It is ironic that it is after the Queen’s death that I sort of get why reactionaries on the right dislike whole pageant around her role, funeral, and life.
I think the sentiment is captured by what T.S. Eliot once said about how when people speak of the Bible as a great piece of literature that is a sign and herald of the decline of Christianity. As he rightly argues, the Bible is so deeply rooted in Western culture not because it is a great piece of literature, although it could be argued so, but because it was received as the Word of God. Saying that the bible is a great piece of literature is to gut the inside of the bible as divine revelation and wear its words as a skin for contemporary fetishes, like “inclusive orthodoxy” who accepts every jot and tittle of classical theism but shills for alphabet soup causes.
I get that the monarchy once existed for a substantive purpose, to defend THE Protestant religion established by law, and the Queen certainly has not done anything like her other contemporary monarchs to do that. To celebrate the beautiful rituals, ceremonies, and traditions of the British monarchy, while its essence has been eviscerated, its beauty used as a skin to cloak and justify contemporary anti-Christian fetishes, could be seen as a desecration, like using bible verses to justify letting children undergo sex change because God is love or something.
That said, I feel deeply ambivalent about this. It is undeniable that any alternative to the British monarchy would mean a Britain 10x more woke than it is, it is also well argued that we have no equivalent in the bible of a purely “Confucian” monarch who just leads by personal example while his country goes to pieces.
It is however clear that the British still love their pageantry, their rituals and ceremonies, etc, but the question really is: do those really lead people to Christ? If they do not, would it be better that they be torn down than be used as a skin for anti-Christian ideas and practices?