown to me by people of all nationalities, faiths and ages in this country and around the world over these years.”
Of course they would, Your Highness: you never challenged them in any way they found offensive. Rather than trying to inspire them with the “message about the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4), you demoted the Lord—the True Sovereign—to their level. Even though “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), “the Queen, who, as monarch, is also the ceremonial head of the Church of England, appears to have decided that times have changed[.]”10
I wish the queen—a professing Christian—had listened to the warning of Jesus: “Woe to you when all people speak well of you, for this is the way their ancestors used to treat the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26)
Royal Assent
Elizabeth claimed that faith in Jesus was her “anchor,” and that “Christ’s example helps me see the value of doing small things with great love.”
It would be nice if, for the love and glory of Christ, she had tried to do some big things.
Not only did she acquiesce to the UK’s decline, like a mascot cheering on the team, she seems to have affirmed it. I noted above that in Britain’s constitutional monarchy, the “sovereign” holds no real power. But one sword remains in their depleted arsenal: royal assent. As explained by the BBC, “Royal assent is the final stage during the passage of legislation through Parliament. A bill which has been given royal assent becomes an act of Parliament and is then law.”
Why haven’t most people heard of this before? . . . Well, for the simple reason that “the monarch is very unlikely to withhold consent. Queen Anne was the last monarch to do so in 1707 11.”
In other words, Parliament does all the legislative work—tabling a bill, debating it, drafting the final wording of the proposed legislation—and then the Crown rubber-stamps it into law.
If you’re both a Christian and a fan of Queen Elizabeth, think very carefully about what this means. It means that over the course of her 70-year reign, whenever the British parliament legislated a law that runs counter to the Christian worldview—Elizabeth signed off on it. Most egregiously, this includes:
her royal assent to the 1967 Abortion Act;
her assent to euthanasia laws in the Commonwealth’s Australia, Canada and New Zealand;12
her affirmation of gay marriage;13 and
her assent to Australia, New Zealand, and Canada’s “conversion therapy“ bans.
Related to the last item, the queen is reported to have also “urged the U.K. to ban conversion therapy”—even though, ironically, it's still illegal in Britain.14
Given Elizabeth’s claim that “the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life”—why didn’t she refuse to give her assent to these pieces of legislation?
More on that question in a moment.
Royal Religion
Whatever Elizabeth’s (and now Charles’) relationship with Parliament, what about her relationship with the Church of England? Since the monarch is the nominal head of the church—the official title is Fidei Defensor, “Defender of the Faith”—why didn’t the queen do a better job of defending the faith?
After all, that’s what she vowed at her coronation that she would do:
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? . . .
Queen: All this I promise to do. . . . The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.
Mind you, I find it strange that even back in 1952, before her coronation, she asked the British people, “whatever your religion may be, to pray . . . that God may give me wisdom and strength to carry out the solemn promises I shall be making, and that I may faithfully serve Him and you, all the days of my life.”
Why would Elizabeth have asked non-Christians to pray for her success in defending and promoting the absolute, exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ? Is it possible that even when Britain was still an ostensibly “Christian” nation, she perhaps didn’t grasp or appreciate that King Jesus is what Christianity is all about?15
Yet according to some, Elizabeth was, indeed, an exemplar and champion of the faith:
. . . Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby praised the Queen “for her dedication to us all, and her faithful witness to Jesus Christ.”16
Queen Elizabeth shared often that her Christian faith was a central part of her life and her ability to serve the Commonwealth with such steadfastness and dignity.17
As we mourn the loss of Queen Elizabeth II, we thank God for her faith and her life, defined by service and commitment to her God and country. The . . . Queen was well-respected around the world, and an inspiration to many Christians as she lived out her faith as a leader in the public square.18
Notice again that element of praise from all quarters—and its obvious clash with Jesus’ warning. The sad truth is that Elizabeth Windsor did not “live out her faith as a leader in the public square” when it mattered most: in public policy and as a call to Britons to bow the knee to the True Monarch.
A superb commentary on the queen’s apparent endorsement of gay marriage, specifically, comes from Dr. Peter Saunders. While he said at one point that the queen “is a committed Christian believer who takes very seriously her duty to maintain ‘the true profession of the Gospel’ ”—which in my view is questionable—Saunders rightly asks: “But what about her similar duty to ‘maintain the Laws of God’?”
The Laws of God about marriage are very clear. . . .
The redefinition of marriage which is the basis of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill runs directly contrary to [Scripture].19
It is therefore very difficult to see how the Queen can give it her Royal Assent without at the same time violating her Coronation Oath.
As one of Saunders’ readers has aptly put it:
Maintaining the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel, to the utmost of one’s power, involves a little bit more than just giving a nice little talk on the telly once a year.
. . . .
Her Majesty Elizabeth II has never taken a public stand on any important issue of principle, so far as I am aware. Along with Ethelred the Unready, Alfred the Great, and Edward the Confessor, England has now had a monarch who deserves to be remembered for centuries to come as Elizabeth the Rubber Stamp.20
Now, the obvious question is: What would have been the consequences if Her Majesty had tried to veto the aforementioned pieces of legislation?
Well, on the positive side, even if Parliament had skirted around her authority, at least she would have been true to the normative doctrines of the Church of England. After all, we would expect the person in that position—especially in light of her oath—to be held to Biblical standards of church eldership, wouldn’t we?21 In a genuinely Biblical church, if a leader affirmed abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage, he’d be removed from his position.22
It appears nobody batted an eye when Queen Elizabeth signed off on those reprehensible changes in the law.
On the contrary, at her funeral, the Dean of Westminster Abbey, Dr. David Hoyle, referred to “her constant example of Christian faith and devotion.”23 But it wasn’t constant.
Helen Cameron, Moderator of the Free Churches Group, mentioned Elizabeth’s “compassion for her subjects”—except for the victims of abortion—“and her counsel to her ministers”24—but how did she counsel them about marriage, the unborn, the sanctity of life, and the pivotal position of the nuclear family?
Can it honestly be said that Elizabeth carried, in the words of Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York, an “unswerving devotion to the Gospel”25?
Then-Prince Charles asserted that the queen made “the commonwealth such an important force for good.”
Really?
The Commonwealth has been steadily re-paganizing; becoming more corrupt, immoral, fascist, neo-Marxist, and hostile to Christ and His followers. The last couple of years have made that more obvious than ever.
Of course, the newly minted king doesn’t exactly strike me as an expert on what’s “good” for the world. In his sermon at Queen Elizabeth’s funeral, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, claimed that Charles III “shares the same faith and hope in Jesus Christ as his mother.”
Is there any good reason we should believe this?
Royal Flush
With that rhetorical question about King Charles’ faith—or lack thereof—I’m implying that I do believe Queen Elizabeth herself was likely a genuine Christian and is now in the presence of the Lord Jesus.
That doesn’t mean I’m a fan of her queendom.
Look, if you’re a Christian, you really have only two options for how to look at this: either Elizabeth was a true believer privately but shied away from doing the right thing in the aforementioned cases—or else she actually agreed with those pieces of legislation—in which case her profession of faith in Christ is suspect, at best.
Take your pick. I can’t see a third option.
I’ve already conveyed that when it comes to political philosophy, I’m an anti-monarchist—but Elizabeth would at least have earned my respect if she’d taken a stand for Biblical morality. Instead she flushed it down society’s porcelain throne.
Or, to put it in nicer terms: rather than stand up, she stood aside.
But what if she hadn’t? What would have happened if the queen had refused royal assent to immoral legislation? Would her “veto power” have proved illusory?
Turns out we actually have a pretty good idea, because three contemporary European monarchs actually did what Elizabeth was unwilling or too afraid to do: stand for what’s right. In Belgium in 1990, for instance, the
civilian Government temporarily suspended King Baudouin I from power after he declared that he could not, in good conscience as a Roman Catholic, sign a new law permitting abortion.26
When reinstated after his 1-day “time-out,” Baudouin retained his “power” of royal assent, but its veneer of “authority” had been stripped away for good.
In a similar situation in 2008, the parliament of Luxembourg—at least they weren’t hypocrites—opted to do away with pretense entirely: they
moved to curtail the powers of the country’s monarch, Grand Duke Henri, after he refused to sign a euthanasia bill into law . . . vot[ing] 56-0, with one abstention, to amend the constitution so that bills will no longer require Henri’s approval before passing into law. The vote avoided a constitutional crisis . . . .
. . . .
The justice minister, Luc Frieden, said the change to the constitution let [sic] Henri continue his reign “while respecting the rules of democracy”.27
Did you catch the utter contradiction in that last sentence? “Henri [gets to] continue his reign ‘while respecting the rules of democracy.’ ” So . . . he doesn’t actually reign, then.
Don’t misunderstand me: while I believe a republic is a much more Biblical political philosophy, nonetheless if God hands you power, even just a scrap of it—use it to stand for righteousness. Odds are there would have been a constitutional crisis had Queen Elizabeth used royal assent in like manner to the above kings; odds are that Parliament would have knocked her down a peg.
Her heavy crown might have shrunk to a garland—but it would have been weightier in meaning.
Royal Welcome: The Other “Queen E”
On the other hand, what if a refusal to pass anti-Biblical legislation had had a positive outcome? That’s what happened in the case of the third European royal:
When in 2011 a popular initiative was held to legalize abortion, Hereditary Prince Aloys of Liechtenstein . . . announced that, irrespective of the result of the initiative or of any parliamentary vote, he would exercise his veto against any bill that would legalize abortion. The initiative was then rejected by a majority of the population.28
A follow-up campaign by angry abortion supporters to curtail the prince’s involvement in government failed miserably, with 76% of Liechtensteiners voting to uphold the prince’s power to veto future referendums. A royal leader refusing to give up his principles—and even threatening to leave the country over the situation—resulted in an unambiguous victory for the sanctity of life.29
It’s just possible that Queen Elizabeth would have had similar popular support. After all, “[f]ew leaders receive the outpouring of love we have seen” since her death.30
But if we ask, “Why does the Queen have such a special place in the hearts of so many?”31—is it possibly because she avoided the “mistake” Jesus made?
To his own brothers, who at that point hadn’t yet put faith in him, he explained: “The world can’t hate you, but it does hate me because I accuse it of doing evil.” (John 7:7)
There it is.
If Queen Elizabeth had warned her subjects that they were on an evil path, and urged them to bow the knee to King Jesus—would they, and the rest of the world, still adore her?
I seriously doubt it.
Jesus warned his disciples:
“The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you.” [John 15:19]
I wish Elizabeth had been willing to accept the world’s hate if that’s what it cost her to stand for righteousness when it counted most. As someone has rightly put it, “She should have preferred death, or at least to be deposed from her throne, to giving Royal Assent to these various [legislative] Acts.”32
There’s another “Queen E” who did face a possible death sentence in order to promote righteousness. In fifth-century-BC Persia, a Jewish exile named Hadassah was taken into the harem of King Xerxes I.33 Her name was changed to Esther, meaning “star.”
And was she ever. When a Persian conspiracy to destroy the Jews came to light, Esther appealed to the King—at risk of her life:
“All the king’s officials and even the people in the provinces know that anyone who appears before the king in his inner court without being invited is doomed to die unless the king holds out his gold scepter. And the king has not called for me to come to him for thirty days. . . .
. . . . If I must die, I must die.” [Esther 4:11, 16]
After a time of fasting,
Esther put on her royal robes and entered the inner court of the palace, just across from the king’s hall. The king was sitting on his royal throne, facing the entrance. When he saw Queen Esther standing there in the inner court, he welcomed her and held out the gold scepter to her. [5:1-2]
There’s a different kind of royal welcome we should all bear in mind. Those who submit to God, no matter the cost, will be given “a grand entrance into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 1:11)
What if Elizabeth had channeled (in a Christian way, of course) the spirit of Esther by saying: “If I am hated, I am hated”; “If I am dethroned, I am dethroned” . . . ?
And she might have been, in that case. That Britons don’t actually want an “Esther” is evidenced by the fact that, no matter the demographic—blue collar, white collar, old or young, Christian or pagan, gay or straight, libertarian or communist, pro-abortionist or pro-lifer—they all loved her.
Why?
Because she didn’t take a stand on anything controversial; on anything of true importance to the direction of the Commonwealth.
The Queen is Dead!
Long Live—Who or What, Exactly?
The implicit rejection of an “Esther” is evidenced also by the fact that the crowd at Buckingham Palace conveyed affection and support to both Elizabeth and Charles, as if the two were interchangeable insofar as their royal stature and role in British society are concerned; as if their respective “reigns” mean basically the same thing for the nation.
Assent to its decline.
It’s been reported that “King” Charles
will slim down the monarchy, prioritise green issues and radically overhaul the royal estates . . . . As the years have passed, Prince Charles has become increasingly alarmed by climate change, sometimes to the point of being apocalyptic.
Ah, yes: apocalyptic climate change. The bugaboo of the pagan.
Which means I could only shake my head at this comment by a British Christian on social media:
[C]ame out of a church service . . . and heard unmuffled bells ringing somewhere nearby…… [F]ollowed the sound! Got invited to ring in the last bit of the King’s Proclamation ring! Feeling blessed. :-)
Why?
There’s a chance, however constitutionally slim, that Charles III will prove to be more of a bona fide ruler than his mum ever was. And that won’t be a good thing. He’s sure to advance the cause of British and world eco-paganism.
If we wonder why Queen Elizabeth was so beloved, and why that same love (or at least a degree of it) now carries over to King Charles, maybe the simplest answer is: “Britons want to see the best of themselves reflected in their sovereign.”34
Sadly, over the last seventy years, maybe they have.
Note how the Greek verb behind the phrase “lord it over” is used in Acts 19:16!
BBC, “UK Royal Family: Who is in it and what does the King do?“ (11 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 11) (italics mine).
The Royal Household, “The role of the Monarchy“ (© Crown Copyright; accessed 11 Sept. 2022) (italics mine).
Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1867; accessed 11 Sept. 2022), 57.
Ibid., pp. 4-5.
Reuters, “ ‘You Continue to Make History’: Prince Charles Pays Tribute to the Queen,” Voice of America (4 June 2022; accessed Sept. 12) (italics mine). This was on the occasion of celebrating Elizabeth’s 70 years on the throne.
The Royal Household, “Accession Day 2022” (1 Feb. 2022; accessed Sept. 12).
Operation World, “Pray For: United Kingdom” (© 2022; accessed Sept. 12).
The Royal Household, “Christmas Broadcast 2000” (25 Dec. 2000; accessed 13 Sept. 2022) (italics mine).
David Mack, “Prince Charles Thanked The Queen For Giving Her Blessing For Camilla To Become ‘Queen Consort,’ ” BuzzFeed (6 Feb. 2022; accessed Sept. 13).
In context, the significance of this statement is twofold. Since the British monarch is officially the head of the Church of England, it was at one time virtually impossible for the sovereign or an heir to retain the throne if divorced or married to a divorced person. Also once upon a time, the British public—in love with Princess Diana—loathed Camilla Parker Bowles as a homewrecker.
I’m not suggesting adultery is unforgivable or that Camilla is evermore a “terrible” person. I’m pointing out that the culture has become more blasé toward divorce and remarriage; this is part of its spiritual decay.
This is an error on the part of the BBC. The actual date was March 11, 1708.
Strangely (albeit positively), euthanasia remains illegal in the UK itself.
Preceded by the Civil Partnership Act of 2004.
See also: Patrick Kelleher, “Everything we know about Queen Elizabeth II’s record on LGBTQ+ rights,” PinkNews (8 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 13).
Note carefully what the New Testament tells us about the kingship of Jesus in John 18:33-37 and 1 Timothy 6:12-14.
Max Foster, Lauren Said-Moorhouse and Niamh Kennedy, “Prince Charles leads tributes to his mother, the Queen, on her Platinum Jubilee,” CNN.com (6 Feb. 2022; accessed Sept. 15).
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, “Condolences at the death of Queen Elizabeth” (8 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 15).
The Evangelical Alliance, “I have indeed seen His faithfulness” (8 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 15).
In particular, see Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; and Ephesians 5:31-32. Obviously this is a consistent and important theme throughout the Bible.
“Anonymous,” commenting on Saunders’ article (just 10 days earlier), “The queen fulfils her coronation Oath to uphold the true profession of the Gospel” (2 June 2013; accessed 15 Sept. 2022).
For the purposes of this article I’m ignoring the issue of whether elders can be women.
And, if he didn’t subsequently recant those positions, he’d be excommunicated.
Lauren Said-Moorhouse and Max Foster, “In full: The Orders of Service for Queen Elizabeth II’s state funeral and committal service,” CNN.com (19 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 19).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Paul L. Montgomery, “Belgian King, Unable to Sign Abortion Law, Takes Day Off,” The New York Times (5 Apr. 1990; accessed 18 Sept. 2022).
Associated Press, “Luxembourg strips monarch of legislative role,” The Guardian (12 Dec. 2008; accessed 18 Sept. 2022).
J.C. von Krempach, “Prince of Liechtenstein Risks Crown to Defeat Abortion Lobby,” LifeNews.com (17 July 2012; accessed 18 Sept. 2022).
Jonathon Van Maren, “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s abortion regime,” The Bridgehead (13 June 2016; accessed 18 Sept. 2022).
Justin Welby, “Queen funeral: Sermon from the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby from Westminster Abbey in full,” The Scotsman (19 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 19).
Colin Smith, “4 Leadership Lessons from the Life of Queen Elizabeth II,” The Gospel Coalition (10 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 19) (italics mine).
“Anonymous,” ibid.
Jonny Dymond, “After seven decades of constancy, a door swings shut,” BBC.com (18 Sept. 2022; accessed Sept. 18).