By Colby Malsbury

Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor for 70 years, 7 months, and 2 days, went to face the LORD God on September 8, 2022.

Well….bye.

I don’t know if Tribal Theocrat has any Anglican readership to speak of, but if it does I’m sure I just alienated the tens of…well, tens of them with that bit of disrespectful effrontery. Well, that’s too bad. I’m not in the habit of cultivating the opinions of people who think standing a full day in queue to pay homage to any mere mortal is a civic duty rather than a ghoulish morbidity more apropos to caressing an embalmed Lenin’s cheek in worship, or to ensuring that Stalin is really and truly dead.

And that goes quadruple for this particular mortal. For if there ever was an individual less worthy of earthy adoration, it was Liz R.

And here comes the torrent of emotional invective and Thunbergian ‘how dare yous’ that I thoroughly expected, considering that a similar deluge was released following the demise of even such a contemptible pipsqueak as John McCain.

People, we are not mourning the passing of a David here. First and foremost, Liz did not have his moral stature, nor his favor with God. Second, she did not have David’s legitimacy.

This isn’t the venue to go in-depth into the topic of usurpation, as it is an issue that stretches back centuries, but suffice it to say that when Henry VII slew the second-last heir to the House of York and Henry VIII slew the last, a cloud of uncertainty has overlaid every occupier of the British throne ever since. Add to that the fact that the current royal claimants are shirttail cousins who made a quantum leap from their established due as Hanoverian electors – thus proving the precepts of the Peter Principle – and the situation becomes even murkier.

That is not to say that illegitimate monarchs can’t still rule in a Christian manner – witness William and Mary as obvious examples. But Liz did not fit into this category, contrary to what her apologists claim.

First and foremost to consider, of course, is how her own merry brood turned out. Let’s just say the results don’t suggest she kept a knitted wall primer of the Proverbs 31 woman anywhere on the premises of Buckingham or Balmoral.

Andrew’s Pizzagate peccadilloes are too recent and well-trodden over to be reiterated here. But he’s no solo bad apple. The newly-crowned Charles III has always been able to give his younger brother a run for his money in the lechery line – and not just with females of all ages, as his uber-awkward joke about ‘going gay’ right before his marriage to Diana demonstrated. Lest you think this mere conjecture, perhaps we should get Michael Fawcett‘s take on the matter – and who, incidentally, resigned his post as the head of the former prince’s foundation earlier this year after forty years of service, mere months before his good benefactor was finally able to claim the throne as his own. Quite the coincidence, that. Throw in the less-publicized but no-less-real harlotry of Anne , and that’s three-quarters of a brood verified to have gone the way of Cain. Who is to blame for this? Certainly, the notoriously sleazy rake Philip can take his share. But when the upper echelons of English society have been, for all intents and purposes, a matriarchy for seventy years, the lion’s share of the fault lies squarely at Elizabeth’s dainty feet. She took on the role of ‘training up a child in the way in which he should go’, and she failed dismally at it. There are menials floating around in a backroom somewhere to take care of those bothersome details after all, aren’t there?

‘Well, Trump wasn’t exactly the balm of Gilead either, but look at all the good he did’, they say. I really wish they would shut up for once. ‘You can’t deny that the Queen ruled with grace and Christian demeanor, and made the world a better place by her shining example of stewardship!’

Oh, I can’t? Hold my teacup.

If Liz put Britannica above all else during her tenure, she sure had a funny way of showing it. She presided over the post-Christian dismal gray morass that Britain slid into after WWII. As the first-ever British monarch to be televised 24/7, it’s fitting to compare programs on the telly at the beginning of her reign with those at the end of her reign. It’s striking how in many cases the shabby and depressing interwar decor in the interiors of flats and cottages hasn’t changed one iota, but the ethnicities residing inside certainly have. But it’s entirely in keeping with Albion’s postwar leftist surge that Liz herself never voiced the slightest harrumph of disapproval over. Oh, yes – I know she was supposed to be ‘entirely apolitical’. What a load of rot. Show me anyone to whom that claim can be legitimately applied outside of Christ. And if her portrayal on The Crown is based on any kind of factual basis, her relationship with Labour Prime Minister and Soviet apologist (and possible spy) Harold Wilson was far chummier than with just about any Tory PM – even though they, too, were a bright shade of red (not excluding Margaret Thatcher). Doubtless she witnessed the decaying plight of her yeoman subjects with a small sardonic smile….carefully concealed from the roving eyes of the paparazzi, of course.

But don’t just take my word for it. Enoch Powell, of ‘Britain’s not a social construct’ fame, took the Queen to very public task in the aftermath of her 1983 Christmas message to the Commonwealth because the presentation featured an inordinate amount of attention to India in the wake of her recent trip there. Powell felt the consequences of this would be to “suggest she has the affairs and interests in other continents as much, or more, at heart than those of her own people,” considering that “even here, in the UK, she is more concerned for the susceptibilities & prejudices of a vociferous minority of newcomers than for the great mass of her subjects.” Such misapplied duty, he further warned, would wind up ‘threatening the place of the Crown in the affections of the people’. Woke royal apologists, of whom the author of the article from which this quote was taken is one, dismissed these grim prophecies as the ranting of a past-his-prime crank, but the future would declare that no lies were detected here.

And from whence did this contrarian sentiment originate? Surely it was no off-the-cuff expression of pique. From a time when George VI’s 1939 visit to Canada was considered a remarkable display of royal condescension to the outside world, daughter Elizabeth would transform the monarchy into a cosmopolitan global-hopping trek, waving primly at every grinning dark-hued heathen inside and outside her realm that she could, and setting the precedent for future jaunts from such rite-wing icons as Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Elton John. Charlemagne she was not. It is impossible to adduce that her sophisticated mindset towards multiculturalism abroad did not transfer itself to an equally sophisticated mindset towards multiculturalism at home – and all the tolerance and even enjoyment of degradation that mindset necessarily entails.

So what accounts for Elizabeth’s continuing near-adulation from the populace as a whole? Give her credit: she was every bit the master of media technique as Trump is. Hers was the first-ever televised coronation, and the first-ever livestreamed royal funeral, and her entire life betwixt those extremes was a function of the etherwaves. And boy, could she milk a camera like a cow. The wave. The receiving lines, with young girls handing her lush bouquets of flowers. The grand matronly mien, which never once quivered as the public beheld her. The myriad of ‘State of the Empire’ addresses for every conceivable occasion. Her equestrian side – why, she’s salt of the earth, just like us!!! Even her now infamous mock tea with a cringey CGI-animated Paddington Bear during her Platinum Jubilee celebration – while undoubtedly maudlin – managed to capture the childish ethos of Gen-X Sussex perfectly, if also pathetically. Her visibility beside every A-list celebrity within every “important” endeavor of the last half of the twentieth century didn’t hurt her image, either. She could be likened unto the female Billy Graham – an oracle of insipidity, who collected laurels among the worldly great and was thus heralded as great herself. The one difference between the two: Graham was the perfect sycophant to all he met, while Queenie allowed all she granted a private chat to to be sycophantic in her presence. Including, unsurprisingly, the Great Reverend himself. On numerous occasions.

And that brings us full circle back to Elizabeth’s vaunted “Christianity”. By her very position she had two strikes against her: being an unscriptural head of a nation and a church both. “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths”, says Isaiah 3:12.

Of course, the problem didn’t start with her. Her namesake Elizabeth I, in fact, could be considered the founder of the Church of England proper inasmuch as it was she who did the organizational work on the ground of setting up the Anglican structure, codifying and making tangible the revolution that her father Henry VIII set in motion. Given that the C of E has been headed by queens for extended periods of time – Elizabeth I’s 45 years in its infancy, Anne’s 5 years, Victoria’s 64 years, and Elizabeth II’s 70 years – it is little wonder that the modern Anglican church is rotten with effeminacy, pederast priests, and social justice screeds. It is no church that finds favor in God’s eyes. Did Elizabeth have a say in taking over its headship? No. But she certainly did nothing to affirm the truth of any Protestant orthodoxy, either. A postmodern Grandma for a postmodern “United Kingdom”.

Given the occult nature of all post-Enlightenment monarchies, but the British throne especially, the essence of Elizabeth’s religion – I hesitate to use the word ‘faith’ – was best summed up in the words of our own Ehud Would:

“Because the British Royal genealogy officially traces back to King David of Judah, and Laurence Gardner (the premier sovereign genealogist) “confirmed” the Royal descent through Jesus and Mary Magdalene, the Royals’ longstanding penchant for esoterica would probably lead them to accept that they were the physical descendants of Jesus. If Liz affirmed Christianity, it’s probably of this sort. Self-worship, really.”

Nothing like an amalgamation of the heretical Gospel of Mary with a pantheon of alleged ancestor worship that would make a Shinto uncomfortable, and you have yourself a wicked, wicked throne – of which Elizabeth was thoroughly representative. Let that stand as her epitaph for the ages. Even if Paul McCartney or Adele can’t compose a treacly power ballad out of it and rake in more millions.