I'm writing this from South Africa, where it all began on April 21, 1947. The members of the British royal family were on a "thank you" tour of South Africa and southern Rhodesia, two nations that were part of the British Empire, both of which had contributed greatly to the war effort in World War II. Princess Elizabeth turned 21 on the tour while visiting Cape Town, from where she addressed the peoples of the empire and Commonwealth—these still all together after six years of war:

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong" (quoted by Sally Bedell Smith, Elizabeth the Queen: The Life of a Modern Monarch, 2012, pp. 37-38). A deeply religious woman, Elizabeth would work to follow Christ's admonition, "Whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your servant" (Matthew 20:26).

Five years later, Elizabeth's father King George VI died and she became queen, ironically while on another visit to Africa. At the time, she reigned over the greatest empire in history. Now, 60 years later, the monarchy endures, and Queen Elizabeth's subjects are celebrating her Diamond Jubilee in various parts of the world.

Yet the empire is no more—one of the big changes during her reign, the true context of which is vital to understand.

Surprising stability in a world of unrest

The U.S. newsmagazine Time published a special commemorative issue on the royal family, which made the following observation: "Governments topple and institutions fail, but Britain's constitutional monarchy maintains its quiet popularity. As the indefatigable Queen celebrates 60 years on the throne, the House of Windsor looks secure, surprisingly so."

The stability of the British monarchy is amazing—more than 1,000 years of monarchy! The present political system has been in place since 1689, a stability and continuity that no other great power has come anywhere near achieving. That stability has also been shared by 15 other realms over which the queen is head of state, principally Canada, Australia and New Zealand. She is also head of the Commonwealth of Nations, a 54-country grouping of former British colonies.

Other countries notice this stability, especially nations which have seen a great deal of turmoil.

In 1908 the queen's great-grandfather, King Edward VII, met with Russia's last czar, Nicholas II, a close relative, on the czar's yacht in Russian waters. It was to be 86 years before another British monarch visited Russia. In the interim, Russia had three revolutions, a prolonged civil war, famines, the Great Terror, and seven decades of communist rule.

Commenting prior to the queen's historic visit to Russia in 1994, the Russian newspaper Izvestia made the following perceptive comment: "The monarchy is unshakeable. No matter what happens in the country, the British know that there is an institution that will survive any difficulty" (quoted by Smith, pp. 382-383).

Great respect for the queen

In Britain one finds little respect for those in government. In contrast there is a great deal of respect for the queen, who has devoted her life to their service—and continues to do so at age 86!

"The arguments against the monarchy as antidemocratic and backward-looking have been overwhelmed by the Queen's dependable and consistent presence—what David Airlie, her former Lord Chamberlain, calls 'the sheet anchor in the middle for people to hang on to in times of turbulence'" (Smith, p. 502).

Britain today is greatly diminished from the country's position when Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne during Winston Churchill's peacetime administration. But the monarchy gives the country international influence it otherwise would not have.

"'The Commonwealth is very much her legacy,' said Brian Mulroney [former Canadian prime minister]. 'For her it is a major achievement and platform.' Without the Queen's leadership and example, 'many of us would have left,' said Kenneth Kaunda, the former president of Zambia . . . Through her own sources of information, she came to know more about the issues and concerns of Commonwealth countries, particularly in Africa, than her government's top officials" (Smith, p. 495).

She is also credited with encouraging member countries to restore democracy when they deviate into military or dictatorial rule.

Commenting on a G-20 summit of the world's most important leaders, Mulroney made this observation: "The Queen knows when she enters the room she is the most compelling head of state in the room. She is number one even though her country is not number one" (quoted by Smith, p. 491).

The resilience of the British monarchy is amazing. A century ago almost all the countries of Europe had a monarch. Today, few do. Why has the British monarchy not only survived but thrived during the last 100 years? The answer can be found in the Bible.

The biblical origins of the British monarchy and empire

As explained in our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy, the origin of the British people goes back to the ancient nation of Israel. And shocking though it may be to learn, the monarchy of Britain is in fact a continuation of the dynasty of Israel's King David—a dynasty God said would rule in all generations (Psalm 89:3-4). For the amazing story, check out our free online publication The Throne of Britain: Its Biblical Origin and Future.

The British Empire was a fulfillment of an ancient prophecy in Genesis 48 that the biblical patriarch Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, would become a multitude of nations and a great single nation:

"Bless the lads; let my name [Israel] be named upon them" (verse 16). "He [Manasseh] also shall become a people and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations" (verse 19).

The prophesied multitude of nations was to be fulfilled by Britain and her scattered colonies, all united by a common loyalty to the crown. The great single nation, Manasseh, broke away from the crown and became the United States of America, eventually the most powerful single nation in world history.

"And thus he set Ephraim before Manasseh" (verse 20). The British Empire was to be powerful before the United States reached its ascendancy.

And how great this empire was in its heyday! Today is only the second time in British history that a monarch has celebrated a diamond jubilee. The first time was in 1897 when Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth's great-great grandmother, celebrated hers. What was the empire like then?

"It was the largest Empire in the history of the world, comprising nearly a quarter of the land mass of the earth, and a quarter of its population . . . The sixtieth anniversary of her accession to the throne was being celebrated as a festival of imperial strength, splendor and unity—a mammoth exhibition of power, in a capital that loved things to be colossal . . . The nineteenth century had been pre-eminently Britain's century, and the British saw themselves still as top dogs" (James Morris, Pax Britannica, 1968, pp. 21-22).

Many Britons were aware of their prophetic identity in the Victorian era, and it was a commonly held belief in the trenches in World War I.

Stability masks profound change

Major change has since followed. Fifty-five years after Victoria's jubilee, when Elizabeth became queen, most of the empire was still ruled from London. Now, 60 years later, almost all of it has gone, diminishing Britain's power and influence considerably. At the same time, Britain's economic position has dropped significantly. National decline has been constant under Elizabeth's reign.

A second very significant change followed the loss of empire and continued economic decline. In 1971, the United Kingdom's parliament voted to join the European Community (now the European Union). Jan. 1, 2013, will be the 40th anniversary of Britain's membership.

At the time of joining, the British people were assured that the Community was purely an economic union that would boost British business. This was very deceptive, as the Treaty of Rome, signed by the six original members in 1957, pledged all member nations to form "an ever closer union." Membership has changed Britain substantially and threatens to do so even more in the future. Many British people resent this and want to pull out of the EU. There is little support for the euro, Britons preferring to keep their own currency, the British pound.

A third change inevitably followed Britain joining Europe—the weakening of Commonwealth ties, including the military ties that had helped Britain win the two world wars. Sixty years ago, with the exception of Canada, the other nations of the empire did most of their trade with Britain; their currencies were also tied to the British pound. The prophesied strength of Britain was to be as "a multitude of nations." Now that Britain has no empire and the Commonwealth is greatly diminished, this strength is gone.

A fourth significant change in the last 60 years is that the roles of Britain and Germany have been reversed. After losing two world wars to Britain and its democratic allies, Germany today is the greatest economic power in Europe, a position held by Britain 60 years ago. For centuries British foreign policy was based on staying out of European affairs unless a Continental nation and leader became too powerful (such as Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler). Rather, Britain would concentrate on her empire. Today, Britain is a lesser nation in a Continental union dominated by Germany.

A fifth major change is in the makeup of the British population. During the queen's reign, Great Britain has become a multiethnic nation, with millions of people entering the country, mostly from former colonies. It's too early to tell if this multicultural experiment will work, but it has clearly altered Britain. The real test could come during the economic downturn that is now afflicting the country.

Another big change may lie soon ahead—when Scotland votes on independence in 2014. If the Scots vote to break away from England, it can only weaken both countries.

The most major change of all

But the seventh and greatest change has been the decline in religious beliefs and the subsequent breakdown of the traditional values the British once exemplified.

British author Peter Hitchens wrote of this in 2000 in his book The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana, in which he contrasted the country at the time of Churchill's funeral in 1965 with the country 32 years later at the time of Diana's funeral.

In 1965, the British were proud of their history and accomplishments. Most considered themselves Christians, and religious education was compulsory in schools. Divorce was rare, family life sacrosanct. Young people riding buses would stand to allow the elderly to sit. Great deference was paid to members of the royal family, and men respectfully removed their hats as Churchill and his retinue passed by, appreciative of his victorious leadership of the country in World War II.

By the time of Diana's funeral in 1997, there was a general rejection of traditional biblical moral values. Worse, there was not even an awareness of them!

It wasn't like this until fairly recently. The 60s were the great reforming decade.

At one time and for hundreds of years Great Britain was a biblically literate nation. Historian Benson Bobrick wrote about this in his 2010 book Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired, his title taken from a poem about John Wycliffe, the first man to translate the Bible into his native English over six centuries ago.

"Only in England was the Bible in any sense a national possession . . . Englishmen carried their Bible with them—as the rock and foundation of their lives—overseas . . . Beyond the shores of Albion [a poetic name for Britain] it fortified the spirit of the pioneers of New England, helped to shape the American psyche, and through its impact on thought and culture eventually spread the world over, 'as wide as the waters be'" (p. 12).

"By royal injunction, the Lord's Prayer and the 10 Commandments in English were to be taught sentence by sentence on Sundays and holy days throughout the year; at least one sermon on the Gospels was to be preached every quarter . . . ; and every parish church in England was to 'set up in some convenient place' a copy of the English Bible accessible to all as 'the very lively Word of God'" (p. 151).

A writer at the time described people's enthusiasm for the newly available Bible: "It was wonderful to see with what joy the book of God was received . . . Everybody that could bought the book and busily read it; or got others to read it to them, if they could not themselves; and divers among the elderly learned to read on purpose. And even little boys flocked among the rest to hear portions of the Holy Scriptures read" (pp. 151-152).

From loving God's Word to loathing it

When did all this change? Historian Jacques Barzun wrote: "It did not cease for 350 years: 1900 was the first year in which religious works (at least in England) did not outnumber all other publications" (From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life 1500 to the Present, 2003, p. 10). January of the following year was the end of the Victorian era.

Church attendance has been dropping ever since. Ironically, for the nation that once led the world in sending missionaries into pagan lands, Britain is today the home of more websites devoted to atheism than any other country!

The result is the breakdown of marriage and family life and a growing lawlessness that led to serious rioting in the summer of 2011. The country also has a major drinking problem, the consumption of alcohol (and drugs) reflecting the emptiness of lives devoid of religious belief and purpose.

All of this has contributed greatly to the country's financial problems as governments pick up the tab for all the social programs necessary to at least try to clean up the mess. (To be fair, these problems are endemic throughout the Western world for the same reasons.)

The biblical book of Deuteronomy contains a prophecy in chapter 28 that is applicable here. The descendants of Israel (which today includes the British, Australian, Canadian and American people) were promised great blessings for obedience, but serious negative consequences for disobedience. Some of those consequences are now coming to pass. Unless there is a heartfelt repentance, no doubt the others are sure to follow.

By contrast, on June 2, 1953, Queen Elizabeth was crowned in a deeply religious ceremony that reflected the country's Christian heritage. In the ceremony "she pledged to honor the laws of Great Britain, its realms, territories and possessions, and 'maintain the Laws of God'" (Smith, p. 84).

"'The real significance of the coronation for her was the anointing, not the crowning,' said Canon John Andrew, a friend of the royal family and senior chaplain to the 100th Archbishop of Canterbury. 'She was consecrated, and that makes her Queen. It is the most solemn thing that has ever happened in her life. She cannot abdicate. She is there until death'" (Smith, p. 85).

Further changes ahead for Britain

When she does eventually die, there will be further changes, reflecting Britain's diminishing role. It's unlikely that Prince Charles will succeed his mother as head of the Commonwealth. If Commonwealth members choose an African dictator to fill the role, the Commonwealth's commitment to democracy will cease. It is also likely that Britain, confronted with serious financial problems, will no longer be willing to bankroll the organization. At the same time, some of the Commonwealth realms might opt to replace the queen with a figurehead president appointed by their respective parliaments.

At the time of her coronation, there was much talk of a "second Elizabethan age," the first having been a time of England's rise to greatness following the Protestant Reformation.

Elizabeth I (1558-1603) laid a solid foundation for the country to build on. By not marrying and leaving no heirs, her closest relative, James VI of Scotland, inherited the throne of England, thereby uniting the two kingdoms under one monarch. She also helped secure England's independence as a Protestant country separate from Rome. Additionally, it was a time of increasing prosperity.

The reign of Elizabeth II will be looked on as a time when these were reversed. This is not to say it's her fault, as she, unlike her namesake, is a constitutional monarch with very limited power. But the fact remains that the country has declined greatly during the six decades of Elizabeth's reign.

Without her, it's doubtful the country would have held together as well as it has. Throughout the long period of decline, the British people have always had the queen to look up to, a revered figure who has consistently put the country first, always doing her duty in a humble and graceful way. She will be sorely missed when the time comes.