These are relatively difficult times for the Government of the United Kingdom, as numerous questions have been raised over the values and moral integrity of the country's leadership. The recent budget caused controversy with plans to cut disability benefits (while still allowing relatively generous benefits to remain for elderly voters, regardless of whether they need the money or not....). Meanwhile, the Prime Minister himself, David Cameron, has been called a hypocrite, for having criticised companies and wealthy individuals for relocating their wealth overseas to avoid paying UK taxes; now it has been revealed that Mr Cameron is also a beneficiary of tax avoidance. Whilst it's a disappointing reality to hear that celebrities do this (which Mr Cameron has highlighted in the past), when a leading politician- particularly the Prime Minister- is found to be doing so, it is another level. This is worsened when you recall the occasions when he has criticised the immorality of others for avoiding tax... whilst knowing all the time that he had himself likewise benefitted from this practice.
Another reason for my disappointment with this Government is how it has allowed taxpayers' money to be used to pay for leaflets that are totally biased in favour of remaining within the EU, with regards to the upcoming referendum on the issue. As has been said by others, if the leaflets fairly represented both views on this debate, it would have been acceptable- but to just give one, biased perspective is unfair and undemocratic. The Government seems to take the view that their actions are necessary to present the case for what they see as the fundamentally right answer to a very important question. But this answer is only correct from their point of view. By this same logic, couldn't we also say that a Conservative Government (or any government) should have the automatic right to use taxpayers' money to fund their own election campaigns, seeing as only they offer the fundamentally right method of leading the country? We would never allow this, and the Government's conduct with this leaflet was likewise the wrong thing to do. I am nevertheless grateful that a referendum is being held on this issue, in response to strong public concern with EU membership, as suggested by the strong support shown for the UK Independence Party in the 2015 general election. There is also a lot of time before he next election for this Government to try to redeem itself.
Nevertheless, the greatest failing (and what I am most disappointed with by far) is the Government's total failure with regards to immigration. Although we have consistently seen levels of net migration to the UK in the hundreds of thousands of people since the Blair Government of the 1990s, I thought that a Conservative-majority Government (as opposed to the previous Coalition, where policies in this area were likely to be watered-down by their Liberal Democrat coalition partners) would bring this under control again. Whilst EU immigration is largely out of their hands, they could have compensated for this by taking greater control of Non-EU immigration, where a majority of migration (albeit a slim one) tends to stem from. But they haven't. In fact, they have overseen record-high levels during their first year in power without the Liberal Democrats.
It is primarily this issue which drives me to vote to leave the EU- this in spite of the fact that, economically, I think we are better off in than out (due to the easing of trade and accessibility to goods across the continent membership allows) and is beneficial to our global influence (strengthening our position within all three crucial areas of British foreign policy: the "special relationship" with the United States, the Commonwealth, and of course Europe), while a vote to leave may well also lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom (as the other constituent nations of the UK, which include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, tend to be more pro-European). But of greatest concern to me, and of greatest potential impact on my life personally, is the impact of hundreds of thousands of people annually arriving in this country (and largely in my region of the country), meaning that property prices get further out of reach, medical care and education are put under greater strain and are less accessible, basic resources such as water are more stretched (which probably explains why water meters are being rolled out, when there were previously no limits on this), travel becomes more difficult due to overburdened public transport and more congested roads. All of this amounts to an avoidable deterioration in the quality of life for the average person, not fortified by wealth. In the wake of the migrant crisis, with many migrants trying to resettle into Europe for a better life, some left-wingers have declared that our moral duty is to allow them to settle here in the UK in larger numbers. However, we have seen the consequences of this in continental Europe, where this left-wing idealism has led to the stimulation and strenghtening of far right political parties and movements- something I really don't want to happen in the UK too!
My fear is that the status quo will be allowed to continue, and wonder how much it will take before drastic changes are made. I also worry that, in the unlikely event that the UK does vote to leave the EU, the Government will, in exchange for a new trading relationship with the EU, agree to free movement of people from the EU to the UK- giving us the worst of virtually all worlds! This is my cynical point of view, but I hope that a more positive outcome can be reached instead
Sunday, 17 April 2016
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Why I'm leaning towards voting out of the EU...
It is expected that the UK will hold its referendum on EU membership later this year. The focus of the national news so far in relation to this has been on Prime Minister David Cameron's diplomatic manoeuvres to obtain support for reforms; an effort to make EU membership more palatable to the British public, who have indicated that they are not happy with the status quo. However, it appears that Mr Cameron has seemingly achieved the most that he is going to get out of these efforts- and if anything these agreements could be watered down by other EU member states come the referendum.
There are few years where those campaigning to remain within the EU are going to face a greater struggle: a time when a migrant crisis has shaken the borderless Schengen Area and led to European states resurrecting their borders to try to stop the deluge of hundreds of thousands of people arriving; and this while the economic toil of the past 8 years or so looms in the background and has greatly tested the Eurozone. While Britons will largely be relieved that they are outside the Schengen Area and Eurozone, there seems to be momentum behind pulling even further away from our European neighbours. Even Angela Merkel's Germany, once seen as a responsible European leader and rational and reasonable partner for Britain in Europe, now appears to have taken a great misstep by allowing a million migrants into their country- with the substantial undermining of Merkel's credibility after such a lengthy term of office reminiscient of Margaret Thatcher's downfall after the adoption of the poll tax. The difference being that Mrs Thatcher's poll tax was easier to revoke and overcome, and will have fewer long-term consequences...
I am of the school of thought that the EU can be a largely positive force, encouraging and enabling cooperation in many respects, with the European Parliament providing some much-needed, directly-elected representation. However, the imposition of laws on member states, whether they want it or not, has tainted the organisation. But for me, my greatest concern (expressed in previous posts) is with the free flow of the population- exacerbated by the migrant crisis. Already, under a Government supposedly hostile to mass migration, record-breaking levels of net migration have nevertheless been achieved, and a flow of hundreds of thousands of people to the UK every year is having a great impact- particularly in London and the Home Counties, which are already very densely populated. Issues ranging from the cost and availability of housing, of enough school places, of sufficient access to healthcare, of ample water supplies, of overstretched transport infrastructure (both public transport and for private vehicles), and so on, stem from the excessive population that shows no sign of abating.
I still struggle to understand why the Government has not taken more drastic steps to restrict the immigration that it can control: from outside the EU. Seeing as it has not done this, and shows little intention of doing so in the future; voting to leave the EU seems to be the only way myself and other ordinary Britons can take action to try and inhibit the relentless inflow of people into this country.
I am mindful of the damage to UK manufacturing this could do, the impact on Britain's international influence, and even to the integrity of the UK itself (with the constituent nations of the UK beside England generally more pro-European)- but these are broader issues that, frankly, do not tend to affect my day-to-day life; whereas excessive migration will have a greater and greater impact if allowed to continue. And so, it is with reluctance, that I currently feel obliged to vote leave.
There are few years where those campaigning to remain within the EU are going to face a greater struggle: a time when a migrant crisis has shaken the borderless Schengen Area and led to European states resurrecting their borders to try to stop the deluge of hundreds of thousands of people arriving; and this while the economic toil of the past 8 years or so looms in the background and has greatly tested the Eurozone. While Britons will largely be relieved that they are outside the Schengen Area and Eurozone, there seems to be momentum behind pulling even further away from our European neighbours. Even Angela Merkel's Germany, once seen as a responsible European leader and rational and reasonable partner for Britain in Europe, now appears to have taken a great misstep by allowing a million migrants into their country- with the substantial undermining of Merkel's credibility after such a lengthy term of office reminiscient of Margaret Thatcher's downfall after the adoption of the poll tax. The difference being that Mrs Thatcher's poll tax was easier to revoke and overcome, and will have fewer long-term consequences...
I am of the school of thought that the EU can be a largely positive force, encouraging and enabling cooperation in many respects, with the European Parliament providing some much-needed, directly-elected representation. However, the imposition of laws on member states, whether they want it or not, has tainted the organisation. But for me, my greatest concern (expressed in previous posts) is with the free flow of the population- exacerbated by the migrant crisis. Already, under a Government supposedly hostile to mass migration, record-breaking levels of net migration have nevertheless been achieved, and a flow of hundreds of thousands of people to the UK every year is having a great impact- particularly in London and the Home Counties, which are already very densely populated. Issues ranging from the cost and availability of housing, of enough school places, of sufficient access to healthcare, of ample water supplies, of overstretched transport infrastructure (both public transport and for private vehicles), and so on, stem from the excessive population that shows no sign of abating.
I still struggle to understand why the Government has not taken more drastic steps to restrict the immigration that it can control: from outside the EU. Seeing as it has not done this, and shows little intention of doing so in the future; voting to leave the EU seems to be the only way myself and other ordinary Britons can take action to try and inhibit the relentless inflow of people into this country.
I am mindful of the damage to UK manufacturing this could do, the impact on Britain's international influence, and even to the integrity of the UK itself (with the constituent nations of the UK beside England generally more pro-European)- but these are broader issues that, frankly, do not tend to affect my day-to-day life; whereas excessive migration will have a greater and greater impact if allowed to continue. And so, it is with reluctance, that I currently feel obliged to vote leave.
Sunday, 3 January 2016
Royal Roundup: 2015
My intention is for this to be an annual feature of this blog. As a monarchist, with particular interest in the monarchies of Europe, I review the goings on of not only the existing monarchies of Europe, but those that have been dissolved in modern times and have strong candidates for these now vacant thrones. 100 years ago, almost all Europeans were ruled by monarchs, and had been for many centuries, so played a major role in European culture. Just as today's European Union advocates unity in its diversity, Europe's monarchs have been the personification of their respective, diverse countries- whilst their shared blood from centuries of intermarriage evidence the unity between European countries and their royals. I found my below updates on that wonderful, free source of knowledge: Wikipedia.
The countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:
Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.
Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.
2015
- Seven years after experiencing a severe car crash, since which he had made intermittent progress but ultimately fell back into a coma, Prince Kardam, who would have been heir to the Bulgarian throne, dies due to a lung infection whilst in a coma. This means that his son, Prince Boris, has succeeded him as heir to the current claimant to the Bulgarian throne, the former Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria.
- The Bulgarian Orthodox Church states that it will from now on always recognise and refer to the former Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria as “King of Bulgaria”.
- King Harald V of Norway becomes the world’s first reigning monarch to visit Antarctica, when he goes to the Norwegian dependency, Queen Maud Land.
- The former King Michael of Romania has removed the right of his grandson, Nicholas, to call himself Prince of Romania; seen by some as an attempt to strengthen the anticipated continuation of the former King Michael's claim to the defunct Romana throne by his eldest daughter and heir, Crown Princess Margarita.
- An opinion poll in the Serbian newspaper, Blic, shows 49.8% of Serbs would support a restoration of the Monarchy under a prospective King Alexander II of Serbia, with 44.6% against.
The countries' royals annually reviewed are as follows, with the key developments over the year outlined afterwards:
Existing hereditary monarchies: Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Spain, Monaco.
Former monarchies: Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, France.
2015
- Seven years after experiencing a severe car crash, since which he had made intermittent progress but ultimately fell back into a coma, Prince Kardam, who would have been heir to the Bulgarian throne, dies due to a lung infection whilst in a coma. This means that his son, Prince Boris, has succeeded him as heir to the current claimant to the Bulgarian throne, the former Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria.
- The Bulgarian Orthodox Church states that it will from now on always recognise and refer to the former Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria as “King of Bulgaria”.
- King Harald V of Norway becomes the world’s first reigning monarch to visit Antarctica, when he goes to the Norwegian dependency, Queen Maud Land.
- The former King Michael of Romania has removed the right of his grandson, Nicholas, to call himself Prince of Romania; seen by some as an attempt to strengthen the anticipated continuation of the former King Michael's claim to the defunct Romana throne by his eldest daughter and heir, Crown Princess Margarita.
- An opinion poll in the Serbian newspaper, Blic, shows 49.8% of Serbs would support a restoration of the Monarchy under a prospective King Alexander II of Serbia, with 44.6% against.
- King
Felipe VI of Spain announces he will cut his salary by 20%.
- Queen
Elizabeth II of Great Britain & Northern Ireland becomes the longest-reigning monarch in British
history, and longest-reigning queen regnant in world history.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Spectre review: SPOILERS (not Pussy) GALORE!
As a big James Bond fan, and therefore with many opinions on the latest film, Spectre, I felt that I should break from reporting opinions on news stories, and instead provide a review of the film. You have been warned: this is full of spoilers:
The gunbarrel at the beginning of the film (at last!) was a very positive start, after being absent for all of the Daniel Craig Bond films hitherto. The sweeping shot of Mexico City that follows, including the location of Mexico City itself, is impressive. From the outset, I enjoy Daniel Craig's performance in this film (I would say his finest to date), particularly from the point when we see Bond walking along the rooftops in traditionally nonchalant, 007 fashion. The fight aboard the helicopter, and stunt work with the helicopter, were very well done. Then the titles which, while not containing one of the great Bond themes in my opinion (Sam Smith's 'Writing's on the Wall"), is still very good: the song works better with the credits rather than in isolation, the octopus theme works well, while the shots of characters from earlier Craig films has positive connotations of On Her Majesty's Secret Service's titles for me, which similarly showed images from previous films. However, this is more relevant here, as Spectre's plot draws on the plots of the previous Craig films.
The scene in M's office is gloriously nostalgic, with an established male M and wood-paneled office for the first time since the Dalton era in the 1980s. I also enjoy much of the chemistry among the MI6 team, with a fun relationship between Bond and Moneypenny (also evident in Skyfall), while Ben Whishaw's Q builds on the precedent of humour set by his iconic predecessor, Desmond Llewelyn, and also makes the role his own via the great contrast between his character and Bond: Q drinks Earl Grey tea and health drinks while Bond will drink alcohol at any opportunity; Bond lives everyday as his last, relishing freedom from ties, while Q is concerned about his mortgage and two cats... In addition, there are unfortunately the more forgettable, regular allies: Tanner and Felix Leiter. In the novels, both of these characters are portrayed as Bond's closest friends, but this doesn't really come across in the films- particularly in the Craig era. I hope this is something they work on with subsequent films (although I appreciated the subtle, throwaway reference to Felix in Spectre as someone who can look out for Lucia Sciarra once Bond left).
Speaking of Lucia Sciarra, I felt the scenes with her were some of the few that didn't work so well in this film (not because of her age, I hasten to add!). The bellowing, operatic music playing as we see Sciarra in her home feels out of place and a bit cringe-worthy to me, and Bond's seduction of Sciarra (including the unnecessary smashing of the glasses) feels a bit uncomfortable as she has tears falling down her face while he seduces her. However, the next scene at Spectre's meeting works very well in my opinion. As Bond joins the meeting, though there's a nice gag about Mickey Mouse, the swearing here (and, come to think about it, throughout the Craig-era) feels out of place and unnecessary for me in a Bond film, when you consider that you could probably count on one hand the amount of swearing in the pre-Craig films. Moving on to the meeting itself, it's nicely reminiscent of the old Spectre meetings in the 1960s, whilst the shadowy mystery around Blofeld is fun. Moreover, whilst there is a bit of awkward silence as Blofeld whispers to his minions, I like the feeling it creates that everyone (including the audience) is obliged to wait for Blofeld- increasing the character's authority and presence. Hinx also has a great and powerful introduction, and proves to be the most memorable henchman we've had in years. The problem is that this status is undermined by the fact that Hinx, with a punchy and memorable name, is never actually named during the film- which is a great shame! The subsequent car chase around Rome is fun and a bit different: the Aston Martin DB10 is a modern classic, whilst the twist with the gadgets not all working is enjoyable, funny and unexpected. Moreover, the contrast between Bond steering through a tense car chase, while Moneypenny casually glances into her fridge, is subtly humorous- as is the presence of a male companion in Moneypenny's flat! Bond's contact with the unsuspecting Italian motorist is reminiscent of the sort of humour we are used to in Bond films- and is genuinely funny. The whole experience is enhanced by Craig's confident and effective mastery of the scene.
The film moves on to Austria, where the pace slows- but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to see the return of Mr White, and the tying up of loose ends with his character. Then Madeline Swann's Alpine clinic is nicely reminiscent of Piz Gloria in On Her Majesty' Secret Service. The chemistry between Bond and Swann is effective and believable, and also demonstrates Bond having a meaningful relationship with a woman, and genuinely caring for them, that can still be tailored to a single film- recalling the relationship with Bond girls portrayed in the late Roger Moore era. The action in Austria is ok, but fairly standard and not that impressive in my opinion. Q and Swann's revelations that all of the previous villains in the Craig era were linked, for me, nicely recalls a moment in the novel of From Russia with Love, when there is a similar overview of Bond's previous foes (in that case, from Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever).
We get to see Bond and Swann grow closer together in Morocco, with the film again focuses on the characters rather than action, which works very well. Both characters also really look glamorous and suave in a very Bondian way, with Bond in the white dinner jacket and Swann looking beautiful in her ballgown. Hinx's return (also looking dapper in a waistcoat!) in what feels like a hard-hitting fight is well done, whilst it's also good to see Bond and Swann get together at last! The two are then escorted to Blofeld's lair in a Rolls Royce that recalls Goldfinger, but feels a bit forced and even cliched in my opinion- which also applies to the welcome they receive at the lair. Blofeld's introduction with the meteorite, and the implicit comparison between Blofeld/Spectre and the meteorite, is thoughtful. Though Christoph Waltz looks the part, and I have a lot of respect for him as an actor since his performance in 'Inglorious...', I found him slightly disappointing and not used to his full potential in Spectre. A lot of his dialogue (including the albeit clever references to cuckoos, and vague references to horrible things becoming things of beauty) may be cited as signs of madness of a villain, but with previous villains there was normally method to the madness, and Blofeld in this case just tends to sound a bit stupid in my opinion. Nevertheless, he still does a good job, and his torture of Bond is typically sadistic in the Bond model. I was also very pleased to see the fluffy white cat, confirming Blofeld's return! The gadget watch was also good, and a joyous return to Bond gadgetry after the apparent snobbery towards such things in Skyfall, with Q previously disregarding "exploding pens" and the like. The lair was adequate, as is the plot of Blofeld and C gathering global surveillance, but neither stand out nor feel particularly inspiring. In particular, the focus on spying and MI6 in both Spectre and Skyfall feel like navel-gazing to me, and aren't quite the global, intriguing threats we have historically seen in past Bonds. The plots to both of these films seem to be a threat primarily to spies themselves, rather than the wider world, lessening their impact.
When we returned to London, I initially wondered whether this was necessary and prolonged the film that bit too much. This final segment has several pros and cons in my opinion. Much as I like the MI6 team, it concerns me that there's a danger of Bond's missions becoming more of an X-Men-esque team effort, as opposed to the appeal of Bond being one man fighting alone (more or less) against the odds. I particularly had this feeling as the MI6 team head off together to pursue C. Bond walking cautiously through the ruins of the MI6 building is reminiscent of the maze that Bond similarly walks ominously through in The Man with the Golden Gun. Blofeld (complete with a scar!) is worth the wait! There's also a suitably Bondian and suspenseful ending, with Bond racing against the clock to find Swann. I then found myself amusingly in the position of worrying about Blofeld, thinking to myself "Surely they're not going to kill him off- they've only just got him back!". Fortunately, Blofeld is left alive- and to return to future Bonds. Bond walking off hand-in-hand with Swann was nice to see, with an apparently jealous Blofeld looking on. The very final scene with the Aston Martin just about works in my opinion, although it felt a bit odd to me for the return of the DB5 to be the choice for the climax of the film.
Overall, classic Bond, with Craig at his best (I hope it's not his last! I'm quietly confident it won't be...), and potentially one of the best of all time. A pleasure to watch!
The gunbarrel at the beginning of the film (at last!) was a very positive start, after being absent for all of the Daniel Craig Bond films hitherto. The sweeping shot of Mexico City that follows, including the location of Mexico City itself, is impressive. From the outset, I enjoy Daniel Craig's performance in this film (I would say his finest to date), particularly from the point when we see Bond walking along the rooftops in traditionally nonchalant, 007 fashion. The fight aboard the helicopter, and stunt work with the helicopter, were very well done. Then the titles which, while not containing one of the great Bond themes in my opinion (Sam Smith's 'Writing's on the Wall"), is still very good: the song works better with the credits rather than in isolation, the octopus theme works well, while the shots of characters from earlier Craig films has positive connotations of On Her Majesty's Secret Service's titles for me, which similarly showed images from previous films. However, this is more relevant here, as Spectre's plot draws on the plots of the previous Craig films.
The scene in M's office is gloriously nostalgic, with an established male M and wood-paneled office for the first time since the Dalton era in the 1980s. I also enjoy much of the chemistry among the MI6 team, with a fun relationship between Bond and Moneypenny (also evident in Skyfall), while Ben Whishaw's Q builds on the precedent of humour set by his iconic predecessor, Desmond Llewelyn, and also makes the role his own via the great contrast between his character and Bond: Q drinks Earl Grey tea and health drinks while Bond will drink alcohol at any opportunity; Bond lives everyday as his last, relishing freedom from ties, while Q is concerned about his mortgage and two cats... In addition, there are unfortunately the more forgettable, regular allies: Tanner and Felix Leiter. In the novels, both of these characters are portrayed as Bond's closest friends, but this doesn't really come across in the films- particularly in the Craig era. I hope this is something they work on with subsequent films (although I appreciated the subtle, throwaway reference to Felix in Spectre as someone who can look out for Lucia Sciarra once Bond left).
Speaking of Lucia Sciarra, I felt the scenes with her were some of the few that didn't work so well in this film (not because of her age, I hasten to add!). The bellowing, operatic music playing as we see Sciarra in her home feels out of place and a bit cringe-worthy to me, and Bond's seduction of Sciarra (including the unnecessary smashing of the glasses) feels a bit uncomfortable as she has tears falling down her face while he seduces her. However, the next scene at Spectre's meeting works very well in my opinion. As Bond joins the meeting, though there's a nice gag about Mickey Mouse, the swearing here (and, come to think about it, throughout the Craig-era) feels out of place and unnecessary for me in a Bond film, when you consider that you could probably count on one hand the amount of swearing in the pre-Craig films. Moving on to the meeting itself, it's nicely reminiscent of the old Spectre meetings in the 1960s, whilst the shadowy mystery around Blofeld is fun. Moreover, whilst there is a bit of awkward silence as Blofeld whispers to his minions, I like the feeling it creates that everyone (including the audience) is obliged to wait for Blofeld- increasing the character's authority and presence. Hinx also has a great and powerful introduction, and proves to be the most memorable henchman we've had in years. The problem is that this status is undermined by the fact that Hinx, with a punchy and memorable name, is never actually named during the film- which is a great shame! The subsequent car chase around Rome is fun and a bit different: the Aston Martin DB10 is a modern classic, whilst the twist with the gadgets not all working is enjoyable, funny and unexpected. Moreover, the contrast between Bond steering through a tense car chase, while Moneypenny casually glances into her fridge, is subtly humorous- as is the presence of a male companion in Moneypenny's flat! Bond's contact with the unsuspecting Italian motorist is reminiscent of the sort of humour we are used to in Bond films- and is genuinely funny. The whole experience is enhanced by Craig's confident and effective mastery of the scene.
The film moves on to Austria, where the pace slows- but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to see the return of Mr White, and the tying up of loose ends with his character. Then Madeline Swann's Alpine clinic is nicely reminiscent of Piz Gloria in On Her Majesty' Secret Service. The chemistry between Bond and Swann is effective and believable, and also demonstrates Bond having a meaningful relationship with a woman, and genuinely caring for them, that can still be tailored to a single film- recalling the relationship with Bond girls portrayed in the late Roger Moore era. The action in Austria is ok, but fairly standard and not that impressive in my opinion. Q and Swann's revelations that all of the previous villains in the Craig era were linked, for me, nicely recalls a moment in the novel of From Russia with Love, when there is a similar overview of Bond's previous foes (in that case, from Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever).
We get to see Bond and Swann grow closer together in Morocco, with the film again focuses on the characters rather than action, which works very well. Both characters also really look glamorous and suave in a very Bondian way, with Bond in the white dinner jacket and Swann looking beautiful in her ballgown. Hinx's return (also looking dapper in a waistcoat!) in what feels like a hard-hitting fight is well done, whilst it's also good to see Bond and Swann get together at last! The two are then escorted to Blofeld's lair in a Rolls Royce that recalls Goldfinger, but feels a bit forced and even cliched in my opinion- which also applies to the welcome they receive at the lair. Blofeld's introduction with the meteorite, and the implicit comparison between Blofeld/Spectre and the meteorite, is thoughtful. Though Christoph Waltz looks the part, and I have a lot of respect for him as an actor since his performance in 'Inglorious...', I found him slightly disappointing and not used to his full potential in Spectre. A lot of his dialogue (including the albeit clever references to cuckoos, and vague references to horrible things becoming things of beauty) may be cited as signs of madness of a villain, but with previous villains there was normally method to the madness, and Blofeld in this case just tends to sound a bit stupid in my opinion. Nevertheless, he still does a good job, and his torture of Bond is typically sadistic in the Bond model. I was also very pleased to see the fluffy white cat, confirming Blofeld's return! The gadget watch was also good, and a joyous return to Bond gadgetry after the apparent snobbery towards such things in Skyfall, with Q previously disregarding "exploding pens" and the like. The lair was adequate, as is the plot of Blofeld and C gathering global surveillance, but neither stand out nor feel particularly inspiring. In particular, the focus on spying and MI6 in both Spectre and Skyfall feel like navel-gazing to me, and aren't quite the global, intriguing threats we have historically seen in past Bonds. The plots to both of these films seem to be a threat primarily to spies themselves, rather than the wider world, lessening their impact.
When we returned to London, I initially wondered whether this was necessary and prolonged the film that bit too much. This final segment has several pros and cons in my opinion. Much as I like the MI6 team, it concerns me that there's a danger of Bond's missions becoming more of an X-Men-esque team effort, as opposed to the appeal of Bond being one man fighting alone (more or less) against the odds. I particularly had this feeling as the MI6 team head off together to pursue C. Bond walking cautiously through the ruins of the MI6 building is reminiscent of the maze that Bond similarly walks ominously through in The Man with the Golden Gun. Blofeld (complete with a scar!) is worth the wait! There's also a suitably Bondian and suspenseful ending, with Bond racing against the clock to find Swann. I then found myself amusingly in the position of worrying about Blofeld, thinking to myself "Surely they're not going to kill him off- they've only just got him back!". Fortunately, Blofeld is left alive- and to return to future Bonds. Bond walking off hand-in-hand with Swann was nice to see, with an apparently jealous Blofeld looking on. The very final scene with the Aston Martin just about works in my opinion, although it felt a bit odd to me for the return of the DB5 to be the choice for the climax of the film.
Overall, classic Bond, with Craig at his best (I hope it's not his last! I'm quietly confident it won't be...), and potentially one of the best of all time. A pleasure to watch!
Saturday, 29 August 2015
Progress Report: Economy, Immigration and House of Lords Reform for the UK
The Conservative Government has been in power in the UK for almost 4 months, and it seems about time to review its progress now that 1/3 of a year has passed. As a surprise victory for the Conservatives (the first time a government has won an election with a majority for a decade, and the first Conservative majority government to be elected in over 20 years).
It's early days, but some strong feelings appear to be emerging on some issues. On a positive note, the economy seems to be a success so far, with the government's guidance and management of the economy appearing to work: breaking records in terms of numbers of people in employment in the UK, whilst the British economy has been one of the most successful in the developed world during David Cameron's terms as Prime Minister. It is also encouraging to hear that the government is occasionally achieving their goal of a budget surplus on a month-by-month basis, helping to bring down the overwhelming national debt- with interest repayments currently larger than defence spending.
Having said that, there are two pressing issues that the government seems reluctant to deal with, but are proving to be an embarrassment. Firstly, the most high profile is immigration. A government which, when coming into office, must surely be regretting its pledge to reduce immigration to tens of thousands of people a year, from the annual intake of hundreds of thousands of people it inherited. However, it has so far failed every year to achieve this promise- and this year has seen a record amount of people entering the country, so an unmitigated failure. Moreover, more clear to see has been the government's apparent impotence in the face of repeated attempts by migrants to enter the UK via the French port of Calais, with apparent cat-and-mouse games as migrants are captured before crossing the English Channel- only to be released and allowed to attempt it again.
Upon review, the numbers tend to show that the numbers of immigrants tends to be split 50/50 between those migrating to the UK (as they are legally able to do) unhindered via the EU, while the other half are from beyond the EU- over which the UK government is able to place restrictions. However, the government appears not to have so far attempted to compensate for the larger numbers of EU migrants arriving by restricting non-EU migration enough accordingly. Failings in this significant policy area, both in practical terms clear by the numbers and for the public to see with the crises visible in Greece, Macedonia, and closer to home at Calais.
In addition, there is the less attention-grabbing issue of House of Lords reform. This second chamber of the UK legislature is in the midst of half-finished reform. The Blair government in the 1990s began the process, whereby no further hereditary peers would take their seats in the House of Lords. However, no replacement, long term solution was produced. Peers have been added to the House based on the choices of the governments of the day, often adding peers based on party political support. The current government has been embarrassed recently by the impracticality of the Lords containing more peers supporting its opponents. To try to assuage this, the Government has appointed many peers- but taking the uncapped membership of the house to over 800 members, with no legislative chamber containing as many members anywhere in the world except for China, a country with a population of several billions. Not only has the Government tried to add more members of its own party to the House, but the choices have also proven controversial- most infamously ennobling the man forced to leave the House of Commons because he had used state funds to clear the moat around his home!
These issues may blow over for the time being soon, but they will not go away until they are properly addressed- and hopefully the Government will be brave enough to do so, rather than try to feebly avoid them. In terms of immigration, the Government should drastically try to restrict non-EU immigration enough to compensate for EU arrivals- or otherwise expect public resentment to increase, and potentially vote to leave the EU. This would reduce the pressures on the jobs market, housing, schools, healthcare, water supplies and others. In terms of the House of Lords, clearer restrictions on the number of peers should be placed, while combining government-appointed peers with those elected by the public, potentially on the basis of proportional representation. Maybe even equal numbers of representatives for the nations of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) would compensate for the dominance of English Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Let's hope the Government addresses the issue while it has the majority in government and parliament to achieve changes on its own terms.
It's early days, but some strong feelings appear to be emerging on some issues. On a positive note, the economy seems to be a success so far, with the government's guidance and management of the economy appearing to work: breaking records in terms of numbers of people in employment in the UK, whilst the British economy has been one of the most successful in the developed world during David Cameron's terms as Prime Minister. It is also encouraging to hear that the government is occasionally achieving their goal of a budget surplus on a month-by-month basis, helping to bring down the overwhelming national debt- with interest repayments currently larger than defence spending.
Having said that, there are two pressing issues that the government seems reluctant to deal with, but are proving to be an embarrassment. Firstly, the most high profile is immigration. A government which, when coming into office, must surely be regretting its pledge to reduce immigration to tens of thousands of people a year, from the annual intake of hundreds of thousands of people it inherited. However, it has so far failed every year to achieve this promise- and this year has seen a record amount of people entering the country, so an unmitigated failure. Moreover, more clear to see has been the government's apparent impotence in the face of repeated attempts by migrants to enter the UK via the French port of Calais, with apparent cat-and-mouse games as migrants are captured before crossing the English Channel- only to be released and allowed to attempt it again.
Upon review, the numbers tend to show that the numbers of immigrants tends to be split 50/50 between those migrating to the UK (as they are legally able to do) unhindered via the EU, while the other half are from beyond the EU- over which the UK government is able to place restrictions. However, the government appears not to have so far attempted to compensate for the larger numbers of EU migrants arriving by restricting non-EU migration enough accordingly. Failings in this significant policy area, both in practical terms clear by the numbers and for the public to see with the crises visible in Greece, Macedonia, and closer to home at Calais.
In addition, there is the less attention-grabbing issue of House of Lords reform. This second chamber of the UK legislature is in the midst of half-finished reform. The Blair government in the 1990s began the process, whereby no further hereditary peers would take their seats in the House of Lords. However, no replacement, long term solution was produced. Peers have been added to the House based on the choices of the governments of the day, often adding peers based on party political support. The current government has been embarrassed recently by the impracticality of the Lords containing more peers supporting its opponents. To try to assuage this, the Government has appointed many peers- but taking the uncapped membership of the house to over 800 members, with no legislative chamber containing as many members anywhere in the world except for China, a country with a population of several billions. Not only has the Government tried to add more members of its own party to the House, but the choices have also proven controversial- most infamously ennobling the man forced to leave the House of Commons because he had used state funds to clear the moat around his home!
These issues may blow over for the time being soon, but they will not go away until they are properly addressed- and hopefully the Government will be brave enough to do so, rather than try to feebly avoid them. In terms of immigration, the Government should drastically try to restrict non-EU immigration enough to compensate for EU arrivals- or otherwise expect public resentment to increase, and potentially vote to leave the EU. This would reduce the pressures on the jobs market, housing, schools, healthcare, water supplies and others. In terms of the House of Lords, clearer restrictions on the number of peers should be placed, while combining government-appointed peers with those elected by the public, potentially on the basis of proportional representation. Maybe even equal numbers of representatives for the nations of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) would compensate for the dominance of English Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Let's hope the Government addresses the issue while it has the majority in government and parliament to achieve changes on its own terms.
Sunday, 29 March 2015
Making the write decision on Charles' letters
A story that has featured in the UK news over the past week has been how Prince Charles' letters written to government ministers 10 years ago, after much debate in court, are going to be made public- despite opposition to this from the government and Prince Charles himself. I personally agree with this opposition. It's easy to side with the decision to publish them- to cite public interest, and the idea of "what does he have to hide?" (A logic which has been used for snooping on the public, as well as exposing the files of the secret services-arguably to the detriment of national security and the armed forces).
At the end of the day, it is the opinions of a man being shared with the government- opinions which ministers can consider, but are not obliged to follow, as with anyone else's views. But he's not your man-on-the-street, he's the heir to the throne, having an influence, some may say. This is true, he is indeed heir to the throne- and one of the crucial duties of the monarchy is to provide advice and opinions, based on their lifelong exposure to government and global affairs. Prince Charles would be neglecting his duties if he didn't offer advice. When revealed, it's likely they will arouse some controversy- as indeed virtually all opinions do. As soon as someone expresses an opinion, there is bound to be someone who disagrees. However, if leaders become too concerned with trying to please everybody, they would not be able to get things done, and will ultimately please nobody.
Moreover, does the public really need to know the opinions of all its leaders? It's one thing for leaders to express opinions in public, at their own risk; but they are not even entitled to private opinions? We respect this with the current monarch's monthly meetings with the Prime Minister; world leaders often meet in private, and summarise (and presumably censor) their discussions afterwards at press conferences. Where do we draw the line with the logic of "it's the public's right to know"? The last Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was caught out during the last general election when he privately expressed a lack of sympathy with a voter who took a strong view on immigration- by the logic that that discovery was in the public good, maybe we should always record politicians' conversations (private and public; at work or at home) so that the public can ensure that the opinions politicians express are genuine.
If it is felt that the contents of these letters should be released, why not at least take the same approach as with government records, and wait for 30 years?
At the end of the day, it is the opinions of a man being shared with the government- opinions which ministers can consider, but are not obliged to follow, as with anyone else's views. But he's not your man-on-the-street, he's the heir to the throne, having an influence, some may say. This is true, he is indeed heir to the throne- and one of the crucial duties of the monarchy is to provide advice and opinions, based on their lifelong exposure to government and global affairs. Prince Charles would be neglecting his duties if he didn't offer advice. When revealed, it's likely they will arouse some controversy- as indeed virtually all opinions do. As soon as someone expresses an opinion, there is bound to be someone who disagrees. However, if leaders become too concerned with trying to please everybody, they would not be able to get things done, and will ultimately please nobody.
Moreover, does the public really need to know the opinions of all its leaders? It's one thing for leaders to express opinions in public, at their own risk; but they are not even entitled to private opinions? We respect this with the current monarch's monthly meetings with the Prime Minister; world leaders often meet in private, and summarise (and presumably censor) their discussions afterwards at press conferences. Where do we draw the line with the logic of "it's the public's right to know"? The last Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was caught out during the last general election when he privately expressed a lack of sympathy with a voter who took a strong view on immigration- by the logic that that discovery was in the public good, maybe we should always record politicians' conversations (private and public; at work or at home) so that the public can ensure that the opinions politicians express are genuine.
If it is felt that the contents of these letters should be released, why not at least take the same approach as with government records, and wait for 30 years?
Saturday, 21 March 2015
800 Years of English Royal History since Magna Carta
This year marks the 800th anniversary since the signing of Magna Carta in 1215: a landmark in English history, and particularly in England's royal history. For this reason and several others, it seems an apt time to reflect on the development of England and her monarchy over the past 8 centuries...
In 1215, King John of England, the monarch demonised in the legends of Robin Hood, signed the famous agreement, the Magna Carta or 'Great Charter'. The document has been much celebrated over the centuries as a key feature of the English and, ultimately, British constitution, whereby the principle of restricting the power of the country's leaders, and guarantees of the rights of the nation's subjects, were established in writing. Not introduced by the goodwill of the monarch however, King John was compelled to do so by the influential section of English feudal society, the barons. This was evidenced by his attempt soon after to disregard the document, which led to the renewal of conflict between King John and the barons until his death the following year, while these tensions in English society were inherited by his son and successor, King Henry III, who would himself be compelled to make a concession to democracy as great as his father's concession to civil liberties: just as King John signed the Magna Carta, so King Henry III would be held to account by a Parliament in Westminster, London, consisting of influential figures in English society...
In 1315, England was again experiencing the rule of a King who was perceived as weak and lacked the support of his people. King Edward II had been on the throne for 8 years, having failed to match up to the impressive legacy of his father, the warrior-king Edward I, known as 'Hammer of the Scots' for his relentless attempts to conquer Scotland, who had hoped to duplicate his successful conquest of Wales and its annexation to the Kingdom of England. In 1314, by contrast, King Edward II came to be associated with defeat in the Battle of Bannockburn, when England's larger armies were nevertheless defeated by the smaller forces of King Robert 'the Bruce' of Scotland- marking a major setback for England's ambitions. Moreover, King Edward II even lacked the support of his wife, Queen Isabella, who herself personally helped lead a rebellion against her husband which forced him from the throne, into imprisonment, and ultimately death (allegedly killed by a burning hot poker being forced up his backside), which ultimately allowed for the accession of his son, another warrior-king, Edward III, who oversaw the beginnings of England's 'Hundred Years War' with France...
In 1415, the 'Hundred Years War', begun decades earlier by King Edward III of England, is in full swing. As if this isn't debilitating enough, the line of succession to the English throne has been complicated by the seizure of the English throne from King Richard II by his cousin, the Duke of Lancaster, who established the rule of the House of Lancaster, and reigned as King Henry IV. Despite his dubious claim to the English throne, and the boils that covered his body as an apparent sign of God's disapproval of his accession to the throne, King Henry IV nevertheless surprisingly laid the foundations for a smooth transfer of the throne to his son, who became King Henry V, upon his death two years earlier in 1413. In spite of these unstable times, at home and abroad, Henry V has gone down as a heroic monarch, as in this year he prestigiously won the great victory at the Battle of Agincourt- a key moment in the Hundred Years War with France. As a consequence of this victory, King Henry V was the first English monarch to be formally recognised as King of France. Alas, the triumph was to be short-lived, which was due to the King himself being short-lived: he died 7 years later, only in his mid-thirties, leaving the throne to his son, King Henry VI, who was barely a year old at his accession. King Henry VI's inability to reign effectively, even when he was old enough to handle the full responsibilities of his position, meant the prompt loss of, first, the throne of France; then, even the loss of the English throne, bringing about the Wars of the Roses between King Henry VI and his supporters from the House of Lancaster, versus the rival claim of Prince Edward of York...
In 1515, the divisive Wars of the Roses are at an end, with the claim of the White Rose of York defeated by the Red Rose of Lancaster, with the latter victory achieved by Henry Tudor: a Welshman with a relatively tenuous link to the House of Lancaster. Nevertheless, by a strategic marriage to Elizabeth of York to boost his legitimacy, King Henry VII's Tudor dynasty, symbolically represented by the Tudor Rose, consisting of the combined Red and White Roses of Lancaster and York respectively, endured, allowing a relatively stable start for the now-iconic King Henry VIII 6 years ago, in 1509. By 1515, King Henry VIII was widely perceived as an ideal monarch: a dashing man with a warrior-like image, asserting the ambitions of an increasingly confident England that was looking to expand its influence with a growing navy; a prestigious state visit to France, where he was greeted by the Field of the Cloth of Gold; while the King could look forward to formal recognition as King of Ireland as well as England, and acclamation from the Pope as Fidei Defensor, or Defender of the Faith, (a title still proclaimed on British coins today, with the abbreviation FID DEF appearing around the monarch's portrait). In his personal life, King Henry VIII also seemed to be happily married to Princess Catherine of Aragon, widow of his late brother, Prince Arthur, and daughter of the powerful Spanish royal family. However, in the years ahead, the King's determination to have a son as his heir would arguably lead to the King's annulment of this marriage, and ultimately five successive marriages in the space of the decade following his split from Catherine. To achieve this serial monogamy, King Henry VIII had had to end his allegiance to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, establishing the Protestant Church of England instead, of which he would be head, thus triggering centuries of religious conflict in the British Isles...
In 1615, the English were coming to terms with their accidental personal union with Scotland, under the shared monarch, King James. The first monarch of the entire British Isles, King James would at first be King James VI of Scotland, before inheriting the thrones of his cousin twice-removed, Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland, the last Tudor monarch. Ten years ago, in 1605, King James would not receive the warmest of welcomes by the English, as a group of conspirators, who would today most likely be labelled as terrorists and religious extremists, planned to destroy the Parliament of England, along with King James, in their iconic Gunpowder Plot as an assertion of Catholic dissent against the established Protestantism of Queen Elizabeth I, which they hoped her successor would overturn. Taking place only 2 years into King James' reign as King of England, the plotters, the most famous of whom was Guy Fawkes, were tortured and sentenced to death. The differing cultures of England and Scotland would take time to fuse together, not least in terms of their governance, whereby the power exercised by the Stuarts in Scotland would be challenged in England by the latter's established parliamentary tradition. Though parliament and King James would ultimately tolerate each other; the differences would become too much when, in ten years' time in 1625, the thrones would be inherited by King Charles I, who believed in the unquestionable Divine Right of Kings, and consequently came to blows with parliament in the English Civil War...
In 1715, the relatively new Kingdom of Great Britain was being overseen by the even newer Hanoverian dynasty, with its monarch, King George I, inheriting the British throne just a year earlier. Hitherto, these had been changeable times for the British Isles, as King James II of England had been forced from the throne (albeit peacefully) in the so-called Glorious Revolution, for having Catholic beliefs and an authoritarian style of rule which ran counter to parliament's expectations, since they had apparently defeated royal absolutism at the end of the English Civil War. However, Queen Anne, the last of King James II's Protestant descendants, would die without offspring to succeed her. And so the parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain, forged by the Act of Union between England and Scotland 8 years ago in 1707, had to consider whom of Queen Anne's closest relatives would uphold both the Protestant faith and political system of constitutional monarchy they were determined to preserve. So George, Queen Anne's second cousin, was approached as the Protestant leader of German state of Hanover. He accepted, although King George I would be much derided for his weak grasp of the English language. However, what may have seemed a farcical situation- a leader unable to effectively speak the same language as his people- actually bolstered Britain's progress towards becoming a more democratic, constitutional monarchy. As a consequence of his poor English, King George allowed his ministers to make more decisions amongst themselves and increasingly relied on one minister in particular, Sir Robert Walpole, who came to be regarded as a 'Primus Inter Pares': a 'First among equals', a first minister, the prime minister...
In 1815, Britain can breathe a great sigh of relief and relish in victory, as the Napoleonic Wars have come to an end this year, once and for all, with France's defeat at the Battle of Waterloo effectively leaving Great Britain (for the time being at least) the world's unchallenged, dominant power. The British Empire meanwhile continues to grow in size, to become the largest empire in history. Moreover, the final step of integration of the British Isles has been taken as, 14 years ago, a further Act of Union was passed to make the islands effectively one country: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And overseeing all this progress was King George III, the figure whose golden jubilee, a reign of 50 years, was celebrated across Britain and the Empire 5 years ago. However, things were not by any means perfect, as Britain's politicians (rather than the monarch) needed to preserve peace and restore stability after decades of expensive and intense warfare with France. Meanwhile, despite being at the heart of national celebrations in 1810, in reality King George III's mental health, and subsequently his physical health, was deteriorating quickly, to the extent that, behind the scenes of the golden jubilee, politicians were working on a law that would transfer the King's power to his son and heir, Prince George, while King George III would remain head of state in theory alone. Four years ago, in 1811, the Regency of George, the Prince of Wales, would begin, and last until the eventual death of King George III in 1820- a year which could have been marked by celebrations of his diamond jubilee...
In 1915, yet another King George is on the British throne at a time of war; but while King George III, for all his frailties by the final years of his reign, had overseen the expansion of Britain's global power thanks to a decisive victory; his descendent, King George V, was still seeing his country and empire struggle through what was at the time called the Great War, and would later be known as the First World War. Moreover, while King George III saw the final unification of the British Isles under not only one monarch, but also one government; King George V would the first steps towards its dissolution, with Ireland increasingly granted self-government once the First World War is over. Nevertheless, in the years ahead, King George V had good health, effective judgement, and an avoidance of responsibility when matters took a downturn (thanks to Britain's now well-established conventions of a restricted, constitutional monarchy), in his favour. But these factors by no means guaranteed security for the King, as there was increased scrutiny of the roots and institution of the British monarchy. As the second monarch of the Saxe-Coburg Gotha dynasty, descended from the iconic royal partnership of the Hanoverian, Queen Victoria, and her consort, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, whose name was passed on to Britain's contemporary reigning dynasty. The royal houses of both Hanover and Saxe-Coburg Gotha were German in origin, which made the position of King George V awkward during the First World War, as Britain's primary enemy was Germany- a country led by the King's cousin, Emperor Wilhelm II. To overcome these apparent attributes that could be said to evidence the questionable loyalty of the King and British royal family, King George V authorised the changing of the dynasty's name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor- taking the new name from the location of the King's favourite royal residence in England, two years on in 1917. A year after this, King George V would be at the heart of celebrations in Britain and the Empire, as the King's realms formed an integral part of the victorious forces that defeated Germany. Moreover, King George V would then be able to breathe a sigh of relief as his country became one of the few prominent, European countries, to maintain the institution of monarchy: soon after the War, the Ottoman Sultan was dismissed from the rump Republic of Turkey; at the very end of the War, while the German Emperor was deposed and went in exile to the Netherlands, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor saw his sprawling empire dismembered and his thrones dissolved, with his attempts to restore them resulting in his forced exile to the Atlantic island of Madeira; but the worst fate was that of King George V's Russian counterpart, the Tsar, who was not only deposed in his country's first revolution, but was ultimately executed (along with his wife, children, members of staff, and allegedly even his pet dog) by the beneficiaries of the second revolution, the communist revolutionaries led by Vladimir Lenin...
Now, in 2015, the British monarchy seems, in many ways, very secure. The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is regularly deemed more popular than her nation's elected leaders in opinion polls, while her jubilees have been celebrated in the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth- the voluntary, successor organisation to the British Empire. Meanwhile the succession crises that have undermined several of her predecessors seem highly unlikely to reoccur any time soon, as we can now theoretically see who will be the country's heads of state for potentially a century, anticipating the accession of first her son, to reign either as King Charles III or King George VII, followed by her grandson, King William V, and finally her great-grandson, King George VII or VIII. However, as we can see from the past, the country's developments, and in turn the continuation of the monarchy, can be very difficult to predict...!
In 1215, King John of England, the monarch demonised in the legends of Robin Hood, signed the famous agreement, the Magna Carta or 'Great Charter'. The document has been much celebrated over the centuries as a key feature of the English and, ultimately, British constitution, whereby the principle of restricting the power of the country's leaders, and guarantees of the rights of the nation's subjects, were established in writing. Not introduced by the goodwill of the monarch however, King John was compelled to do so by the influential section of English feudal society, the barons. This was evidenced by his attempt soon after to disregard the document, which led to the renewal of conflict between King John and the barons until his death the following year, while these tensions in English society were inherited by his son and successor, King Henry III, who would himself be compelled to make a concession to democracy as great as his father's concession to civil liberties: just as King John signed the Magna Carta, so King Henry III would be held to account by a Parliament in Westminster, London, consisting of influential figures in English society...
In 1315, England was again experiencing the rule of a King who was perceived as weak and lacked the support of his people. King Edward II had been on the throne for 8 years, having failed to match up to the impressive legacy of his father, the warrior-king Edward I, known as 'Hammer of the Scots' for his relentless attempts to conquer Scotland, who had hoped to duplicate his successful conquest of Wales and its annexation to the Kingdom of England. In 1314, by contrast, King Edward II came to be associated with defeat in the Battle of Bannockburn, when England's larger armies were nevertheless defeated by the smaller forces of King Robert 'the Bruce' of Scotland- marking a major setback for England's ambitions. Moreover, King Edward II even lacked the support of his wife, Queen Isabella, who herself personally helped lead a rebellion against her husband which forced him from the throne, into imprisonment, and ultimately death (allegedly killed by a burning hot poker being forced up his backside), which ultimately allowed for the accession of his son, another warrior-king, Edward III, who oversaw the beginnings of England's 'Hundred Years War' with France...
In 1415, the 'Hundred Years War', begun decades earlier by King Edward III of England, is in full swing. As if this isn't debilitating enough, the line of succession to the English throne has been complicated by the seizure of the English throne from King Richard II by his cousin, the Duke of Lancaster, who established the rule of the House of Lancaster, and reigned as King Henry IV. Despite his dubious claim to the English throne, and the boils that covered his body as an apparent sign of God's disapproval of his accession to the throne, King Henry IV nevertheless surprisingly laid the foundations for a smooth transfer of the throne to his son, who became King Henry V, upon his death two years earlier in 1413. In spite of these unstable times, at home and abroad, Henry V has gone down as a heroic monarch, as in this year he prestigiously won the great victory at the Battle of Agincourt- a key moment in the Hundred Years War with France. As a consequence of this victory, King Henry V was the first English monarch to be formally recognised as King of France. Alas, the triumph was to be short-lived, which was due to the King himself being short-lived: he died 7 years later, only in his mid-thirties, leaving the throne to his son, King Henry VI, who was barely a year old at his accession. King Henry VI's inability to reign effectively, even when he was old enough to handle the full responsibilities of his position, meant the prompt loss of, first, the throne of France; then, even the loss of the English throne, bringing about the Wars of the Roses between King Henry VI and his supporters from the House of Lancaster, versus the rival claim of Prince Edward of York...
In 1515, the divisive Wars of the Roses are at an end, with the claim of the White Rose of York defeated by the Red Rose of Lancaster, with the latter victory achieved by Henry Tudor: a Welshman with a relatively tenuous link to the House of Lancaster. Nevertheless, by a strategic marriage to Elizabeth of York to boost his legitimacy, King Henry VII's Tudor dynasty, symbolically represented by the Tudor Rose, consisting of the combined Red and White Roses of Lancaster and York respectively, endured, allowing a relatively stable start for the now-iconic King Henry VIII 6 years ago, in 1509. By 1515, King Henry VIII was widely perceived as an ideal monarch: a dashing man with a warrior-like image, asserting the ambitions of an increasingly confident England that was looking to expand its influence with a growing navy; a prestigious state visit to France, where he was greeted by the Field of the Cloth of Gold; while the King could look forward to formal recognition as King of Ireland as well as England, and acclamation from the Pope as Fidei Defensor, or Defender of the Faith, (a title still proclaimed on British coins today, with the abbreviation FID DEF appearing around the monarch's portrait). In his personal life, King Henry VIII also seemed to be happily married to Princess Catherine of Aragon, widow of his late brother, Prince Arthur, and daughter of the powerful Spanish royal family. However, in the years ahead, the King's determination to have a son as his heir would arguably lead to the King's annulment of this marriage, and ultimately five successive marriages in the space of the decade following his split from Catherine. To achieve this serial monogamy, King Henry VIII had had to end his allegiance to the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, establishing the Protestant Church of England instead, of which he would be head, thus triggering centuries of religious conflict in the British Isles...
In 1615, the English were coming to terms with their accidental personal union with Scotland, under the shared monarch, King James. The first monarch of the entire British Isles, King James would at first be King James VI of Scotland, before inheriting the thrones of his cousin twice-removed, Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland, the last Tudor monarch. Ten years ago, in 1605, King James would not receive the warmest of welcomes by the English, as a group of conspirators, who would today most likely be labelled as terrorists and religious extremists, planned to destroy the Parliament of England, along with King James, in their iconic Gunpowder Plot as an assertion of Catholic dissent against the established Protestantism of Queen Elizabeth I, which they hoped her successor would overturn. Taking place only 2 years into King James' reign as King of England, the plotters, the most famous of whom was Guy Fawkes, were tortured and sentenced to death. The differing cultures of England and Scotland would take time to fuse together, not least in terms of their governance, whereby the power exercised by the Stuarts in Scotland would be challenged in England by the latter's established parliamentary tradition. Though parliament and King James would ultimately tolerate each other; the differences would become too much when, in ten years' time in 1625, the thrones would be inherited by King Charles I, who believed in the unquestionable Divine Right of Kings, and consequently came to blows with parliament in the English Civil War...
In 1715, the relatively new Kingdom of Great Britain was being overseen by the even newer Hanoverian dynasty, with its monarch, King George I, inheriting the British throne just a year earlier. Hitherto, these had been changeable times for the British Isles, as King James II of England had been forced from the throne (albeit peacefully) in the so-called Glorious Revolution, for having Catholic beliefs and an authoritarian style of rule which ran counter to parliament's expectations, since they had apparently defeated royal absolutism at the end of the English Civil War. However, Queen Anne, the last of King James II's Protestant descendants, would die without offspring to succeed her. And so the parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain, forged by the Act of Union between England and Scotland 8 years ago in 1707, had to consider whom of Queen Anne's closest relatives would uphold both the Protestant faith and political system of constitutional monarchy they were determined to preserve. So George, Queen Anne's second cousin, was approached as the Protestant leader of German state of Hanover. He accepted, although King George I would be much derided for his weak grasp of the English language. However, what may have seemed a farcical situation- a leader unable to effectively speak the same language as his people- actually bolstered Britain's progress towards becoming a more democratic, constitutional monarchy. As a consequence of his poor English, King George allowed his ministers to make more decisions amongst themselves and increasingly relied on one minister in particular, Sir Robert Walpole, who came to be regarded as a 'Primus Inter Pares': a 'First among equals', a first minister, the prime minister...
In 1815, Britain can breathe a great sigh of relief and relish in victory, as the Napoleonic Wars have come to an end this year, once and for all, with France's defeat at the Battle of Waterloo effectively leaving Great Britain (for the time being at least) the world's unchallenged, dominant power. The British Empire meanwhile continues to grow in size, to become the largest empire in history. Moreover, the final step of integration of the British Isles has been taken as, 14 years ago, a further Act of Union was passed to make the islands effectively one country: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. And overseeing all this progress was King George III, the figure whose golden jubilee, a reign of 50 years, was celebrated across Britain and the Empire 5 years ago. However, things were not by any means perfect, as Britain's politicians (rather than the monarch) needed to preserve peace and restore stability after decades of expensive and intense warfare with France. Meanwhile, despite being at the heart of national celebrations in 1810, in reality King George III's mental health, and subsequently his physical health, was deteriorating quickly, to the extent that, behind the scenes of the golden jubilee, politicians were working on a law that would transfer the King's power to his son and heir, Prince George, while King George III would remain head of state in theory alone. Four years ago, in 1811, the Regency of George, the Prince of Wales, would begin, and last until the eventual death of King George III in 1820- a year which could have been marked by celebrations of his diamond jubilee...
In 1915, yet another King George is on the British throne at a time of war; but while King George III, for all his frailties by the final years of his reign, had overseen the expansion of Britain's global power thanks to a decisive victory; his descendent, King George V, was still seeing his country and empire struggle through what was at the time called the Great War, and would later be known as the First World War. Moreover, while King George III saw the final unification of the British Isles under not only one monarch, but also one government; King George V would the first steps towards its dissolution, with Ireland increasingly granted self-government once the First World War is over. Nevertheless, in the years ahead, King George V had good health, effective judgement, and an avoidance of responsibility when matters took a downturn (thanks to Britain's now well-established conventions of a restricted, constitutional monarchy), in his favour. But these factors by no means guaranteed security for the King, as there was increased scrutiny of the roots and institution of the British monarchy. As the second monarch of the Saxe-Coburg Gotha dynasty, descended from the iconic royal partnership of the Hanoverian, Queen Victoria, and her consort, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, whose name was passed on to Britain's contemporary reigning dynasty. The royal houses of both Hanover and Saxe-Coburg Gotha were German in origin, which made the position of King George V awkward during the First World War, as Britain's primary enemy was Germany- a country led by the King's cousin, Emperor Wilhelm II. To overcome these apparent attributes that could be said to evidence the questionable loyalty of the King and British royal family, King George V authorised the changing of the dynasty's name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor- taking the new name from the location of the King's favourite royal residence in England, two years on in 1917. A year after this, King George V would be at the heart of celebrations in Britain and the Empire, as the King's realms formed an integral part of the victorious forces that defeated Germany. Moreover, King George V would then be able to breathe a sigh of relief as his country became one of the few prominent, European countries, to maintain the institution of monarchy: soon after the War, the Ottoman Sultan was dismissed from the rump Republic of Turkey; at the very end of the War, while the German Emperor was deposed and went in exile to the Netherlands, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor saw his sprawling empire dismembered and his thrones dissolved, with his attempts to restore them resulting in his forced exile to the Atlantic island of Madeira; but the worst fate was that of King George V's Russian counterpart, the Tsar, who was not only deposed in his country's first revolution, but was ultimately executed (along with his wife, children, members of staff, and allegedly even his pet dog) by the beneficiaries of the second revolution, the communist revolutionaries led by Vladimir Lenin...
Now, in 2015, the British monarchy seems, in many ways, very secure. The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is regularly deemed more popular than her nation's elected leaders in opinion polls, while her jubilees have been celebrated in the United Kingdom and across the Commonwealth- the voluntary, successor organisation to the British Empire. Meanwhile the succession crises that have undermined several of her predecessors seem highly unlikely to reoccur any time soon, as we can now theoretically see who will be the country's heads of state for potentially a century, anticipating the accession of first her son, to reign either as King Charles III or King George VII, followed by her grandson, King William V, and finally her great-grandson, King George VII or VIII. However, as we can see from the past, the country's developments, and in turn the continuation of the monarchy, can be very difficult to predict...!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)