« "The Dangerous Safety of College" by Frank Bruni | Main | Naftali Bennett threatens genocide in Lebanon - Haaretz »

12 March 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

J

What exactly does the Borg see so dangerous in Trump, notwithstanding his dismantling their Globalist grip? So he stomps on a few sandcastles, big deal right?

Americans are not so infatuated with the British crown as the bi-coastal think or want to believe. A good many Americans today see the heartache the British Crown has caused on a global scale, everywhere they went. The human slavery and servitude they wrought to achieve their Crown's aims.

I for one am none too keen on Trump being so cozy with the British Monarchy, especially the way the current Queen robbed from her own poor to heat and remodel her castles, and when discovered by the British Citizenry caused such a consternation that her cronies in Parliament placed her robbing schemes out of the public view under the Official Secrecy's Act.

Enrico Malatesta

I agree that the Borg's consternation with Trump is mostly a "limited hangout" to reinforce that no one is coming to save our Liberties for us, and we huddle alone against the mighty Borg.

LeaNder

Can the Queen give Trump and his wife the title of Knight (Sir) and Dame outside the Commonwealth? Or is this is a too snarky remark?

https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2017/01/28/theresa-mays-ankara-visit-signifies-importance-of-turkey-uk-relationship

I vaguely have Sir Sean Connery in mind here. Irony alert.

BillWade

We elected Trump partly because we don't want Royal Families here.

The Beaver

@ LeaNder

He can be knighted but won't have the prerogative of being titled Sir. Just a GCB- Knight of the Grand Cross-next to his name.

Both President Reagan and Bush père have been given that honorary knighthood

Newmarket

BillWade,

It depends on who "we" are. We tend to forget that the revolutionary war was a civil war and, perhaps, as many as 40% of Americans supported the crown. One of my ancestors, John the Tory, the Attorney General of Virginia, sailed back to England at the beginning of the war because, among other things, he couldn't break his oath of allegiance to the crown. His son, Edmund, joined Washington as aide-de-camp and, for his service then and in the future to George Washington, was appointed first attorney-general of the United States. Other ancestors, and many other Virginia tories, sailed to Halifax after Yorktown and became Canadians. Kenneth Roberts in "Oliver Wiswell" chronicles the story of the expulsion/emigration of many loyalist families.

But not all tories left; many were left behind and had to make their uneasy peace with republicanism. If memory serves me correctly, Col. Lang has written previously about the "tory strain" in American culture, politics and sociology, Perhaps, he will repost his essay. The soft-toryism of many Americans is reflected back to us in the continued obsession of many Americans with all things "royal". I have a hunch that President Trump is also a "soft tory" (as well as a "wet")and would like nothing better than a Knighthood from the Queen.

Newmarket

Literally scores, if not hundreds of Americans have been knighted by the British Crown. Many were military leaders who led the grand coalition to victory in World Wars I and II. Pershing, Patton, and Powell, Colin; Eisenhower, Bedell Smith, Bradley and Wild Bill Donovan. Later manifestations of this strain are Casper Weinberger and General Martin Dempsey. Even George C. Marshall accepted a Knighthood from King George VI. More recent honorees include Dean Rush, Senator Richard Lugar and Senator John Warner, but tend towards entertainers and philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates. Since Michael Bloomberg was knighted, the very competitive Donald will no doubt want a knighthood, too.

LeaNder

Thanks, Beaver. Maybe someone on the "Cherry Blossom Throne" does not need further ennobling matters? On the other hand wouldn't it trump Obama's Noble Prize? ;)

*******

But no doubt the succession to the throne is a hotly debated topic in GB. ... While Harry and his wife seem the more popular couple. Diana's ghost? ... From now on Charles on visit in Canada? That's were you are. No?

But back to the play:

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/sep/20/king-charles-iii-mike-bartlett
Mike Bartlett: How I wrote King Charles III

I wasn't aware of Ken Campbell's support of my favorite authorship theory. The actor turned writer is mine too. Careful, babble trap: Little Latin, less Greek, upstart crow ... our feathers.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/shakespeareactor.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greene%27s_Groats-Worth_of_Wit#Shakespeare_reference

Maybe I'll get myself at least the text.

Newmarket

One of the greatest graduates of the Institution attended by Col. Lang and this writer was Sir Moses Ezekiel, a "New Market" cadet and sculptor of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington Cemetery, among many other celebrated sculptural pieces. Sir Moses lived and worked in Rome after the war and was actually knighted by the King of Italy as a "chevalier". He was also known at times as Moses (Ritter von) Ezekiel ["ritter" being the German word for knight. Although Chevalier Moses, perhaps, should not be addressed as "Sir" he is always referred to as such in VMI-iana. There are others on this blog, including Col. Lang, who have more expertise in the technicalities of "knighten-clature" than I do.

turcopolier

Newmarket

Ezekiel is buried at the foot of the Confederate monument in Arligton National Cemetery (his work). It is true that a non-British knight or chevalier should not be addressed or referred to as "sir." That is a British custom, but as you say it is an old custom to refer to him that way at the In\stitute. His headstone says something like "Moses Ezekiel, Sergeant in the Corps of Cadets, Newmarket, May 15, 1864" His best piece I think is the seated statue of Poe on the campus of the University of Baltimore. I admire it greatly. Legend has it that he was living in Lexington in 1865 to finish his degree, the Institute having been burned by the miscreant David Hunter. Lee came to see Cadet Ezekiel in his lodgings to say that he had heard that he had been offered a wonderful position in Rome. Lee told him that he should take it and should make a grand effort so that THEY would not be able to say that WE were unworthy men. BTW I used to know an English baronet who would greet me by asking how the chevalier trade was these days. He was a fine fellow, a former Gurkha officer. pl

BillWade

Well, "we" being tired of the Bushes and Clintons, especially the Clintons. I have to admit though I considered voting for Jeb Bush who I thought would get the Republican nomination.

turcopolier

Newmarket

"Col. Lang has written previously about the "tory strain" in American culture, politics and sociology, Perhaps, he will repost his essay." Perhaps you could point me at this piece of mine? pl

Newmarket

Here's a link to a black and white photo of Sir Moses's seated Poe Statue referenced by Col. Lang. The good photos seem to be copyrighted, but they can be viewed on the web.

http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/25univ/ub/images/1198-1-06443b.jpg

At the base is the inscription, taken from "The Raven",which applies equally well to both artists:

Dreaming Dreams
No Mortal
Ever Dared
To Dream Before

Newmarket

I have scoured the archives and am unable to find it. My apologies if I have mis-remembered the source of the post.

Lars

"We" would save a lot of money if we had a King. It is much cheaper to maintain that electing a president every 4 years.

J

As I recall, our American war against the British Crown was a war of 'Independence', NOT a 'civil war'. It may have been viewed by the Tories as a civil war, but not to the rest who were giving their blood sweat and tears for American INDEPENDENCE from the cruel British Crown.

What I see today, is POTUS Trump wanting to join the British Crown's - Commonwealth of Nations. If America has to swear fealty to the British Crown for Commonwealth of Nations membership in any way shape or form, then I for one want none of it.

Fealty to a crown of cruelty, never I say, never.

English Outsider


Colonel - In a previous thread I jumbled together some constitutional reasons why a hereditary Head of State was a good idea. I missed out the main reason which if you will permit I will set out here:-

The job of a Head of State is to be boring.

I grasped this essential truth way back in the dark ages at the age of six. The entire parish had spaced itself out along the main road to see the Queen Mother drive past. It was the only time she or any Royal ever did so we made the most of it. The atmosphere was electric. Subdued electric, of course, no one likes to make a fool of himself. Our tiny group waved loyally as the limousine swept past. A gloved hand waved back with that effortless reciprocal motion from the wrist that only Royalty can achieve. That was it. "How boring", I thought, and went home well satisfied.

On any ceremonial occasion the job of the officiant is not to be there as an individual. Not to obtrude his or her necessarily limited human personality on the occasion. We seem as humans to need ceremonial occasions. No society manages without. The more the person comes to the fore on such occasions the less effective the ceremony. The soldier getting a medal pinned to his tunic doesn't want a flow of wisecracks or easy conversation. That diminishes the occasion. He wants the job done formally. The job of a Head of State - how tedious it must be, all those miles of red carpets and acres of cut glass - is to be the embodiment of the community. No politician, with votes to gather in and opponents to conciliate or defeat, can achieve the requisite degree of remoteness. Imagine having a Mr Blair or a Mr Clinton in such a position. It would be like having some rogue of a second hand car dealer who'd just sold you some bodged up disaster officiating at a mass. Quite possible, if needs must, but better by far to divorce the ceremonial from the political.

All this, as a fiercely egalitarian deplorable even then, I intuited at the age of six. My continental friends, who know immensely more than I do about the Royal Family because the continental papers seem to be full of them, tell me of scandals that if a tenth of them were true would do credit to the less inhibited Roman Emperors. They leave me cold. No doubt the person behind the gloved hand makes all the mistakes and has all the faults that the rest of us do. So what. While it's out and about and doing its job the gloved hand belongs to me and not to whatever human happens to be waving it.

doug

Newmarket and Col. Lang:

Thank you for that bit of history of which I was previously unaware.

Here's a link to the statue which has a back link to a story about it by Nathan Dennies

https://explore.baltimoreheritage.org/files/show/752

LeaNder

It's no doubt a hard largely, but not only, ceremonial job. I do not envy her, or her successor. Am I correct that most Prime Ministers still see her regularly every week?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom#Use

My continental friends, who know immensely more than I do about the Royal Family because the continental papers seem to be full of them, tell me of scandals that if a tenth of them were true would do credit to the less inhibited Roman Emperors.

Hope you don't mind? Maybe in a certain type of publication? But outside of special events that's not a rule from my perspective. Without doubt the stories around Charles and Diana got most attention, even in circles I never would have thought interested in such matters. ...

Occasionally you can stumble across someone who supports a general cause that she/he claims Prince Charles supports too. Water? Indian background. Or Diana and the mines. ... Among more curious family matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqA0FPXrsXY

I recall that when I was a teen, my best friend's mother had subscribed to a women's magazine called Frau im Spiegel/Woman in the Mirror. Apart from other subjects I wasn't interested in, it paid extensive attention on European nobility. Obviously the British Queen was and/is the absolute star among them.

But yes, our correspondents no doubt pick up on Royal matters in GB, or spin their stories around British media events. ... Just as we too do have "experts" on nobility or the Royals more generally. And our public channels in the lesser viewed programs, I suppose, offer the occasional The Royals series usually looking into the historical context, but not only. Succession made it over here too. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown_(TV_series)

I do not recall I stumbled across it in the type of publications I read or had subscribed to. But one magazine, I never paid attention to apparently did. Didn't even know it still exists. It refers to "the Crown" series linked above. The title reads: Three things you didn't know about the relationship between Queen Elisabeth II and Prince Philip.

Die Bunte / The Colorful
http://www.bunte.de/royals/britisches-koenigshaus/queen-elizabeth-prinz-philip-3-dinge-die-sie-ueber-ihre-beziehung-noch-nicht-wussten.html


William R. Cumming

Some new estimates that only 20% supported the Revolution!

William R. Cumming

Thanks Richard! Royalty a dangerous frivolity IMO!

Newmarket

J, a civil war is a war between citizens of the same country or polity. Although the thirteen colonies were not technically a country at the at the time of the declaration of Independence, war raged throughout the thirteen colonies between loyalists and insurgents/patriots and, as W. R. Cumming points out, there may have been more of the former. It is more accurate to call the conflict a civil war, although the version of the winners -- a war of independence from Great Britain-- has become commonly accepted.

My ancestors did not believe they were fighting in a civil war during the period of the late unpleasantness. They believed that they were either fighting in a war between the states or a war of independence by the the citizens of the Confederate States of America. The winners who have written the history of the period, 1861-1865, call the conflict a "civil war" and that nomenclature has become generally accepted.

English Outsider


Yeah, that's a tough one. Having to see a British Prime Minister every week for ever. In that respect history has not been kind to her.

Die "Bild"-Zeitung. That's the one. At every tube station, with a hopeful honour box beneath. Most of what I have forgotten about the Royal Family was gleaned from odd glimpses of the front page as I headed for the escalators. But most people I meet in Germany do seem to know an awful lot about the in-laws and such.

I can't match your superb collection of Royalabilia but if you want to see some quite nice cut glass there's this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11757987/The-secrets-of-Buckingham-Palaces-Royal-receptions.html

My main interest, of course, was in the washing up. Do you know they've been washing up the same crockery for centuries and apparently no breakages reported. That's one place I'm not going to get taken on as a plongeur.

Tosk59

No "emoluments clause" fussing? Maybe OK once out of office...

turcopolier

tosk59

These are honorary knighthoods and carry no emoluments with them and they have bee specifically ruled as not violating the emoluments clause so they can be accepted by military officers still on active duty. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad