Sir: It is not just the British monarchy which many in the United States find "profoundly offensive", in the words of Godfrey Hodgson ("He's not our Uncle Sam", 25 October), but this antipathy to the principle of monarchy is nothing to be proud of.
Successive US administrations have promoted, or connived at, the abolition of monarchies across the globe, such as Hawaii, Italy, Libya and Iran. Which of these is any better for being a republic? When will the United States have the courage to admit that it made a fundamental error in failing to support the Shah in 1979? The Iranian monarchy's replacement by a republic has resulted in untold misery for the Iranian people, violent attacks on innocent people around the world, the rise of Saddam Hussein, destabilisation of the whole Gulf region, a costly war in Kuwait and a continuing crisis in Kurdistan.
The one exception to America's anti-monarchy policy was Japan, where General MacArthur very sensibly argued for retaining the Emperor. Has it gone unnoticed that the Iranian republic is a dictatorship which exports terrorism, while the Japanese Empire is a democracy which exports transistors?
The Monarchist League
London WC1Reuse content