As A Wise Man, Umm, Guy, Once Said

You are really a hypocrite, Set, what with this sanctimonious manner.

Inanities? To you maybe. To me, this is an important conversation. Fighting off prejudice is important and clarifying that Set doesn't speak for me was important.

What is NOT important to me is whether or not you remember what the thread is about... or whether or not you like what I have to say. Follow your own advice and press the ignore button.

That's rich coming from someone who blames American francophobia on attitudes inherited from the English experience at Agincourt.

Of course an American cliche?

While there appears to be a general consensus that George III was a family man with exacting moral standards, there is no disputing the fact that he suffered from recurrent and ultimately permanent mental illness. This doesn't mean he was unintelligent, but from what I can tell, he doesn't have a plethora of biographers extolling his genius.

The only movie that memorably features him is "The Madness of King George" which was, if not a British production, a joint UK-US one. Certainly the cast was entirely British, or very nearly so. I'd be surprised if King George III didn't have "cameos" in one or two "Hollywood" movies about the American Revolution, but none that stand out as iconic, and I'm pretty much a movie buff. Maybe we should consult with tsarstepan, our resident expert on the cinema.

I don't think the monarchs of any country are widely assumed by Americans to have been brilliant figures (are they anywhere?), but neither is it widely assumed here that they were all morons.

William I, Henry II, Richard I, Edward I, Henry V, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Edward VII, and George VI are all British monarchs who have been favorably depicted (if only in terms of intelligence) in American popular culture, with a couple, notably Richard The Lionhearted, receiving a romantic and inaccurate make-over from the persons they actually were.

Really, the only British monarchs who have received enough American attention to be said to be classified by us as buffoons are Edward VIII and to a much lesser extent, Charles I. Whether or not the treatment is justified, it's difficult to assert it is indicative of any American cliche concerning British monarchs.

If you asked Americans to name British monarchs, I think they would be hard pressed to come up with more than five, and that might be a stretch. (Of course they could score higher just by adding roman numerals to any name they did know, but I would consider that cheating). I don't necessarily see this as a failure of American education though. History contains a lot of detail and I wouldn't expect the average well educated American to be able to recite the entire line of British monarchs. I doubt the average well-educated Brit can recite the entire line of US presidents, nor would I expect them to be able to Again the reality of the situation here is hardly a degree of even overall awareness sufficient to generate a national cliche about the intelligence of British Kings and Queens

John I and Richard III haven't received the Hollywood star treatment here in the US, but you can blame that on the Robin Hood legend and Shakespeare. In fact, Shakespeare informs more Americans about British monarchs (accurately or otherwise) then any actual historical source.

As much as I've enjoyed your prise de bec with Setanta, and as much as I'm sure he neither feels he needs nor desires my testimony, I have to say that I haven't seen any evidence of a pervasive anti-English or anti-French bias in his comments in this forum. It wouldn't be shocking to find a comment or two which constituted a jibe at some aspect of either nation's government or culture and I've no doubt that it is quite easy to interpret an essentially neutral comments of his as an insult, just as it would be easy to mistake a Sequoia for a Giant Redwood in a Giant Redwood forest, but fair is fair, and my experience is that his comments that confine themselves to matters of history are most often largely objective. I just haven't seen the sort of anti-French or anti-English bias that you contend he expresses liberally. Just my observation.

Another observation is that it is truly ironic that your ally in this exchange would accuse Setanta of having a large chip on his shoulder. I don't know how he might have managed to see it what with his own enormous chip obscuring his vision.

No monarchy is free fs stupid, bigoted and dull-witted representatives. It's the nature of the beast.

Thanks for the rich analysis of American views on English monarchs. Maybe indeed it's a more general view of all monarchs. Which in my view remains unfair, as presidents and PMs haven't been much smarter, but that's a different debate altogether.

I have suspected an anti-French bias in Set since a previous discussion on the percentage of English words that are of French origin. I don't remember the exact wording but I got the general sense that he found unpalatable the fact that some 40% of common English words are of French origin.

Reading things like "cheese eating surrender monkeys" recently on this thread did not help me forge a better view...

Maybe I am being unfair, and understood things the wrong way. Osso, whom I trust, says the same thing as you: that Set is generally factually correct, at least about history...

BTW, I meant to tell you that, as much as I hate the Bushists pro-war and anti-French propaganda back in 2003/4, and although I always thought it built upon an age-old prejudice, I did not mean by that that YOU personally were prejudiced and that it was your own personal motive. All I meant is that there exists such a prejudice in the States as a whole, and that it was piggy-backed by the neocons to spread their propaganda. That's actually one of the few things they did really well.

Heh, French people. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

And when my parents were stationed abroad, both said they understood why we were called ugly Americans. Heh, ugly American stereotypes exist for a reason, you moronic idiot.

Indeed. And the French still have a lot of colonies ... les colonies de vacances.

But as George Bush said: Le futur sera meilleur demain.

It seems that some people are all too easily wounded in their self-love.

Not me... my self-love is so high, it's unassailable. :-)

Nice to see some honesty from you, gb.

The war crimes, the torture, the raping and plundering, the terrorism all add to make the ugly even uglier.

oh my. You seem a tad butthurt in my comment. A little too close to home for you?

Says McG, a shining example of a butt ugly ugly American.

Stereotypes about Americans are of course without reason and just prove that those about French, Germans et. al. by Americans have a reason.

Really? I always thought it was the other way round...

Is this another one of those things where you can't comment on one thing without commenting on everything? How does my saying French people are stereotyped in any way negate the many American stereotypes?

I don't get how that happens. It's as though you guys saw my statement as ONLY French people were stereotyped which only a complete idiot would do. You aren't a complete idiot are you Walter?

Okay. You didn't address Germans (or any other nations)



I agree. Perhaps for more than one. What do is the reason that you mentioned, McG?

On Set, I would just say, he has his own style and he pretty well uses it on every subject. It took me a while, but, I have come to appreciate it even as it sometimes is used on me. However, I can see why some of those comments would rub you the wrong way, but, I really don't think it means he is necessarily prejudiced, he just has kind of a sneering wit.

But if it pleases you too think so...go ahead.

Now I see the subject has changed to monarchies. I am not really well educated, mostly read fiction with some history in it. I confess my eyes would glaze over reading some long dry tome... Since monarchies are pretty well inherited, rather than elected, it seems like it would be natural to get some dim witted or other less than admirable leadership qualities as well as getting some exceptional leadership qualities. If Elizabeth 1 is anything like she is portrayed in fictional books and movies, then England lucked out then. I watched/read a few book (fictional) on Marie Antoinette and ended up feeling sorry for her rather than reviling her. On Henry the 8, well, he cut off the heads of his wives when he got tired of them with the exception of his first wife, whom he nullified, and one who died in childbirth and this last who was lucky enough to outlive him. (if I remember and Philippa Greggory is right.

Happened rather quickly with the Bush crew, didn't it, Rev?