The plot and message of this movie can be summarized in the same sentence: Archaic but charming Royal House shows its unfittedness to modern times in its indifferent reaction to Diana’s unexpected death, even in the teeth of a huge groundswell of grief exhibited by the people; but it finally yields to the gentle pressure of the Labor Prime Minister and shows the human touch, thus winning the right to continue in existence a bit longer — especially since the Queen warms to the socialist PM even more and in the end chats her gay approval of expanding the government education establishment (and presumably of other such leftist topics as they will come up in the future).
This little piece of agitprop is quite well acted. Particularly outstanding are Queen Elizabeth (Helen Mirren), her wry, bemused consort (James Cromwell), Michael Sheen as Tony Blair, and the grating, self-righteous Mrs. Blair (Helen McCrory).
It is the subtext that must be considered when viewing the message of the movie critically. The queen, wanting to maintain a quiet dignity and distance in connection with the premature death of the estranged “princess” Diana, is up against “the people” who want her and the whole Royal House to bend the knee to honor the departed one; the people in turn are whipped into continuing their lugubrious display by the famous British muckraking press. They are interviewed; they are prostrate; they are tearful.
But apart from that symbiotic relation, does anyone believe “the people” would have continued to take time off from work and mass themselves so plaintively in front of the palace?
Diana was a nobody except for having been taken up for a time into the royal family. By idolizing her, the “people” vicariously idolize themselves. The royalty is merely the fulcrum that wedges them, the people themselves, into the object of adulation. But it was not self-conscious. It was a sociological herd effect.
Such is one way self-deception works its way out in our day.
The press in turn worked the situation into greater sales.
In turn, the PM worked the people/press symbiosis into a platform to vaunt his own importance, and turn the royalty into his own lap dog for achieving the next stage of the revolution.
The producers, in their turn, use all of this nipping exploitation to send the message: we will continue to pretend to revere the royalty, if they continue to pretend to favor our agenda. This is illustrated by the common women who curtsy when the queen finally makes her honorific appearance. As if to say, “obey us, and we will maintain the facade of respect and tradition upon which this house of cards stands.”
The women weren’t thinking this explicitly: they were simply caught up in the group-think as manipulated by the real power-brokers.
The fatal flaw in the queen was an inordinate concern to be loved. Supposedly 25% were ready — polls proved it! — to abolish the monarchy if she didn’t submit, and that fact hurt her feelings. She had a strong orientation to principle — in the feminine sense of tradition and feeling. She gave in to the “people” as mediated and galvanized by the press.
There is indeed a place for the British monarchy, but that place is not properly realized in its current impotent state of seeking to be loved. Instead, it needs, ironically enough, to take on the role Calvin described as the place of the “lower magistrate.” It needs first to be masculinized. Britain needs a king that will step into the breach and rescue his beleaguered people. Ceremony and tradition is fine in its place: but here and now, the very survival of the Anglo-Saxon as a distinct people is at stake.
Naturally, the way to do this is not literally to rush from the gate with a small but loyal band of Scottish guardsman and try to “take Parliament,” nor even to make a speech in St James Park — which would only be heard by tourists and loafers and politicians anyway. Instead, cagey, stealthy action in terms of the current parameters is required — but amplified by boldness. Here are some suggestions, O future King.
Declare a special royal dispensation to all law-abiding male subjects to own, conceal, and carry a handgun; and that anyone harassed legally for ownership or lawful use of such weapons will obtain royal pardon. Free the Englishman to the right of self-defense again, so that he doesn’t have to stand helplessly by as gangs rape his women and steal his possessions before his very eyes.
Second, announce that all declared advocates of the blasphemous pseudo-religions of Muhammad and the Judaica are banned from the realm — with one year given to remove their persons and property or be declared outlaws.
Third, set up a royal coinage backed by gold and silver; use royal funds to set up an alternate bank based on this currency, and announce that contracts can be made and settled in terms of that coinage.
A true king of England could set off the spark that might, in God’s providence, rally our people of all lands to restored freedom. Even those of us in the rebellious colonies might rise up and rally to his side — wouldn’t that be a blessed irony in history?
Or, he might go down in defeat.
Nothing great is accomplished without risk of failure.
The hour is late. If he rises up and does what is needful, then — God save the King!