Alexander Chancellor and Sarah Lyall
Dear Sarah,
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponFewer "x"s on the bottom of your letter this morning, but it's no longer Valentine's Day, so that's only to be expected. I thought you took excessive pains last night to explain that they didn't mean anything anyway, and were just your routine way of ending all letters. You should allow a man his dreams--particularly a shy, repressed Englishman. Talking of which, I see you are interested in Prince Charles. I hadn't read the story in the Express until you drew it to my attention, but I have now, and although your suspicions about its authenticity are wholly understandable, I think it has the ring of truth about it. Nobody in government ever goes on the record when criticizing the royal family, because it still enjoys bewildering popularity, and it is very easy for journalists to make things up and get away with it, as I suspect they often do. But in this case, I would trust the Express.
Two reasons. One is that Tony Blair is pained by dissent of any kind, especially, one presumes, when it comes from such a prominent source. The other, which is really just my own gut feeling, is that he doesn't really like the monarchy and dreams secretly of its abolition. He ought not to like it, for it stands in the way of his great project to turn Britain into dynamic, meritocratic society that Americans will admire not for its thatched cottages and quaint traditions but for its modernity and creative energy. He has already declared war on the hereditary principle by abolishing it in House of Lords. How can he therefore condone a hereditary head of state?
He has said, when asked, that he thinks the monarchy is better for Britain than a presidential system, but he has never said why. He has never rooted for the monarchy in a positive way or used any of the traditional arguments in its defense, that it is a force for stability and a focus of national unity. If he really is harboring the treacherous thoughts that I suspect him of, it would be perfectly logical for him to oppose any plan for the queen to stand down in favor of her eldest son. The time to declare a republic would be after the queen's death. It is almost unimaginable before that, and it would be very difficult to do so if Prince Charles were already in situ. (The queen, Sarah, is 75, not 100, but everyone dies in the end.)
The Express claims that the government is incensed by Prince Charles's "ill-advised forays into politics" and regard him as a "loose cannon" who would be a troublesome king. This is not a persuasive claim. Under our unwritten constitution, it is understood that the monarch shall never express a controversial opinion or say or do anything remotely interesting. The queen has been a model of constitutional propriety in this respect, which has led many people to believe that she doesn't actually think anything interesting, either. There is something about her face that suggests to me that they are wrong. I think that she is probably highly opinionated in what is probably a most politically incorrect way, but that she also possesses almost superhuman self-control. Anyway, the constitutional restrictions that apply to the queen do not apply to any other member of the royal family, not even to the heir to the throne. It is assumed--and there is no reason to think it will be any different with Prince Charles--that the gag is applied only when somebody accedes to the throne.
Of course, the prince of Wales has to be careful. An earlier prince of Wales--Charles' great-uncle Edward, who later abdicated to marry a divorced woman, the American Wallis Simpson--created one hell of a rumpus by saying that "something should be done" to get unemployed Welsh steelworkers back to work. This was taken as an attack on the Conservative government of the time (1936). But Charles hasn't said anything even as controversial as that. His criticisms of Blair's pet project, the disastrous Millennium Dome, were "leaked," not stated publicly. And how can he seriously be accused of political meddling by joining in the national debate about genetically modified foods? Cool it, Mr. Blair.
I've been going on too long, so I'd better not broach the interesting question of the Afghan hostages' choosing to go home because of the British weather and our disgusting food. Perhaps later.
Love,
Alexander xxxxx
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Highlights from The Fray:
I'm somewhat stupefied over the choice that your magazine made regarding this week's Breakfast Table. Frankly, as an American political junkie, I find it unfathomable that, with one of the most exciting, compelling presidential primary weeks in recent electoral history upon us, you saw fit to have as your Breakfast Table guests this week two expatriates who spent their time debating the fascinating details of British table condiments.
--Lonnie W. Neubauer
(To reply, click here.)
(But not everyone agreed - Doug Richardson replied that
A dollop of painless prattle about condiments is becoming, day by day, more appetizing than the great trough of swill served up by the four cretins who have captivated every marginally literate person with a word processor--I look to Slate for a little of everything on my plate.
And other Fraygrants were happy to deal with the whole wide range of Breakfast Table subjects:)
It's nice to find amidst the stuff about ketchup, Americanisms, Bush vs McCain, and salad cream, an admission of the problems of the British National Health system [Wednesday's entry]. Throughout the great healthcare "debate" of 1992-1994 we were told over and over again that the single-payer system was the way to go, with Britain and Canada cited admiringly. Now who's ready to admit that rationing would be necessary in any kind of scheme to extend healthcare to everyone in the U.S.?
--Edward Brynes
(To reply, click here.)
To Edward Brynes:
Don't you think that the current American health-care system rations access? It is, in practice, unavailable to approximately 43 million people.
--June Thomas
(To reply, click here.)
In reply:
Medical care is not actually unavailable to people without insurance, but certainly it is very costly. That's not the same situation as rationing, which to me implies a deliberate policy of allocating treatment according to medical need and feasibility of treatment.
Normally someone in the U.S. with insurance coverage is assured abundant care and little waiting even if there is reason to believe that with all the care in the world he or she won't live more than a few months anyway or will live a greatly impaired life. There is a different philosophy in Britain. Many people, not heartless monsters, have asked what value there can be in maintaining, by complex expensive technology, people in such a situation. Rationing has the effect of freeing up resources.
--Edward Brynes
(To reply, click here.)
Norway is not a member of the European Union [Tuesday's entry].
--Marian
(To reply, click here.)
What I've always wanted to know is: Is catsup the same as ketchup? [Wednesday's entry] I've always had a suspicion that catsup was more "U" than ketchup - wasn't there a British, ie non-Heinz variety, called catsup in the '50s? Don't know what the fuss is about salad cream, incidentally. It's just bottled mayonnaise--not very good mayonnaise, sure, but that's not the point. The point is the name; you wouldn't have got my Mum buying something called mayonnaise, but salad cream was nice and homely.
--michael elliott
(To reply, click here.)
This is a dreadful error of culinary history: no the British did NOT invent catsup. Like many things adopted during the Imperial years, it is an Indian condiment. I have read various spellings of the word, but "ketchep" will do. It is a kind of chutney, not always tomato, but sweet rather than hot, like lemon pickle. My favorite recipe is one that uses sweet red peppers, roasted, skinned, and macerated into a pulp which is then simmered with vinegar, sultanas, onion, garlic, ginger, cardamom, and cinnamon. My private joke is to then blend it all (not really authentic) and serve it with an East Indian meal, in a Heinz pourable catsup bottle. It is just a bit more orange, but no one notices. It tastes nothing like the American product of course, and is tangy and delicious. Bon Appétit!
--Apollonius
(To reply, click here.)
(2/18)
St. Valentine [Monday's entry] is the patron saint of MESSAGES, because while he was imprisoned he threw little messages out of his cell to cheer up the Christians. Hence St. Valentine's Day is a day to send messages to those important to you. Since the Christian message is "Jesus loves you" and "see how they love one another" and so on, "love" notes come immediately to mind. Since we use only one word for all of the kinds of love (unlike the Greeks), and since we needed a February holiday to buy cards and gifts for (really, study the history of Valentine cards), the target for and meaning of the Valentine changed to more physical ones. The arrows business may come from St. Valentine's execution by being shot through the heart with many arrows.
--tony zapf
(To reply, click here.)
(2/15)