It was a correspondent on the Fox News Channel who pointed out the irony. Speaking from outside Buckingham Palace where a million people had cheered the queen during the flypast that ended official celebrations of her Golden Jubilee, viewers were reminded that while the British people are celebrating, two of Britain's former imperial possessions are poised on the brink of a possible nuclear war.

Sadly, that is far from the only post-imperial problem!

The four days of rejoicing for the reign of Queen Elizabeth II culminated Tuesday, June 4, in a regal procession through the streets of London, as the queen rode in the state gold carriage for only the third time in her 50-year reign. The first occasion was for her coronation, the second for her Silver Jubilee (25 years), the third for her Golden. The purpose of her journey was to attend a service of thanksgiving at St. Paul's Cathedral.

The British have a great deal for which to be thankful. Clearly, the crowds were expressing thanks for a political system that has given them a longer period of political stability and the prosperity that usually goes with it than any other major nation. At the same time most Britons are aware that a great deal of this stability is owed to the royal House of Windsor, direct descendants of the Hanoverian kings who assumed the throne in 1714. The British have no more respect for their politicians than do the people of any other democracy, but they love the queen, who is increasingly seen throughout the Commonwealth as a universal grandmother.

Other nations, too, have been able to benefit from this political stability, inheriting the same political system and maintaining a direct link with the crown. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state of 16 fully independent countries.

Head of the Commonwealth

Additionally, she is head of the 54-nation Commonwealth. These countries were almost all colonies of Britain when she became queen. They had their own national parliaments, which took care of most internal matters, while the British government was responsible for their foreign and military affairs. A British governor, appointed from London, was resident in each of these colonies and ensured that close ties to the mother country were maintained.

All of this changed during what some are calling the Second Elizabethan Age, a period during which Britain dismantled her empire. With successive British governments falling over themselves to get out of the empire business as fast as possible, it was left to the queen to work with the former colonies, turning them into the modern Commonwealth. Although she has no direct political role, the queen has played a vital part in this transition from Empire to Commonwealth. As one commentator on BBC America put it, "She has personally molded the Commonwealth into what it is today."

The Jubilee celebrations reflected this reality. A procession of 4,000 Commonwealth nationals, representing all the nations that make up the present-day organization, paraded aspects of their culture before the queen and her family. Afterwards, all were invited to Buckingham Palace, an invitation not extended to the earlier British participants.

Formerly made up of nations ruled mostly by peoples of British descent, the Commonwealth today is multiracial. Another change is in the systems of government of member nations. The "Old Commonwealth" was made up of individual nations, each independent of the other, but each giving direct loyalty to the crown, thereby sharing in Britain's system of government. Today, 38 of the Commonwealth nations are republics, with their own presidents. They still recognize the queen as head of the Commonwealth, but many of them have long since lost the political stability they once had. Sadly, that absence of political stability has also meant serious economic decline for many member nations.

Post-imperial problems

On the very day of the celebrations, the news from Zambia (formerly the British colony of Northern Rhodesia) was of impending famine. This rapidly followed news of famine in neighboring Malawi (formerly Nyasaland). These two nations, with Zimbabwe (formerly Southern Rhodesia) all formed the "British" Central African Federation prior to independence. During that time, all were major food exporters. They had a surplus of food that was sold to other nations, with the foreign currency earnings then used to enrich the lives of their peoples in other ways.

Sadly, the British farmers who were the main creators of that wealth have mostly left or been forced out under land redistribution legislation which has increasingly impoverished their nations. (Officially, "drought" is to blame, but there have always been periodic droughts.)

Food shortages and diseases across Africa are serious but do not threaten world security. The likelihood of conflict between India and Pakistan does. These two nations, until 1947 governed as one under the British Raj, have fought each other three times since independence. The difference now is that they are both nuclear powers. Another change is that this region is crucial to America and Britain's War on Terror. A conflict between the two belligerents would severely hamper allied efforts to deal with al Qaeda's terrorists and those who aid them.

Forgotten now is that Indian troops often played a crucial role in British wars prior to India's becoming a sovereign nation. In World War II 2 million Indians volunteered to fight in Britain's armed forces, the biggest volunteer army in history. These troops were used extensively in different theaters of war. Earlier British actions in Afghanistan gave opportunities for Indian forces to fight alongside British forces. Had Britain retained its empire, most of the soldiers fighting al Qaeda today would no doubt be Indian nationals.

The other major threat to present world peace was also a British territory prior to the Second World War that saw the end of Britain's preeminence in the world: Palestine. The continuing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians was a major contributing factor to the events of Sept. 11, with no end in sight for terrorist attacks against U.S. and British interests.

Contrasting two Elizabeths

Yes, the British themselves can be thankful for the stability and prosperity that they have enjoyed. But the words of the archbishop of Canterbury, spoken at the service of thanksgiving, though in one sense correct, are in another very real sense misleading.

When he referred to the queen's Golden Jubilee as the "height of the Second Elizabethan Age," listeners were mindful of the time of the first Queen Elizabeth, who reigned from 1558 to 1603, five years less than the present queen. Then England was a small country, fighting for its life against despotic European powers that wished to bring her back under the authority of Rome. Realizing that trade and security were impossible in Europe, the English started to sail around the world, establishing colonies in far-flung places. The British Empire slowly came into being. Its foundation was laid during the time of the first Queen Elizabeth.

The Second Elizabethan Age has seen the total dismantling of that empire, not by the queen herself, who has worked tirelessly to turn it into the modern Commonwealth. She is a constitutional monarch, whereas Elizabeth I was an executive monarch. While England was far stronger at the end of the reign of the first Elizabeth than it had been at the beginning, the end of the Second Elizabethan Age will see the country much weaker than it was in 1952. The present queen's reign has, in fact, been a turbulent one for much of the world, including many of the Commonwealth countries.

While much affection remains throughout the world for Queen Elizabeth herself, this weakening of the country's relative power and influence bodes ill for the future. Continued membership in the European Union threatens Britain's independence and sovereignty every bit as much as the Spanish Armada did in 1588, though not as dramatically. Additionally, the continuing War on Terror poses serious security questions for Britain and the United States.

Stability itself is relative. After three centuries on the throne, another European family toured its empire receiving the adulation of their people. Millions turned out to greet them and to show their loyalty and affection. Four years later, they were overthrown and their dynasty ended. The monarch was cousin to England's King George V, grandfather of the present queen. The monarch was Czar Nicholas II, ruler of Russia. The same fate befell the kaisers of Germany and Austria-Hungary, also extremely popular just a few years earlier. A nation's fortunes can change suddenly and quite dramatically.

Daniel 2:21 says that God sets up and removes kings. Doubtless, He set up the House of Windsor (then Hanover) in 1714 to prepare for the promised blessings about to come Joseph's way. (For more about this subject, see The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. It's available free of charge from any of our offices listed on page 2.) Britain's constitutional monarchy was a foundation stone of the British Empire's success. It still makes a major contribution to Britain and the Commonwealth.

But the queen's Golden Jubilee hides an uncomfortable reality—the prophesied "multitude of nations" (Genesis 48:19) does not carry the overall impact or influence that it did at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign. Although she has worked continuously to preserve it in its weakened form, the fact remains that it is no longer a military force with Britain at its head. Rather, its biannual conferences are merely a sentimental reunion of old friends who were all once a part of the greatest empire the world had ever seen.

Meanwhile, Britain (Ephraim) itself continues to "pursue the east wind" (Hosea 12:1), entangling herself more and more in Europe, the very continent from which the first Elizabeth did so much to free the country. WNP