Yesterday, we learned of the passing of the queen, Elizabeth II of England, Elizabeth I of Scotland - the same person. (Why not Elizabeth ii of Scotland? Think Mary Queen of Scotts). When the American news shows informs us that she also was head of the Church of England, that is the Anglican Church, that is true; Error Elizabeth did not become the head of the Scottish Church. Scots headed their church whic was not Anglican but closer to Presbyterian. However, when she crosses the border into Scotland, she becomes does not become head of the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland is basically a Presbyterian Church, and it recognizes only Jesus as its head. Charles will be the 3rd in both England and Scotland as the Stewarts, Charles I and Charles II, ruled in both kingdoms, though Charles I's reign ended when he was beheaded.
When Elizabeth was a youngster, a princess, she lived in the British Empire, the largest empire of modern times, dominating one fourth of all the land of the planet and dominating many of the seas. That was true as recently as 1939. By the time of the death of Elizabeth, there is no world empire, and even Great Britain seems to be unsure itself, with a border question in Northern Ireland and Scotland mulling independence. Elizabeth has reigned over the disintegration of the British Empire.
Though the British were among the victors of WWII, they had to make promises of more local government to various colonial people to get their support against the Axis. "The Jewel in the Crown," India and Pakistan, won independence in 1947. Under Elizabeth, in 1957 the Gold Coast gained independence as Ghana, and there was a Mau Mau uprising in Kenya. The Soviets, who supported anti-colonial movements with propaganda, money, and arms, did its best to disrupt the British in the Cold War. Of course, the Soviets brutally crushed independence movements in its own empire, but this interaction of empires has always been true.
Our media reports how Elizabeth was non-political. Generally, this may have been true. But not always. When Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher made an election promise to support the British in Rhodesia, the Queen interfered, leading to the fall of the white government and the rise of various corrupt leaders willing to exterminate the whites and kill the nation's ecemony. A few years later, The Queen interfered to prevent Thatcher from stopping sanctions against the government of South Africa. This led to the change in government, and the slow decline of infrastructure, and anti-white genocide (simply dismissed as "crime").
On the home front, is London still and English city? Recent statistics reveal, for private property in London today the largest property owners are Indians, second the British, third the Pakistanis. When in 1968 Conservative Member of Parliament Enoch presented his "Rivers of Blood" speech, about the dangerous outcome of large numbers of colonial immigration to Britain, Powell received no help from the leaders of his party, and certainly not from Elizabeth. Happily there have not yet been rivers, but certainly too many red pools.
Sen. Eugene McCarthy, "clean Gene," the Minnesota Democrat who opposed Pres. Lyndon Johnson's war in Vietnam and was very popular with the media in 1968, failed to with the Democratic nomination for President, and left political office. He did write several books, one in 1994 titled: A Colony of the World - The United States Today. The liberal media was less impressed by keen Gene in the 1990s. If this described America, it described England even more. The colonies had come "home" to roost. Perhaps that is Elizabeth's most lasting legacy.
Hugh Murray
No comments:
Post a Comment