A royal salute to the Commonwealth
The British Empire is the name of a collection of colonies with Great Britain as the central power. It started in the 16th Century and in the 19th century. It covered almost a quarter of the world. The British Empire was called "the empire on which the Sun never sets". After the British Empire broke up after the Second World War, the organization, we today know as the commonwealth union was founded. The commonwealth consists of 54 independent countries. They are linked together by their values and common history. It has been criticized more and more and called: 'meaningless' and an 'outdated' organization, which is based on oppressive values. The question is: Can the writer get the readers to take a stand? In the article: 'A Royal salute to the Commonwealth' from 2011, Peter Oborne, who is a British journalist and political commentator, argues about how powerful and important role the Commonwealth could play in the the countries' future.
Oborne begins the article by saluting the monarchy in Great Britain. He mentions the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to Canada and how well they were received in the beginning of the article. As an example he mentions one person who had waited for five hours to see the Duke and Duchess:' Alexandra Anghel, who waited five hours, articulated it very clearly after meeting them' (p.1, l.11). He uses the example to underline the popularity of the couple, that people are willing to wait several hours just to salute them. Oborne is uses the interview with Alexandre Anghel as an argument. The writer's point is obvious, because he constantly praises them. It is for example seen in his choice of words which is always positive when he mentions the royal family and also the Commonwealth: 'Such is the invisible strength of the Commonwealth, the association of independent countries that emerged out of the wreckage of the British Empire at the end of the Second World War.' (P.1, l. 16). Oborne describes the Commonwealth positively and as a healthy institution that had become stronger after the Second World War. His use of the metaphor, wreckage, which underlines the writer's point and the picture the readers have in their minds take shape ' it has an involving effect on the readers, they must now take a stand.
The writer mentions that the majority of the former British leaders did not take it very seriously. He starts pointing fingers at the New Labour movement in the 90's and the front figure, Tony Blair: 'Tony Blair, for example never took the Commonwealth Conference ' the remarkable biennial event attended by heads of government from all 54 Commonwealth countries ' very seriously'. (p.1-2, l. 21-3). Or 'Blair regarded traditional British values and identities as xenophobic, if not racist' (p. 2, l. 3).
'But I would argue that it is Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's poodle-like relationship with the United States, and the former's slavish worship of the European Union, that looks out of date, while the Commonwealth is more relevant than ever' (p.2, l.6) The keywords are 'poodle-like relationship' and 'slavish worship'. In other words, he claims that Blair and Brown are henpecked. He uses pathos to influence the reader to feel disrespect towards the labour leaders.
He is also uses logos in his article, for example when he claims that the statement of the Commonwealth is more relevant than ever (p.2, l. 30) and after that uses statistics: '' Just under two billion people, approximately one third of the world's population, live in Commonwealth countries' (p.2, l. 31). He uses logos to show the readers that the commonwealth is relevant because a lot of people are a part of the Commonwealth. In that bit of the article is he also uses ethos to persuade the readers to think the same as himself.
Oborne thinks that the Commonwealth is a perfect investment in the future. In the article he talks about options if they move the Commonwealth centre to a place that is not England. The former Conservative Party Chairman, Marquess of Lothian came up with a suggestion. The writer mentions that Lord Lothian thinks that they should re-base it into India and agrees with the suggestion, because he believes that it leads to possibilities for British foreign policy: ''Lord Lothian's suggestion opens up an alternative vision of a future British foreign policy. We would no longer be tied so closely into Washington and Brussels, two connections that have served us so badly over the past two decades.' (p.3, l. 68).
Throughout the article Oborne has said positive things about the Commonwealth, but he admits the fact the organization will have an issue in the future, because of the Queen's age. According to the writer the Queen has been the glue of the organization for all these years. He is nervous about the whole situation with it when the Queen passes away. She has been to every conference the last 60 years ' she is liked by the respective nations' leaders.
Oborne's argumentation is based on logical, and rational arguments. He is also uses pathos as a argument. He makes a strong generalization and uses a lot of negatively charged words when he for example talks about EU and The United States and the former leaders. But in some way he is also talking about the Commonwealth. Two examples could be in the beginning of the article, where he introduces it by mentioning: 'the remarkable biennial event'' when he uses those words with positive associations, in a way the readers are more likely to agree with what they read.
In a way, I think that the Commonwealth is a tender-hearted thing to have for the previous member countries of the British Empire. Oborne is also talking about how the suggested improvements seem like a good answer for future evolution of the organization. On the other side, Oborne maybe focuses to much on the royal family's travels to the various countries of the Commonwealth. In the last part of the article it says: 'For while the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first choice of a foreign country to visit is welcome, their second is regrettable. They are travelling from Canada to the United States.'(p.3, l.94), I think that is seems like Oborne is overreacting a little bit. Of course the royal couple should take care of the British part, but there is nothing wrong about visiting countries who are not a part of the organization.
I vote for the Danish royal family, because it has been around for more than 1,000 years and have a lot of history. They represent Denmark and is a hub for the country action. The Danish royal family is a strong national symbol, for example: adventure, princes and princesses and magic. They are also a symbol of the Danish community and externally it can strengthen Denmark's position abroad. The Royal Family has become a tourist place people from around the world will come and experience. I think that the Danish royal family is in many ways a good deal for Denmark. I also vote for the national community, because Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands has been close through it, and we have a lot common history and background together which binds us to each other.