As I recall, it wasn't just de-Anglicizing names that he disapproved of--he didn't think much of changing historic names, period. Istanbul is one that comes to mind.
(I have to agree, at least on that one. Not only does a name that survived for sixteen hundred years automatically have something going for it, but Constantinople has an altogether better ring to it. Conjures up a romantic image that "Istanbul" simply does not.) > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Editor/Finest Hour > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 9:35 AM > To: ChurchillChat > Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: NEW BOOK BY ANDREW ROBERTS > > "I do not consider that names that have been familiar for generations > in England should be altered to study the whims of foreigners living > in those parts.... Fortune is rightly malignant to those who break > with the traditions and customs of the past....If we do not make a > stand we shall in a few weeks be asked to call Leghorn Livorno, and > the BBC will be pronouncing Paris 'Paree.' Foreign names were made for > Englishmen, not Englishmen for foreign names. I date this minute from > St. George's Day." > -WSC to the Foreign Office, 23 April 1945 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ChurchillChat?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
