Wednesday, March 05, 2008

On Patriotism 2

Let your chest - if you are English, okay British - swell a little when you read this letter to the New York Times.


  1. He is basically right isn't he?

  2. It's another good argument for having a monarchy too - not only that they're pretty well obliged to do their bit, but that it gives the others something to fight for that is far more satisfactory than whatever government happens to be in power. A monarch can embody a country in a way no President can.

  3. To quote English Bob from 'Unforgiven', talking of the shooting of President Garfield:

    "Well sirs, again not wishing to give offence, it might be a good idea if the country were choose a Queen, or even a King, rather than a President. One isn't as quick to take a shot at a King or Queen. The majesty of royalty you see..."

    and later, when a fellow says he wouldn't point a pistol at anyone:

    "A wise policy. But if you did, I can assure you, the sight of royalty would cause you to dismiss all thoughts of bloodshed and awe. Whereas, a President: I mean, why not shoot a President?"

  4. why would you want an argument for the monarchy, nige? they're already established. unless you're looking to have a referendum, then I suggest they'll need more convincing arguments than they fill the ranks of the armed services. they could do that as ordinary citizens.

    anyway, if we must go to war it should be for justice and democracy, things that don't come to mind when you think about the monarchy.

    I don't know about this letter, guys. The Americans have chosen the right to make a mistake when it comes to leaders while we still tug our forelocks at royal children. You think that makes us better patriots than them?

  5. Actually i'd gun down royalty more than a president due to it's pomp and privilege in a supposed meritocracy. That being said i don't think a president would work here.