In Chapter 7, Alice, the White King, Haigha, and Hatta hear the Lion and the Unicorn fighting. This fight is a satirical allusion to the political history of England and Scotland:
“Why, the Lion and the Unicorn, of course,” said the King.
“Fighting for the crown?”
“Yes, to be sure,” said the King: “and the best of the joke is, that it’s my crown all the while! Let’s run and see them.”
And they trotted off, Alice repeating to herself, as she ran, the words of the old song:—
Alice immediately asks if the Lion and the Unicorn are fighting for the crown because these are the words to a nursery rhyme she knows. The nursery rhyme refers to the unification of England and Scotland. In 1603, King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England after Queen Elizabeth I died, ending the Tudor line of succession to the English throne. The lion traditionally represents England, and the unicorn traditionally represents Scotland. Alice is eager to see the fight and better understand the rhyme.
The Lion and the Unicorn in Through the Looking-Glass are fighting not for the English crown, but rather for the White King's crown. As the White King tells Alice, this fight is a joke. The Lion and the Unicorn are both on the White King's side of the board, so this is basically a pointless civil war. Carroll uses this joke to satirize U.K. politics, at least among England and Scotland. The Lion has a clear physical advantage, even though the Unicorn seems smarter. The Lion's brute strength suggests that the English empire is absurdly strong and that, regardless of politics, it will always have an advantage over Scotland. It does not matter greatly (at least according to Carroll) who gets the crown because the Lion will remain, effectively, in charge. This is not necessarily a patriotic commentary; the Lion does not come out of the chapter looking especially good, and there are no real morals to the fight between the Lion and the Unicorn. Instead, Alice walks away with the sense that the fight the nursery rhyme is based on is no more logical than the silly rhyme itself.
In Chapter 12, Alice wakes up and asks Kitty whether she thinks the dream of the Looking-Glass World was Alice's dream or the Red King's dream. This question may seem childish (wasn't it obviously Alice's dream?), but it satirizes some philosophical and religious debates that were going on around Carroll:
"[...] This is a serious question, my dear, and you should not go on licking your paw like that—as if Dinah hadn’t washed you this morning! You see, Kitty, it must have been either me or the Red King. He was part of my dream, of course—but then I was part of his dream, too! Was it the Red King, Kitty? You were his wife, my dear, so you ought to know Oh, Kitty do help to settle it! I’m sure your paw can wait!”
George Berkeley, an Irish bishop, argued in the 18th century that the entire world was an idea dreamed up by God. This philosophy, "idealism," had held fast throughout much of the 19th century, but people were beginning to challenge it around the time Carroll wrote this novel. Alice's question about who dreamed up the Looking-Glass World is, on the one hand, a "serious question" that takes the framework of idealism straightforwardly. It supposes that someone's dream created the entire world of the novel. And yet, Alice's seriousness itself satirizes the philosophy. If a little girl can dream up a whole world just as a God or a king can, how much power do gods and kings really have?
For that matter, the Red King is in fact a chess piece. Alice's imagination is the only thing that turns him into a real king. If idealism is real, Alice has an absurd amount of power. On the other hand, nothing has "really" happened over the course of the novel if it was all in Alice's mind. If God dreams up reality, Carroll asks the reader, how "real" is reality itself? On top of all this, Carroll stages this philosophical debate between a little girl and her kitten. Although the basis of reality theoretically matters a great deal, how Alice and Kitty resolve this debate barely matters at all. The novel thus leaves the reader with an undermined sense of reverence for the philosophers having the debate in public.
