I have read with interest all of the responses to Dana's article. Because we all think differently, (that's a good thing) there will be different interpretations of the information.  I found the article interesting because to me Dana was saying "To all of you who love England and it's history, look beyond what is happening in the government, looks beyond the immigration problems, the England that you fell in love with is still there!  You might have to do a little searching, but it's still there."  To me, that was the whole concept of the article.

I think it's safe to say that those of us who call ourselfves anglophiles "are" romantics and I have found that each of us has our own little areas of special interests.  For one of my best friends, it the "Tudors" and while I find the Tudors interesting, my specific areas of interest are the Plantagenets, Celtic tribes, Kings of Wessex and Roman Britain.  When I'm there, I have a mind set, forget about what's going on on the surface and am transported back in time.  The England that I fell in love with is still there.  To Rick and Barbara, I don't feel that Dana was criticizing being an anglophile, he was saying, "Look beneath the surface".  Dana (like myself) is a devoted anglophile and is very proud of it.

Off the subject for a minute.  During my time on this site, I have seen some verbal battles take place that I really don't want to be a part of.  Having said that, I have to comment on the person who posted without leaving a name.  Perhaps I missed it but I did not hear Dana intimate that the history of England began in 1066.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I have always felt that if you believe in something strongly enough to criticize others, you should have enough belief in your ideas to proudly say "who" you are.  This belief carries through to the terrorists, Klu Klux Clan etc.  These people claim enough conviction in their beliefs to kill others but not enough to show their faces.  They obviously don't believe it enough to stand up, be proud of what they believe and show us "who" they are.  To say that someone is ignorant because they aren't aware of the history of England prior to 1066 is rude.  While I thank you for giving us Americans a break (in school we weren't taught much about England prior to 1066), if you were to ask me about the history of America prior to the Jamestown settlement, I couldn't tell you much.  Does that make me "ignorant" or simply "uninformed"?  You are, most definately, entitled to your opinion and I can see that the focus on 1066 really irritates you and that's fine.  However, if you believe that strongly, identify yourself, stand up and be proud of what you believe and most important, don't criticize others for not believing the way you do.

Enough of that, back to the article.  Thanks to the article, as a devoted, life long anglophile,I will continue to love my beloved England with a reminder that I will probably have to forget what is happening on the surface and continue to go "in search of".