the news here is that the republican fervour of the 1990s has dissipated and is now in the minority. All it took was a pretty girl in a yellow dress…. and a baby. Some talk of them abseiling yesterday without the baby. On an Eliot note it is surely obtuse for an American to embrace Monarchy? Political conservatism is understandable but where can a robust intelligence turn to find justification for that one?
On 17 Apr 2014, at 11:53 am, P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A lot of Canadians never learned that they are now citizens, not subjects. There is a small group who want to be republicans, but there are also some who would like a member of the Royals to be our governor general. The connection to Britain is now only sentimental, but those sentiments are incredibly strong. They line up with a desire to dump the Yanks and join the EU and even confederate with Britain. The head of our Bank just became the head of their Bank.
> Connection to Eliot? He was a Royalist wasn't he?
> Cheers, Pete.
> Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Local temperature one degree short of orgasm actually. My father was born in Eire prior to 1916 he referred to himself as a british object not subject. I don’t mind circuses myself just not quite so many clowns.
>> Sadly baby George cant fit in a public appearance today some talk of the veil of the temple being rent as a result in the news.
>> Congenial commonwealth Cheers to you Peter - Pete
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of P
>> Sent: Thursday, 17 April 2014 6:42 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: OT: The family.
>> Well their last name is Windsor and their baby is a prince is a fellow.
>> Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Now take this slowly I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed - to whom do you refer? Cheers Pete
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On 16 Apr 2014, at 9:11 pm, P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Hey Pete,
>>>> Say hello to Will & family for me. ;->.