Natalie Solent |
|
|
Politics, news, libertarianism, Science Fiction, religion, sewing.
You got a problem, bud? I like sewing.
E-mail: nataliesolent-at-aol-dot-com (I assume it's OK to quote senders by name.) Back to main blog RSS thingy 
Jane's Blogosphere: blogtrack for Natalie Solent. 
Links ( 'Nother Solent is this blog's good twin. Same words, searchable archives, RSS feed. Provided by a benefactor, to whom thanks. I also sometimes write for Samizdata and Biased BBC.) The Old Comrades:
Archives
November 2001
December 2001
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
August 2007
October 2007
February 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
March 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
October 2009
January 2010
March 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
April 2011
June 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
|
Monday, September 20, 2004
James Rummel of Hell in a Handbasket writes: Would you define yourself as a citizen of Britain or a subject of the Crown? And how do you think many of your fellow countrymen would answer? (I realize that yours might not be the typical reply.)I is a-thinking. I know how I want to answer: subject. But that's mostly because in British (as opposed to American) political discourse the sort of people who raise this question all want to make Chris Patten President of Britain. Such people think citizen is a nicer word than subject because citizens are democratic but subjects have their heads chopped off. It's no use talking to them about all the citoyens who had their heads chopped off in the the French Revolution either, because that sort of Frog-bashing talk is just the sort of archaic baggage a foward-looking European nation needs to drop.
But what do I think really? Does it matter? In law and daily life the two are pretty much the same. Google for "subject or citizen" and most of the hits you will get refer to legal procedures for gaining or renouncing British citizenship. It seems the lawyers mention both in the same breath to avoid trouble. Then again, that implies there is a "trouble" to avoid...
I gather from my friend (and occasional correspondent on this blog) "ARC" that Edmund Burke wrote much that is relevant to this question. However to claim to be a Burkean on the basis of what my mate said he said is a little desperate. (But if - not that I'm hinting or anything - ARC would like to summarise what he said in writing, my pages are ever open.) I shall just note that if I allow another year to go by without my having read Reflections on the Revolution in France I shall eat my Golden Jubilee commemorative plastic hat.
Back to the point. Consider the following dialogue:
Now it's getting awkward. Part of the reason why the wife loves the husband is that she is quite sure he won't take to serial killing. His non-serial-killerness is part and parcel of what makes him him. When we do hear of a wife who finds out her husband is a serial killer we don't blame her for seeking a divorce. There is something admirable as well as tragic about a wife who would say her husband is her husband no matter what his crimes, but to keep our admiration of her we have to stipulate that she expresses her steadfast love for his higher self, you might say, by turning him into the police.
This analogy has got off the point. I should have specified a less extreme crime but don't want to go back and change it now. The point I was trying to make is that in national as in wifely loyalty the object of loyalty changes, both in itself and by external circumstances, yet still retains a continuing identity. Some changes may be so extreme as to break the notion of continuing identity, but they are rare.
Past history is part of that identity. If the husband were to ask, "Would you still love me if I had been born Japanese, instead of, as I am, Kenyan?" the question is not really answerable. The wife may have nothing but friendly feelings to Japanese people generally. But the fact is that the husband she loves would be someone else without his Kenyan upbringing, appearance and culture. Seeking to be other than Kenyan would be a serious step.
Subject was the deal history gave me. If I felt my head was in danger I might feel differently, but it isn't - in fact the subjects of the Crown do rather better in terms of liberty (despite my many fears and complaints on that score) than do many citizens of other countries whose constitutions sound a lot better. It isn't necessary to claim that we do better on all counts against all other countries in order to feel that constitutional monarchy is a good flag to follow.
ADDED LATER: Time for a little libertarian metacontext, as they say at Samizdata. The debate is framed so that one chooses between subject or citizen - but one could say, neither. Actually I wouldn't. But I'd like the choice.
|