Interesting that there are no replies.
Eliot made the Royalist claim after his reversion to Christianity.
I doubt he had such a defined political stance much earlier. Perhaps
some emotional sympathy. but not formulated.
Don't forget his royalism was of the white rose. He considered
Richard III to be the last ENGLISH king. He wore a white rose
on the aniversary of the Battle of Bosworth field.
Why would you think that there is necessarily a conflict between royalism
and "a humanitarian and compassionate sensitivity towards the plight of the
underdog"? As I remember it, the anglo-saxon etymological origins of Lord
and Lady had to do with those who supplied breadto the tribe.
Royalism has an inbuilt connection with tribalism.
Quoting cr mittal <[log in to unmask]>:
> Sometime back I wrote that despite Eliot's labelling of himself a royalist
> in politics, one could discover in his work "the rebellious, destabilizing,
> liberating aspects of art". What I had in mind was not so much his radical
> innovations in poetic technique as his belying his avowed "royalist" stance
> in displaying a humanitarian and compassionate sensitivity towards the plight
> of the underdog in 'Preludes', 'Rhapsody on a Windy Night', 'Morning at the
> Window', 'Le Director', and 'The Waste Land'. This aspect is quite pronounced
> in 'Murder in the Cathedral':
> CHORUS: We have not been happy, my Lord, we have not been
> too happy.
> We are not ignorant women, we know what we must
> expect and not expect.
> We know of oppression and torture,
> We know of extortion and violence,
> Destitution, disease,
> The old without fire in winter,
> The child without milk in summer,
> Our labour taken away from us,
> Our sins made heavier upon us.
> I read somewhere a critic calling TSE a Christian socialist.
> It intrigues me not a little. Could someone enlighten me?
> ~ CR
> Yahoo! Photos
> Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands