A follow-up commentary for my recent post, “A modern monarchy, American-style”. I felt it necessary because I should explain exactly why I changed from being a supporter of the Queen, to a monarchist, back to being just a supporter of Her Majesty.
Posted by M.L. Littlefield, Oct 09, 2009 01:45 PM
Theodore Harvey wrote on Oct 11, 03:07 pm
As one who definitely is a monarchist and not just a supporter of Her Majesty, I can't say I agree, and I'm not sure this really cleared things up at all. Are you saying that you will no longer support the British monarchy when Elizabeth II (long may she reign!) is no longer with us? I for one fully intend to support Charles III and William V every bit as firmly when their turns come. I am a monarchist not because HM is an admirable person, though she is, but because I love the traditions and trappings of monarchy and would rather have a head of state chosen by no one than a head of state chosen by other people but not me. I believe monarchy deserves support even if the sovereign is not as dignified and dutiful as Elizabeth II, because the institution is bigger than the person. I would also refrain from judging those who in the 1930s hoped to avoid another war too harshly. Remember that adults of that time all remembered how horrible World War I had been and it is perfectly understandable that "appeasers," including Edward VIII, strove to improve relations between Britain and Germany. Stalin's Soviet regime in the 1930s had already murdered many more millions of people than Hitler's, yet no one criticises the West for not having gone to war against Stalin.