EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnMANAGING EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnART DIRECTORrnH. Ward SterettrnDESIGNERrnMelanie AndersonrnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnKatherine Dalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rn].0. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Donald Livingston,rnWilliam Mills, William Murchison,rnAndrei Navrozov, Jacob NeusnerrnFOREIGN AFFAIRS EDITORrnSrd]a TrifkovicrnLEGAL AFFAIRS EDITORrnStephen B. PresserrnRELIGION EDITORrnHarold O./. BrownrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnA publication of The Rockford Instihite.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices;rn928 North Main Street. Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815) 964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMonnI Morris. IL 61054, Call 1-800-877-5459,rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Way, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright S” 1999 by Tlie Rockford Institute.rnMl rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $39.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surfirce delivery, $48 for Air Mail) per vear byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street.rnRockford, IL 61103-7061, Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional nrailingrnoffices. POSTN4ASTER; Send addressrnchanges to Chronicles, P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054,rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are tliernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot hernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.25, No, 7 July 1999rnPrinted Ml tlie Uiiita! Shites of .’iiieritarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Modernizing MonarchyrnLike Michael Stenton (“Letter FromrnEngland; Thoroughly Modern Monarchy”rnMarch), I am amazed by thesern”modern” Englishmen who are so rapidlyrndismantling the finest constitution inrnthe world, without the traces of which thernUnited States and Canada would be farrnmore lost than they already are.rnThe only objection which can fairly bernraised against the monarchy in GreatrnBritain is that William of Orange was unablernto secure Prince James Edward Stuartrnas his successor. I note, however, thatrnDr. Stenton admires the ring leader inrnthe murder of Prince James Edward’srngrandfather in 1649. He says that OliverrnCromwell nobly refused the Crown.rnWinston Churchill’s insight, in the secondrnvolume of his History of the English-rnSpeaking Peoples, is more astute: “arngroup of law)’ers and gentr)’ decided to offerrnCromwell the Crown. ‘The title ofrnProtector,’ said one of them, ‘is not limitedrnby any rule or law; the title of King is.'”rnThe Crown is the foundation of thernconstitution. Take it away, and vou getrnthe likes of Cromwell, who destroyed thernfundamental law in England, committedrngenocide in Ireland, and left Scotland anrnorphaned province. If the British allowrnthe monarchy to go, they will be as stupidrnand corrupt as those Americans who rejoicedrnover Bill Clinton’s acquittal onrnimpeachment for perjury.rnI am comforted by Dr. Stenton’s observationrnthat Tony Blair is not veryrnbright. Like Cromwell, Blair is dangerousrnenough without brains. The Britishrnhave their Diana, and we Americans ourrnMonica, both femmes fatales. BecausernDiana was more cunning and beautiful,rnshe posed a more ominous threat to civilization.rnA friend of mine in the House of Lordsrntold me that the “reforms” now underrnway in the upper chamber will make therninstitution “more democratic.” He madernthis remark innocently, just as NevillernChamberlain smiled innocentiy on hisrnreturn from Munich. Because it is impossiblernto govern any country withoutrnthe support of the people at large, democracyrnis indispensable. But democracy is arnnecessar)’ evil in constant need of constitutionalrnchecks to keep it from becomingrna monster. Whether or not it makesrnsense to superficial observers, the Housernof Lords works, and so it should not be reformed.rnThe only reason it does not workrnbetter is that it has already been overly reformed.rnI fault Queen Liz for having given uprntoo much. I hope Charlie has a try at itrnbefore she gives away the farm. A king isrna human being with human imperfections,rnbut he is also the symbolic embodimentrnof all that is good and right in publicrnlife. I am convinced that Charlie is arnsensitive and good man, which probabKexplainsrnwhy he is not imiversall}’ popular,rnand why he may become, by therngrace of Cod—aye, a bonnie King!rn~]ohn Remington GrahamrnSt. Agapit, QuebecrnOn True RefreshmentrnWhile so many publications are contentrnto serve up the same flabby perspectives,rnit is always refreshing to read Chronicles.rnEach issue just gets better and better. Asrnluck would have it, the May issue showedrnup the very same day that I had gone tornthe public library to catch up on what thernparrot press had to say about the burgeoningrngeneral crisis. The choices offeredrnup by our great pluralistic and progressivernpress boiled down to a tour ofrnthe post-civilized New World in whichrnone’s options are either riding in therntrunk with Procrustes or up front withrnMadeleine Albright. Suffice it to say, it isrnpractically impossible to distinguish fakernright publications like National Reviewrnfrom Clintonista organs like the “SkewedrnRepublic.” Like listening to an entirernCD of Schoenberg, these publicationsrnhave the unique qualit)’ of agitating asrnthey simultaneously sedate. By contrast,rnopening up the May Chronicles had thernsame invigorating quality’ as a swim in thern46-degree waters of the Colorado River.rn—Tom SheeleyrnFlagstaff, iZrnc^o r Jr/As’c/v/je:rnfiSVOj (V77-c>/ci^rn4/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn