March Web Campaign
Our ongoing work on the web and in First Things magazine assures that your religious ideals and convictions have a voice in the public square. To do that well we need your support. Please click and donate.
R. R. Reno, Editor
On February 6, Queen Elizabeth II marked her diamond jubilee, an achievement that Great Britain will celebrate throughout 2012. I am not a monarchist, but I’ll happily join in saluting the Queen, who embodies several qualities that are in short supply among 21st-century public figures.
In one of a slew of diamond jubilee books, author Robert Hardman reports that Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, is awed by the Queen’s “gravitas.” One hopes it’s catching, even as one hopes that people understand why, as one of Her Majesty’s friends puts it, “she is never, you know, not the Queen.” It’s not a matter of Victorian formality and still less of arrogance. Rather, it’s that the Queen thinks of her unique position as a vocation—a responsibility for which she was consecrated at her coronation on June 2, 1953.
The character of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was forged in the fires of World War II, when she learned the meaning of duty from her father, King George VI, and her mother, later the Queen Mother Elizabeth, whose name she bears. (Something of the steel in the former Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon may be grasped in her response to the suggestion that the two princesses, Elizabeth and Margaret, be evacuated to Canada to escape the Nazi Blitz and a possible German invasion: “The children won’t go without me. I won’t go without the King. And the King will never leave.”) The teenage Princess Elizabeth played her part in Britain’s finest hour, doing the occasional radio broadcast and joining the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, where she was trained as a driver and mechanic. The quiet stoicism and sense of composure she learned in those days have been powerful assets these past 60 years, even if they weren’t appreciated by the media lynch-mob in the immediate aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
Whatever one’s theological opinion of the “sacring” of British monarchs, it’s quite clear from the pictures of Queen Elizabeth’s coronation that this was a young woman—by then a wife and mother—who thought of herself as being anointed, blessed, and crowned for a task to which she must sacrifice her own life, for the sake of her people. Yes, Queen Elizabeth II is enormously wealthy and yes, she has lived a life in which she has been spared much of the drudgery that afflicts other mortals. But anyone who does not think that Elizabeth II has made sacrifices in living out her monarchical vocation doesn’t know much about how public life works these days—or how this remarkable woman understands herself.
Queen Elizabeth’s sense of duty is not generic; it is specifically Christian. That is clear from her annual Christmas broadcasts, the one time each year she speaks to her people in something resembling her own voice. (The annual Throne Speech in Parliament is written entirely by her government.) The 2011 Christmas address was particularly memorable. In it, the Queen talked simply, movingly, and profoundly about the meaning of the birth of Jesus for humanity, and about the Christian virtues of forgiveness, compassion, and magnanimity. I watched the address and thought, perhaps uncharitably, that there had been few better Christmas homilies preached that day between Land’s End and the Pentland Firth. And it “worked” because it came from the heart—a heart formed by Christian conviction.
Elizabeth II is said to be “low Church” in her Anglican sensibility, but that is of considerably less importance than the fact that she is a genuine Christian who is not afraid to bear witness to the truth of Christ as she has been given to understand it. The future is never certain, but on the present form sheet it seems unlikely that this admirable facet of Queen Elizabeth’s way of exercising her role as sovereign will be replicated in successor generations. Britain, and the world, will be poorer for that.
Still, and on the same form sheet, we may wish for many more years of her company. So on this diamond jubilee, I say, with heartfelt respect, “God Save the Queen.”
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Thank you, Mr Weigel, for a gracious tribute to a remarkable Christian lady.
Unless the topic is rock `n roll music, recreational drug use, or muddleheaded innovations in the attempt to dethrone Judeo-Christian morality, any statement that begins with "John Lennon said it best" inevitably goes on to demonstrate the irrefutable inaccuracy of that opening statement.
He may be on the Mount Rushmore of rock `n roll pioneers, but he is on the Mount Rushmore of absolutely nothing else.
While in any case? There has never been a Prime minister who was Catholic, while in office. Blair became Catholic after his career was over, to make his wife happy.
As for the queen being a lightweight? I hold to that opinion. Whatever clever opinions she read out, were written for her, no doubt. Or? Do our readers here maintain that monarchies produce great leaders?
While of course? The US itself is firmly founded, on rejecting monarches.
Why is Weigel intent on attacking the traditional foundations of our country?
I always thought Weigel was a Tory. So have many others. Tories were our earlier conservatives.
;)
†
Since a steady diet of pageantry gets boring, I can understand why Her Majesty prefers the low Church types of services.
The Chief Rabbi of England, Lord Sacks, wrote a short article on the establishment of the Church of England which contrasts American and British systems of religion. He approves of the establishment because it gives "a central place" to religion in public life. The article is available on the internet.
Fendermann, what part of I am not a monarchist in the second sentence of the article is unclear to you? Let's explore the implications of that sentence for your assertions:
I am not a monarchist, but I’ll happily join in saluting the Queen, who embodies several qualities that are in short supply among 21st-century public figures.
In other words, Weigel, having observed the life and acts of Queen Elizabeth, finds in them lessons for leaders the world over, be they kings or presidents. He also finds them germane to the mission of First Things, since he perceives that she is guided by a Christian understanding of her vocation as monarch. Weigel is no more abandoning our republic than he is abjuring the Catholic faith; surely we may prize the American system above all others and yet be capable of recognizing virtue and character in a queen.
Most peopel seems rather awed, by their supernatual ... emptiness. You see that they are rich and/or famous, you see that they are empty. And millions are driven to the conclusion, that the secret to wealth, or fame, or high status? Is to be ...empty. Void of all ability, and intelligence.
No doubt, the worship of empiness, and complete lack of ability, makes many ordinary folks feel better. And it is all too easy to achieve.
And yet?
Imagine it if you can: All these "strengths" in good working order, but yoked with, or driven by, a kind of moral emptiness, an almost complete void of any sense of indebtedness to any grace or supportive moral influence whether human or Divine. Perhaps even accompanied by an extraordinary sense of what MY country, my company, my congregation, my parents or spouse or children owe ME on account of my great gifts and achievements ("How I worked my way up from NOTHING, with NO help from anybody!") - even of how "little" or "lost" they would be without me! - and how little if anything, by comparison, I owe them in return. And how they ought to be grateful for the "little" - or even the occasional abuse? - that I give.
It's not hard to imagine whole companies, charitable organizations, movements, industries, even entire countries being brought to near-ruin by the wrong kind of charisma: one perhaps highly dynamic, skilled and effective at getting "results", but from which any notion of duty, loyalty, obligation or indebtedness - much more any tempering humility - is absent. I can even imagine the bad example of such leadership tempting all kinds of people onto paths of "success" both self- and socially-destructive. But somehow I don't think those are the kinds of leadership dangers posed by a tradition-bound and -circumscribed symbolic monarchy. And particularly one whose occupant (unlike the 18th-century Hanoverians) seems not only possessed of an admirable sense of national duty, accountability and restraint, but blessed with an uncanny sense (I'm thinking in particular of Princess Anne here) - not of what she's OWED - but of how much she OWES to the society that raised her up from nothing.
It may be I lack vision or prescience. But whatever the institution or level of society, I tend to worry much more about tyranny, arrogance and abuse of power in self-made men - no matter how otherwise gifted, brilliant or "effective" - than in hereditary "nonentities" whose lack of distinction is so easy to despise and ridicule, but whose moral dedication and character are (so far as we can prove these things at all) often both proven and exemplary.
And looking at your peculiar way of writing English, with question marks in odd places and unnecessary ellipses you really should not comment on whether or not other people have had intelligent thoughts.
Well, that's good enough for me. I can't see why anyone would object to such powerful reasoning as that.
(There actually is a good discussion to be had about the value of monarchy versus the risk. But it doesn't flow very naturally from this particular post, now, does it?)
Of course, she's never had much to say at all. She's just a dowdy middle class matron, made ceremonial figurehead, by the corruptions of genetic succession. Never heard her say an intelligent thing in her entire life.
John Lennon said it best: "Her majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she doesn't have a lot to say. Her majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day. I want to tell her that I love a lot, but I got to have a belly full of wine"; Beatles' song.
By the way? England is more or less an officially Protestant country; by law, no Catholic can be Prime Minister. And the queen of course, serves that principle.