The Woman Elizabeth Windsor and the Cult Image of Queen Elizabeth

I studiously avoided commenting on the subject of the late monarch for the past few days for a few reasons, but it took a wee thing like this to force me to reconsider.


On several occasions, the Queen or her staff have been injured by the corgis. In 1954, the palace clock winder, Leonard Hubbard, was bitten by Susan upon entering the nursery at the Royal LodgeWindsor.[32][33][34] Later in the same year, one of the Queen Mother’s corgis bit a policeman on guard duty in London.[35]

In 1968, Peter Doig called for the royal staff to put up a “Beware of the dog” sign at Balmoral after one of the corgis bit the postman.[36] In February 1989, it was reported that the royal family had hired an animal psychologist to tame the dogs after they developed a habit of nipping them and the staff.[37] “And in 1989, the Queen Mother’s dog, Ranger, led a pack of corgis that attacked and killed the Queen’s beloved dorgi, Chipper.”[38] In March 1991, the Queen was bitten after trying to break up a fight between ten or so of her corgis. She had to have three stitches to her left hand. John Collins, the Queen Mother’s chauffeur, had to have a tetanus injection after he also tried to intervene.[39] In 2003, Pharos, a tenth-generation offspring of Susan, was put down after being mauled by Princess Anne‘s English bull terrier, Dottie. Anne arrived at Sandringham to visit her mother for Christmas and the corgis rushed out of the front door as they arrived. It was reported that “Dottie went for Pharos, savaging the corgi’s hind legs and breaking one in three places.”[40]

The Royal Corgi’s Wikipedia Page has a “Victims” Subheading. A VICTIMS SUBHEADING

My personal feelings on Elizabeth Windsor, the woman, are contradictory & incomplete. I never knew her. Few people did. Queen Elizabeth, on the other hand, was a construct, a figurehead designed by a ruthless, sinister organisation of unaccountable manipulators. She was Galatea, given life by her sculptors – but it was no life of her own.

Queen Elizabeth had enormous power, influence, wealth, & status. Elizabeth Windsor, paradoxically, did not. Every choice, every intervention, was stage-managed to a frankly frightening degree. Elizabeth Windsor was inculcated from birth by the Firm to fulfil her role as this figurehead.

Elizabeth Windsor had a choice upon her father’s death. She could have followed her uncle & abdicated: she would be free from the Firm, but vilified & shunned by the manipulators. Or, she would follow her father into the world she was immersed in all her 27 years – a role she was born to play? Was it truly a choice at all?

The paradox of her power is evident in the many times she personally intervened in political matters – despite the oft-spoken lie that the monarchy is “above politics” – a preposterous notion, for what is a Head of State if not inherently political? She contributed to the outrageous bailout to allow her son to escape legal scrutiny just as public opinion around powerful men exploiting vulnerable women is finally coming around. It is also in her failure to intervene: her failure to stop her government’s crimes in Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, Nyasaland, Aden, the Chagos Islands; or the horrors that the Church she nominally leads inflicted upon indigenous peoples; or acknowledgement of the crimes, atrocities and plunder carried out in her ancestors’ names – even the ones we know about.

James Connolly said it best, when speaking on the death of Albert George Windsor: “We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights, by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes.” If Queen Elizabeth can claim credit for decolonisation, helping to end Apartheid, Edmund Hilary’s ascent of Sagarmatha, and all the other wonders of “the Second Elizabethan Era” (Britain being England Plus Three yet again), then the same can be said of the crimes of that “Second Elizabethan Era.”

Yet the power invested in her prevents her from making those substantive changes, from healing those wounds, from righting those old wrongs. She claimed the responsibilities of rule, but the Firm – not Elizabeth Windsor – decides what is done about them. Once you understand that everything Queen Elizabeth does is for the Firm, you understand. She benefits because she has no choice.

The story of Elizabeth Windsor’s corgis exemplifies the callousness of the Firm. The most protected woman on Earth, & the vast resources of the Firm somehow let her own pets bite & maul her & those around her? Corgis have a reputation, after all – you’d think more care would be taken as a result. Because the sad fact is that, to the Firm, even Elizabeth Windsor was expendable.

The presence of snipers on Edinburgh’s rooftops during the coffin’s internment is a macabre illustration of this. They didn’t have this when she visited Balmoral in life – why now? Because none of this is for Elizabeth Windsor’s benefit, but for the edifice that is Queen Elizabeth. Elizabeth Windsor was expendable. So, too, is Charles.

‘For the handover this hall had been transformed into a kind of Great Hall of the People of Peking. After my speech the President detached himself from the group of appalling old waxworks who accompanied him and took his place at the lectern. He then gave a kind of ‘propaganda’ speech, which was loudly cheered by the bused in party faithful at the suitable moment in the text… At the end of this awful Soviet-style display we had to watch the Chinese soldiers goose step on to the stage and haul down the Union Jack and raise the Chinese flag. The ultimate horror was the artificial wind which made the flags flutter enticingly.

– Charles Windsor’s recollection of the Hong Kong Handover Ceremony

This is why all the pomp & circumstance is so utterly ghoulish. The Firm didn’t care about Elizabeth Windsor – only the image they created to protect & expand their interests. The mourning is not for the woman who died – it is the soulless pageantry that allows them to play their game.

So I’m under no illusions as to what this “Period of Mourning” is truly about – and the death of Elizabeth Windsor, whoever she truly was in her heart, has little to do with it.

I will quietly reflect on the end of a long life. I will not be bullied into participation in this forced, phony exploitation of a human being to perpetuate a political and self-serving system – especially when vital services like hospital appointments and food banks are shut down in the interests of “paying respects” to the dead. That is the most damning, anti-life indictment of this sick charade I think possible.

So there’s your comment. Elizabeth Windsor was a prisoner of the Firm: she never had to worry about her financial security, that she may lose her home, or whether to heat or eat. She lived to a good age, & her family won’t experience those fears. But a gilded cage is no less a prison. Queen Elizabeth, in contrast, was a monster created to shield the thieves of wealth, power, & culture from recompense. It is vitally important to realise the difference between Queen Elizabeth & Elizabeth Windsor in the context of the wider world.

Irish & Indian & African diaspora aren’t celebrating or mocking the death of a wee 96-year-old granny – they are defying the Firm’s attempt to exert their power over them through the puppet they created from her form. They see the exploitation of human grief, & reject it.

Steam train enthusiasts will have to wait to catch a glimpse of Royal locomotive Princess Elizabeth after she was pulled from returning to the tracks for The Queen’s 90th Birthday tour.

However ‘Lizzie’ as she was affectionately known will be replaced by a goddess from the steaming world, LMS Jubilee Class 5699 Galatea, to embark on the trip on Thursday (April 21) which will stop to pick up passengers in Hounslow at 6.40pm.

An ironic coincidence from 2016

It is notable that Ovid’s Metamorphosis does not name the statue Aphrodite brings to life at Pygmalion’s request: the name Galatea was drawn from earlier Greek myths about a different figure, and became entwined in the Pygmalion myth only from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s play onward. There has been great academic discourse about the myth’s themes and the many iterations over time, but one of the most striking was George Bernard Shaw’s play, Pygmalion (later rendered in musical format as My Fair Lady). In the play and musical, the reverse seems to take place: an “imperfect” woman, with all the “vices with which the female sex has been so richly endowed,” is trained, taught, educated – carved, moulded, sculpted? – into an idealised representation of what a woman “should” be. Some would say she is having her rough edges hewn away, her blemishes concealed, her improperness corrected. Others might say she is having her individuality, her character, her very humanity sapped for the purposes of a rich, powerful man.

In ancient Greece, great power was attributed to statues of the gods. These cult images represented the divine beings that the people worshipped. Robert Graves suggested that the story may have been the mythologisation of a patrilineal takeover of a matrilineal cult:

PYGMALION, son of Belus, fell in love with Aphrodite and, because she would not lie with him, made an ivory image of her and laid it in his bed, praying to her for pity. Entering into this image, Aphrodite brought it to life as Galatea, who bore him Paphus and Metharme. Paphus, Pygmalion’s successor, was the father of Cinyras, who founded the Cyprian city of Paphos and built a famous temple to Aphrodite there.

Pygmalion, married to Aphrodite’s priestess at Paphos, seems to have kept the goddess’s white cult-image in his bed as a means of retaining the Cyprian throne. If Pygmalion was, in fact, succeeded by a son whom this priestess bore him, he will have been the first king to impose the patrilineal system on the Cypriots. But it is more likely that, like his grandson Cinyras, he refused to give up the goddess’s image at the end of his eight-year reign; and that he prolonged this by marriage with another of Aphrodite’s priestesses— technically his daughter, since she was heiress to the throne—who is called Metharme (‘change’), to mark the innovation.

– Robert Graves, The Greek Myths (1955)

The life of Elizabeth Windsor has left the body she left. Her image, crafted on coins, stamps, statues, seals, crests, and all manner of paraphernalia, is now all that remains – all that is left to the world, to be used by its creators even with the original model’s death. We would be foolish to think they would be any less mercenary to her memory, as it is weaponised to suppress discontent with their power.

Elizabeth Windsor is dead. The Cult Image of the Queen lives forever.

There’s no chance for us
It’s all decided for us
This world has only one sweet moment
Set aside for us

2 thoughts on “The Woman Elizabeth Windsor and the Cult Image of Queen Elizabeth

  1. benmadigan says:

    Very original point of view.
    Here are some other thoughts on the person

  2. OG says:

    The monarch only has the power to give his opinion in a weekly private meeting with the prime minister. That opinion foes not have to be followed. The monarch also can make non-political speeches and meet with leaders of other countries. In those meeting the monarch has no power other than giving an opinion which can be ignored. No power except a pulpit from which to give advice that does not have to be taken.

What're your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.