north of the Tweed, and his people liked him as little as he liked them.  Of Presbyterianism, of the Scottish religion, he left on record the exquisitely English judgment that it was “no religion for a gentleman.”  His popularity then was purely English; his royalty was purely English; and I was using the words with the utmost narrowness and deliberation when I spoke of this particular popularity and royalty as the popularity and royalty of a King of England.  I said of the English people specially that they like to pick up the King’s crown when he has dropped it.  I do not feel at all sure that this does apply to the Scotch or the Irish.  I think that the Irish would knock his crown off for him.  I think that the Scotch would keep it for him after they had picked it up.

For my part, I should be inclined to adopt quite the opposite method of asserting nationality.  Why should good Scotch nationalists call Edward VII. the King of Britain?  They ought to call him King Edward I. of Scotland.  What is Britain?  Where is Britain?  There is no such place.  There never was a nation of Britain; there never was a King of Britain; unless perhaps Vortigern or Uther Pendragon had a taste for the title.  If we are to develop our Monarchy, I should be altogether in favour of developing it along the line of local patriotism and of local proprietorship in the King.  I think that the Londoners ought to call him the King of London, and the Liverpudlians ought to call him the King of Liverpool.  I do not go so far as to say that the people of Birmingham ought to call Edward VII. the King of Birmingham; for that would be high treason to a holier and more established power.  But I think we might read in the papers:  “The King of Brighton left Brighton at half-past two this afternoon,” and then immediately afterwards, “The King of Worthing entered Worthing at ten minutes past three.”  Or, “The people of Margate bade a reluctant farewell to the popular King of Margate this morning,” and then, “His Majesty the King of Ramsgate returned to his country and capital this afternoon after his long sojourn in strange lands.”  It might be pointed out that by a curious coincidence the departure of the King of Oxford occurred a very short time before the triumphal arrival of the King of Reading.  I cannot imagine any method which would more increase the kindly and normal relations between the Sovereign and his people.  Nor do I think that such a method would be in any sense a depreciation of the royal dignity; for, as a matter of fact, it would put the King upon the same platform with the gods.  The saints, the most exalted of human figures, were also the most local.  It was exactly the men whom we most easily connected with heaven whom we also most easily connected with earth.

THOUGHTS AROUND KOEPENICK