The only way

The National Secular Society recently published an article by its Chairman, Stephen Evans, that focused on the plans of the Church of England “to give Anglican church leaders from around the world greater power in choosing future archbishops of Canterbury.” Stephen Evans’ article led with the statement that “the plan by the Church of England serves as a reminder of the need to separate church and state.”

What follows in this article acknowledges the use of information contained in Stephen Evans’ article, but the views expressed are those of this writer.

It seems that a row is brewing in the Church of England (CofE) over a possible change to the process for deciding who becomes the most senior cleric in Anglicanism. The CofE is, of course, the established Church of the UK. As such, the affairs of the CofE are matters of the unwritten constitution of the UK. This has political connotations. Therefore, the current constitutional settlement makes it impossible for the question of who leads the Church of England to be purely an internal matter for the Church – the way it would be for any other religious denomination in the UK.

At present, the decision to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury as the most senior cleric in the CofE, is made by the reigning monarch – the constitutionally appointed Head of the CofE – on the advice of the prime minister. In turn, the Prime Minister has received a shortlist of two names from an ad hoc committee called the Crown Nominations Commission. These names are usually from the community of practising Anglican bishops in the UK, specifically from a CofE bishopric in England. It could be seen, therefore, that the appointment of the person to provide the leadership for not only the British Anglicans, but for Anglicans worldwide, is as much a matter of British politics as it is of spirituality.

The institution of an Established Church is a relic from an age when church and nation were indistinguishable one from another. Today, on any typical Sunday, fewer than 1% of England’s population attend a service in an Anglican church. Further, younger people are increasingly unlikely to identify with any faith. Moreover, as suggested by occasional national surveys of opinion on the matter, a significant majority of the UK’s population don’t identify with any recognised religion. It would make considerable sense, therefore, that this reality should be reflected in a new, secular, constitutional settlement for the CofE.

Not unrelated to this issue is the fact that, as an adult, and whilst he has been the Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson was baptised into the Roman Catholic faith. A Roman Catholic PM having an important role in the process of choosing the leader of the CofE! This is rather ironical, and calls into question, not only the current PM’s role in all of this, but also highlights the absurdity of having an established church in a modern pluralistic, multifaith democracy.

Let me return to the matter with which this article began.

The CofE is currently consulting on plans to allow foreign Anglican leaders from churches around the world to be given much greater power in choosing future archbishops of Canterbury. There are many more times the number of Anglicans in other countries worldwide as there are in England. Not surprisingly, therefore, and according to The Times newspaper, “English priests and worshippers have expressed surprise and anger at proposals for a five-fold increase in the power that Anglican churches overseas will be given in nominating the Church of England’s most senior bishop.”

Their concerns centre around whether the proposals might diminish the prospect of a woman, or a supporter of same-sex marriage, being appointed as the Archbishop of Canterbury. These specific concerns have no doubt arisen due to the reality that many Anglican churches globally still do not allow women to become bishops, as well as their most steadfast opposition to the idea of conducting gay marriages in church. In general, Anglican churches outside of the UK, and especially in two-thirds world countries, tend to be quite theologically and socially conservative.

But it isn’t only the Anglican faithful who might have cause to be concerned. As previously stated, in consequence of the CofE’s established status, the Archbishop of Canterbury enjoys a significant degree of political power in the UK. This raises important questions about the appropriateness of foreign influence in the British political process.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and his bishops claim 26 seats in the House of Lords of the British Parliament. These seats are predominantly filled by bishops of Anglican dioceses in England – Anglican church bishops from other UK nations have refused to take seats in the House of Lords. This provides the English bishops with unique access to the corridors of political power. The Archbishop of Canterbury is given his own annual debate to lead in parliament, has meetings with the prime minister and government ministers, and enjoys a myriad of other privileged platforms.

These significant privileged platforms extend to state occasions, including royal coronations. This gives the archbishop inappropriate political influence in a country that really should be secular. His position is charged with anointing the British head of state and administering the oath, whereby the monarch vows to “maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law”.

Irrespective of one’s view of royalty, it is both anachronistic and unjust that a country’s (largely unwritten) constitution should institutionalise the role of a monarch as the head of any religion, never-mind the rapidly diminishing CofE denomination of the Christian religion – and that is only what it is – in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society. Further, the reader may also be aware of the influence over public policy gained through the CofE’s role in state education. One quarter of all publicly funded primary schools in England are run by the Anglican Church. This makes the CofE the largest single provider of schools in the country.

Overseas influence in who fills the role of Archbishop of Canterbury role can only widen the democratic deficit of this ludicrous arrangement. Stephen Evans provides a timely reminder that the current bishops’ bench in the House of Lords has already been described by the incumbent archbishop, Justin Welby, as “the most orthodox since WWII. Greater influence from reactionary bishops from around the world can only further intensify the disconnect between the Church and the country’s increasingly secularised population.”

From what has been stated by the National Secular Society, and its reflection on what has been above-mentioned, the matter of who leads the Church of England – and the wider international Anglican Communion – should really be the business of nobody but the Anglican communion, in the UK or wider. Disestablishing the CofE and ending its privileged role in our state institutions will ensure this is the case.

In conclusion, the closing sentence of Stephen Evans’ article in the NSS Bulletin states that, “Questions about who becomes the archbishop of Canterbury can be a matter solely for Anglicans to decide ­- which is the way it should be.” This writer wholly concurs.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Taking a principled stand

Readers of this blog will know that, occasionally, it will include aspects of mailings that I occasionally send to my MP, a member of the Conservative Party presently governing the UK. With the present state of this government, and especially the position of its leader, the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, I decided to, once again, email my MP to make my feelings about the matter known to him. In doing so, I was mindful of the campaign of concern on this issue currently being undertaken by the pressure group, 38 Degrees – a people’s movement I support.

This article contains the basic text of the above-mentioned email, albeit written in essay form.

Those reading this article will probably need no reminding that the Conservative government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is currently in a state that could well be described as a siege. There are many reasons for this, and these have been dealt with, not always adequately, by the media.

During the early months of the lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 virus, the UK also was in a situation that could also be called a “state of siege”. The British government brought in a series of harsh measures to try and cope with the pandemic, not always quickly enough, or successfully. People could only leave home for work, exercise, or obtain necessary supplies; non-essential shops were closed; large gatherings were illegal. One consequence of such measures was that, apart from being in their family groups, individuals could not be with more than one other individual at any one time. Therefore, such things as attendance at religious worship services, pubs, dances, cinemas, weddings, funerals, family occasions, e.g., birthdays, and a host of other activities, were not permitted.

For me personally, and amongst other things, it meant that I could not be present with my daughter and my son-in-law around the time of the birth of my second grandchild. Moreover, I was unable throughout 2020 (when the PM was associated with garden parties) to be with and hold my granddaughter for the first year of her life. Ongoing relations with my wider family, including my young grandson, were also grossly interrupted, or prevented.

Contravention of these measures were subject to lawful punishments, and there were many ordinary people, living ordinary lives, who were severely fined for such contraventions. In the past few weeks, evidence has come to light that the very persons who were responsible for devising the laws of lockdown, and who, daily from lecterns and the pages of the newspapers, were encouraging citizens to observe them, were themselves contravening these laws and recommendations. Amongst such offenders was the UK Prime Minister himself, Boris Johnson.

It is commonly alleged that our Prime Minister has been known to lie about government, state, and personal matters. It seems that he is also guilty of his failure to come clean with his knowledge of, and likely participation in, garden parties at No.10 Downing Street, his residence as PM. He and his governmental ministers instituted the “laws of the lockdowns”, laws to which he and his ministers have subjected the entire country. Yet, in the event, they were laws that they themselves were flouting.

In so doing, the Prime Minister has deceived the country, being short with the truth, and demonstrated that he feels that he is above the very rules that his government makes, as well as the general laws of the country. So too, in the past couple of years there have been revelations of how others in his administration have acted in a similar style to the Prime Minister, and seemingly with his knowledge of their actions – and not only in the case of Dominic Cummings!

As with a rapidly increasing number of others throughout the country, I am becoming somewhat immune to the nature of the repetitious claims of the Conservative government that it is acting in the interests of the entire population of this country, when it is evident that these claims are mere words and lack substance. There is much evidence to suggest that Boris Johnson believes, as do others in his administration, that the law, as it stands and as it is pronounced by the government, contains exceptions and exemptions. The latter concerns Mr Johnson himself, and others who believe that their background and office places them in a special and privileged position. Boris Johnson must be held accountable for his words and actions, including those associated with the garden parties held at No.10 Downing Street during the lockdowns of 2020.

Surely it is now time when Conservative members of Parliament, who have enjoyed many years of government, should truly act in the interests of all and be accountable, not only to the Conservative Party, but also to the citizens of the UK. This means putting a stop to the discriminatory behaviour of the Prime Minister, and others in his government, who say one thing and do another. The laws of the country apply, without discrimination, to all. The latter is not just an issue of efficient and effective national governance, it is also a question of governmental ethics.

The false words, inflammatory actions, and failure to act on the part of some government MPs, are rapidly causing a deterioration not only in the confidence of this country in its government, but also in the reputation that, thus far, the UK has enjoyed in Europe and wider. In the view of a growing number of the UK populace, the government of the UK is becoming a national disgrace, indeed, a laughingstock.

I would hope and trust that, as my representative in Parliament, my MP will not condone the words and actions for which, and especially in recent weeks, this Conservative government has received such sustained and justifiable criticism. Further, I contacted my MP with the expectation that he, along with many of his parliamentary colleagues, will take a principled stand against those matters discussed in the above.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Falling trees in the forest of Westminster

When teaching philosophy of religion with Sixth Form students at a Northampton secondary school, there was the occasional reference to the following philosophical allegory, “When a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” In shortened form, this is an idiom meaning that opinions, thoughts, actions, etc., are ineffective and inconsequential if no one ever knows or hears about them.

Of course, the answer to the allegory usually depends on who you ask. The students to whom I directed the question gave a variety of answers, most of which had some philosophical or scientific merit.

The more scientifically inclined student would suggest that when a tree falls it causes a disturbance in the air pressure field in the forest, and that pressure field emanates away from the fallen tree, thereby affecting other forest habitats. The action of the falling tree creates a disturbance in the fluidic medium, air. That creates a sound, albeit one that may only be heard within the community of the forest. Such a phenomenon is part of the nature of forest life, even if not personally affecting the lives of those discussing the phenomenon.

The more philosophically inclined student would argue that, even as a tree falling in a distant place may not be heard by us, it still makes a sound and impacts its habitat. Similarly, if something happens in the communities we inhabit, we may not directly know or hear about it, but it may, nevertheless, impinge on our lives – to a greater or lesser degree. Such students would further suggest that there is little in human life that is inconsequential or ineffective. The interactive nature of human life is a given.

My thoughts returned to these classroom discussion as I listened recently to the news and media reports about the sleaze and corruption prevalent in contemporary political circles, especially in the present Conservative government. Reference was made to the similar situation that existed during the 1990’s, again focusing on a Conservative government. One journalist linked the two situations as a “filthy miasma steaming off the Thames at Westminster.”

The immediate cause of the current scandal was the revelation that Tory MP Owen Paterson, a former cabinet minister, had lobbied government on behalf of two companies that were paying him tens of thousands of pounds very year. In doing so, and evidenced by written sources, it was found that Paterson was guilty of an “egregious breach of the rules” (the words of the Parliamentary commission for standards). What followed has now become history.

I am not a member of the Labour Party. However, my wife is. In due course, my wife received an email from the Team Labour movement which stated that our local MP, a Conservative, was another “who has taken money from outside interests.” This information came with the comment that Conservative MP’s (who together, it is estimated, have received £1.7 million in consultancy fees this year alone) “…think it’s one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.” This attitude, and the practices that emanate from it, seems to have become more prevalent since the Brexit vote. The Team Labour movement was seeking to organise a campaign aimed at the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to “show some leadership and ban MP’s from having consultancy roles.”

Under the circumstances, it seemed appropriate to email my MP about the matter of MP’s receiving sums of money to lobby parliament on behalf of private companies and individuals, or to accept paid consultancies. I duly did so, but without specific reference to the fact that my MP was actively involved in such transactions. What follows is a direct transcription of that email, with a challenge specifically aimed at my MP:

“I write with the wish that you are well.

“This email concerns a matter that effects every person in this country – the matter of earned income, taxation, ethics, and legalities. You will no doubt be aware of the news surrounding Eric Paterson and Geoffrey Cox, and the accusations that have been levelled at both MPs. There seems to be little doubt that both MPs have contravened parliamentary procedures in the event of receiving, what some would consider to be, extortionate fees, in return for their advice to business and legal organisations.

“They have done so whilst still engaged in, and receiving a most adequate salary for, the task of representing their political constituencies in the UK. Both have defended themselves by resorting to the argument that what they have done is not illegal. Whilst in the light of parliamentary investigations, that is now something to be argued over, there is also the question of the ethics involved in their actions. I am strongly of the view that the work of an MP is very much a full-time occupation, representing so many people in a single UK constituency.

“There is also attendance at and participation in debates in the chamber and the work of parliamentary committees, including the preparation that should be given to these, for example, reading of documents, preparing speeches, working with parliamentary aides, and ensuring that decisions of parliament are carried out. Whilst occasionally watching the events in parliament, I am often bemused to see how bare the benches are – on both sides of the House – a bit like a teacher being absent from the classroom when a lesson is to be delivered.

“You will realise, therefore, that I find it hard to accept that MPs have too much leisure time or time to work at other occupations, especially where substantial sums of remunerations are offered.

Indeed, whilst under certain circumstances (but not all), this may be legal, I would wish to question the ethics of the matter. This is particularly so in the cases the offending MP is residing overseas in an offshore cash/tax haven (with a British name to further shame the situation).

“Before retiring as a teacher in a Northampton secondary school, I found that it was necessary to devote all of my professional life to the job for which I was appointed – teaching a full Forms 1-6 curricula, setting and marking homework, setting and marking tests and examinations, researching classroom materials and equipment, taking part in subject, faculty, and whole school meetings, visitation, parent evenings, engaged in ongoing professional training, interviewing/helping students with school work and, not to be neglected, pastoral care.

“This gave me little time for other forms of employment, moonlighting, etc., even from earning additional money from subject coaching/private lessons. As a teacher (incidentally, with graduate, post-graduate, and professional degrees), I was not in a minority – the job demanded this amount of dedication, skill, and attention to the details of the occupation. Are you going to argue that the work of an MP is any less demanding than that of a teacher? If so, then I would suggest that MPs are paid the salary of a teacher, and a teacher is paid the current equivalent of an MP’s salary – I am under no delusions as to which salary level I would prefer!

“I would add that, if the above is the case, then MPs should cease regarding themselves with the self-importance that is all too currently evident – especially on government benches, not to mention a decision to refuse a salary increase when next it is due. I would imagine that all MPs, in receipt of sums of money from outside their specific work as an MP, would, nevertheless, not refuse a salary increase when one is offered; whilst, at the same time, voting against an increase for public service (e.g., nurses, and social workers on low salaries/wages)!

“I would like to believe that, as my MP, you would agree with most, if not all, of what I have stated in the correspondence. Notwithstanding, I would appreciate your comments on the matters discussed.

Yours Sincerely”

To date, I have not received a reply from my MP. Therefore, I am not at all sure what disturbances of the air will have occurred in my MP’s parliamentary office when he received the above email from me. The only fallen parliamentary figure, the single tree in the forest of Westminster, that I have heard of so far is named Owen Paterson. No doubt, the sight and sound of others will soon be heard. This is not the topic of scientific speculation or philosophical thought, it is a matter of ethical, effective, and purposeful government.

The sounds of silence have been heard. The broken, soiled, decaying parliamentary habitat has been broken into. The stench has been smelled; the destructive action has been seen; the agonising sounds of former silence have been heard.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Catalyst for Change

It is a topic that is, once again, beginning to be raised in the news media and discussed across the public sphere. For many, however, it remains a subject that should rear its head only in private conversation. It was, and still is, a phenomenon that had the power to divide the British nation. The division continues; the reference is, of course, to Brexit.

In the years since 2016 and the EU Referendum, there has been the gradual awakening as to the direction and consequences of Brexit. Along with a developing public awareness of the implications of the UK’s secession from the European Community, there has appeared a growing number of books describing, critically analysing, and forming additional conclusions about Brexit. One such conclusion posits the growth and influence of English nationalism as a chief protagonist in the movement towards and the eventual success of a Brexit outcome.  

It is generally agreed that, prior to the Brexit referendum, there was, in the words of one commentator, “a widespread doubt as to whether English nationalism existed at all, at least beyond a small fringe. Since then, it has come to be regarded as an obvious explanation for the vote to leave the European Union.”

Since 2016, when the decision was taken by the British people to leave the EU, successive opinion polls have shown a continuing mixed response to the UK’s decision. So too, these polls have raised doubts about the extent of the continuation of an English commitment to the union of the United Kingdom itself. “Yet…”, in the opinion of Ailsa Henderson and Richard Wyn Jones, the two academics who co-authored the book under review in this article, “…even as Englishness is apparently reshaping Britain’s place in the world and perhaps, ultimately, the state itself, it remains poorly understood.”

The title of this book, Englishness: The Political Force Transforming Britain, gives an indication as to what it is about. A major thesis of the book is that “…the rise Englishness, and its impact on British constitutional politics, has for too long been an under-explored, semi-secret, phenomenon.” Writing in The Irish Times, the polemicist, journalist, and drama critic, Fintan O’Toole (himself the author of “Heroic Failure: Brexit and the Politics of Pain”), expressed the view that “What makes the crisis of British politics so strange is that at its heart is a force that dare not speak its name: Englishness.”

The present book’s purpose may be seen, therefore, to be an exploration of what “Englishness” means, from where and whence has it arisen, what are its manifestations, as well as its past, present, and future consequences – for both England and the wider United Kingdom.

The co-authors of the book are a Scot, Ailsa Henderson, and a Welshman, Richard Wyn Jones. It may be thought by some would readers of this article that, with such authors, it merely presents a Celtic analysis of the phenomenon known as Englishness. However, in mitigation, it needs to be said that the sources used by the writers cross many national boundaries, contain evidence from a variety of disciplines, and has many references that would deflect criticisms suggesting bias, prejudice, and the presence of “fake news”.

Henderson and Wyn Jones are of the view that, despite the central role the phenomenon has played in recent British history, including the possibility that its reality is reshaping the nature of the British state and its place in the world, Englishness remains, as stated above, “poorly understood.” This book is a major contribution to a possible explanation of this understanding.

A major source of data for the book is The Future of England Survey (originally published in 2011 and republished many times since). This is a specially commissioned public attitudes survey programme exploring the political implications of English identity. The use of this data and contributions from many of its writers and commentators, demonstrates that, for Henderson and Wyn Jones, Englishness has its basis in English nationalism.

According to the authors of the book, however, it needs to be understood this is not a nationalism that outrightly rejects Britain and Britishness. It is, rather, “a nationalism that combines a sense of grievance about England’s place in the United Kingdom with a fierce commitment to a particular vision of Britain’s past, present, and future.” Indeed, the juxtaposition between England and Britain in this book – what has been termed its “Janus-faced nature” – is, according to the book’s authors, the “key to understanding not only English nationalism, but also to understanding the ways in which it is transforming British politics.”

This book is, therefore, invaluable in helping the reader to understand why it was that the United Kingdom voted in 2016 to leave the European Union. Indeed, one commentator has said that this book should “be read by anyone – and especially every politician – who wishes to understand the forces driving British politics to its current febrile, fractured, state.” Therefore, Englishness: The Political Force Transforming Britain, joins books by Stephen Haseler, Dennis MacShane, David Edgerton, Gavin Exler, and others, who have in recent years written on the nature of the transformation that has occurred in contemporary English and UK politics, as well as the place and role of the UK in modern global affairs.

For those who may not be confident of or bothered about pouring over statistics and evaluating data, this book is highly informative and would provide satisfaction in being read for its important single and multiple statements, summary passages, and conclusions. These are to be found throughout the book, but essentially in the concluding pages.

This reviewer found the closing paragraph of Englishness: The Political Force Transforming Britain to be most apposite and instructive. Indeed, the paragraph is worthy of being quoted:

Looking to the future raises an uncertain and concerning prospect. For those in England who cleave to the traditional and still-dominant view of their own national identity and national destiny, there is the danger that by their actions they could end up undermining the very basic of their own world view, not only because their efforts to leave the external (European) Union may well result in their cherished view of Britain’s place in the world being exposed as a conceit, but, in the process, because they may also undermine the UK itself. And, whilst it is true that a perhaps surprising number seem not to be overly concerned about the latter, it is hard to imagine that any break-up would not be the source of regret and recrimination.”

The enquirer may start by reading this conclusion, and then reading the book with an appreciation of its aims, purposes, and eventual goal; or begin at page one and read to the conclusion of the book, deepening, and widening an understanding of the overall thesis which determines the conclusion. Whichever method of approach is used, the book will impress with its thesis that Englishness has indeed been a catalyst for change in the life of the people of the British Isles.

The book will repay attentive reading and thoughtful consideration, especially, but not only, for those with an interest in the deliberations, directions, and developments in British political life.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To be, or not to be – a hero

It has happened again. They are being talked about, feted in the news media, having television programmes celebrating their achievements, and awarded medals, titles, and status. They have been a constant and much-discussed feature of the NHS, then their presence was felt in football circles, and particularly, the European Nations Cup. Now the focus is on their return from the Tokyo Olympic Games. I speak, of course, about our “heroes” – hospital nurses, doctors, auxiliary workers, elderly care home staff, athletes, male football players; and the list could on.

The Covid-19 pandemic has given the British, and many other nations, the opportunity of exercising the language of heroism in a way that almost parallels that of military campaigns. What might have once been regarded as activities associated with duty have now become the actions of heroes.

However, heroic activity has not only been focused on NHS workers. We have used the word for English football players who were runners-up in the European Nations Cup. Just as the UK Olympic Games team gained silver and bronze medals, as well as gold, heroic status was ordained not only for winners but also for those who simply, but importantly, participated. Echoes of the situation with the work force of the NHS.

It has been said that the word “hero” is slippery, “with its significance constantly on the move”. I can recall a time when the word was used to singularly pertain to military personnel – although even here the idea of “duty” was never far from the discussion. In more recent years, the application of the word “hero” has included wider nuances, to a point where one is left to wonder whether it has been diluted of its peculiar understanding in contemporary discourse. So, it is instructive to return to some of the more basic understandings of the word.

A study of the word would invariably inform that hero is derived from the Greek word “heros”. It is particularly associated with the idea of ancient myths in Greek culture. These Greek heroes were celebrated for their great inventions and bold exploits. They were often associated with divinity. In Homer’s “The Iliad”, for example, the mother of the hero Achilles, was a goddess. The heroes themselves, however, were often of dubious character. Achilles was a brutal, vengeful, mass murderer. The activities of heroes were questionable. Odysseus, the main character of that other famous Homeric contribution to Greek literature, “The Odyssey”, was resourceful and long-suffering; but he was also arrogant, deceitful, and a coward.

There are noble tales associated with the Greek heroes. In Greek mythology there is the priestess of Aphrodite who killed herself when her lover Leander drowned while trying to swim the Hellespont to be with her. Hercules was such an illustrious person that he became a demi-god -supposed to be exalted, after death, to a place among the gods.

Whilst discounting an American understanding of “hero” which refers to a large sandwich made of a long crusty role that is sliced lengthwise and filled with meats and cheese (plus other condiments), the word has generally focused on the principal character in a play or a movie, or a novel or poem. The heroic figure may be someone who fights for a cause, someone distinguished by strength of character, nobility, or an exceptional degree of courage. An example of this could be the pilots, the heroes, who took part in the Battle of Britain.

Otherwise, a hero could be a person identified as possessing distinguished valour or enterprise in danger; one who shows fortitude in suffering or is the central personage in any remarkable action or event. It has been said that “Each man is a hero and oracle to somebody.” No doubt, the same could be applied to a woman. Hero worship, extravagant admiration for great women and men, can be likened to ancient heroes. “Hero worship exists, has existed, and will forever exit, universally among humankind.”

Now, something of the above may be identified in the discovery and description of modern-day heroes. One writer on culture has said that “Language is unstable, it gathers new force, sheds old connotations.” So, if we step back from our contemporary use of the word hero, we might discover that there are paradoxes in our use of the word.

Many of those who have gathered in the streets over the past year or so to publicly show our appreciation of NHS workers by clapping, are the same people who have voted for governments that have cut the financial provision for the NHS, or would oppose pay rises for NHS workers, or who have agreed to the imposition of austerity on many British citizens. Does clapping act as an opiate of the people?

Those who are elated by the performance of British athletes may also be persons who decry public funds (that is, taxpayer’s money) being used to professionalise numerous sports that do not strongly figure in the public imagination. Those who attach heroic significance to current football players and teams – endlessly following every on-field exploit and cataloguing numerous off-field rumours – forget that no British football team has won the final of a European Nations championship, not to mention World Cup, since the often-described “heroics” of the 1966 English World Cup winning squad. Other examples could be forthcoming.

It is to be considered that the danger of using the language of heroism is that it softens or silences “critique and debate”. After all, is it not true that heroes are not supposed to complain? They must not speak out about inadequacies existing in their field of service and achievement; they must be triumphant in the face of adversity; they must mask disappointments with false shows of grace. That is the expected trade-off consistent with the recognition, awards, and exaltations associated with their exploits.

In short, we should expect heroes to be professional, when all around them amateurism, inadequacy, and mediocrity reign. It is also true that the truly heroic person is one who performs with “a sense of vocation and professionalism” – not out of some heroic sense of sacrifice or desire for recognition and reward.

Charlotte Higgins, a journalist with The Guardian newspaper, tells the story of a GP based in Yorkshire who, during the public display of support for NHS workers, went out of her front door at 8 p.m. on a Thursday – but only, she said, “out of politeness.” The GP hated being called a “hero”. Her hard work on the job – what others regarded as her heroism – was precisely what the GP herself regarded as unheroic. “If I was a hero,” she said, “I would stand up and call out the government, but I am not, and I go to work and bumble on. A bit like the soldiers led by buffoons who were told to go over the top to be greeted by gunfire – except I am highly trained and should know better.”


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not fit for purpose

The British Republican Movement has a documentary film on its new You Tube channel. The film is called “The Man Who Shouldn’t be King”. The documentary is, of course, about the man, Charles Windsor, who, in the not-too-distant-future, as King Charles III, is expected to replace his mother, Elizabeth Windsor, as the British Head of State. Republic’s documentary film focused on Charles Windsor, the Duke of Cornwall, and the Duchy of Cornwall.

Historically speaking, the Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established in perpetuity by Edward III in 1337. The purpose of the arrangement was to provide independence for his son and heir, Prince Edward. A charter ruled that each future Duke of Cornwall would be the eldest surviving son of the monarch and heir to the (then English) throne. The current Duke of Cornwall, Charles Windsor, HRH the Prince of Wales (another title established in perpetuity), is the longest serving Duke in history. The very substantial revenue from the estate is used to fund the public, private, and charitable activities of The Duke and his children.

With the views and comments of experts, and the opinions of ordinary people, the film shows how Prince Charles is “unfit to be king and how his failures are the failures of the monarchy he inhabits.” One of the commentators seen and heard in “The Man Who Shouldn’t be King”, Dr John Kirkhope, states that “the Duchy of Cornwall is oppressive, they’re threatening, and the people are afraid of them.” A variety of experts and commentators question Charles’s conduct as Duke of Cornwall, his interference in politics and public debate, and whether his character is suited to high office.

The overall answer given by the programme is that we, the British people, need to choose our next head of state, and not have one imposed on us according to the principle of hereditary monarchy, self-serving royal practice and expectations, and anachronistic conventions.

There are, of course, other reasons as to why Charles Windsor is unfit to be the British Head of State. According to existing rules and protocols, the Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England – the Established Church in the UK. As a known adulterer and divorcee, Charles Windsor should be excluded from ecclesiastical office in the Church of England, and, by association, political office as Head of State. In view of the growing multi-national and multi-faith nature of British society, the indivisibility of the two offices is, in any case, a highly contentious matter.

I reflected on Republic’s You Tube documentary as I, unavoidably, listened to the recent news of the wedding of the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. If ever there was a person who is unfit for public office, it is Boris Johnson. During his period, since 2019, as the person filling the top public office in the land, as well as his previous occupancy of other public roles in journalism and politics, Mr Johnson has proved as unworthy of these positions as anyone in recent memory.

Scandal upon scandal has accompanied Johnson, a charge sheet that the journalist Jonathan Freedland considered, “might well have felled another person years ago.” Boris Johnson is nothing, however, if not a survivor. His public office might well be called public “offense”. His recent marriage to his Downing Street live-in partner, and the mother of the latest in a growing line of offspring, took place at Westminster Cathedral, the prime edifice of the presence, if not ecclesiastical power, of the Roman Catholic Church in the UK.

Boris Johnson was born into the Roman Catholic branch of the Christian faith. Perhaps with visions, if not expectations, of a future life in public service – if not directly in politics – during his days as a student at Eton, Johnson renounced Roman Catholicism for the establishment Church of England. His marriage in a Roman Catholic church was, therefore, something of a surprise. What is also surprising is that the church permitted such a marriage of a divorcee, known adulterer, apparent father of illegitimate children, and, perhaps most blatant of all indictments, a person who had formerly renounced his Roman Catholic faith! Special considerations are said to have been discussed. Perhaps, after all, there is one rule for some, and another rule for others – even in a supposedly sacred organisation. (It is rumoured that the music at the secret wedding of Boris Johnson to Carrie Symonds, was provided by the group “Fiddlin’ About”. How appropriate!)

Notwithstanding any, or all, of the above, Boris Johnson is to be associated with a long list of political and personal scandals, so well described in a recent Guardian article by Jonathan Freedland. The most recent, of course, is his refusal, “whilst the Westminster village obsessed over soft furnishings and the precise class connotations of the John Lewis brand”, to divulge the person, or organisation, that first paid for the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat. This was not the first time he failed to disclose the source of his privileges, even whilst not holding back on the public vaunting of his privileged existence.

The Prime Minister’s personal privileges smack against such gross decisions as his government’s slashing of the overseas aid budget to UN projects. Scandal too is attached to delayed decisions to lockdown the country during the initial and subsequent phases of the Covid-19 crisis, as well as the indecision over border controls – a situation described by one commentator as “putting a double bolt and extra chain on the front door, whilst leaving the back door swinging wide open.”

The list of scandals occurring during Johnson’s watch continues. The seeding of coronavirus in nursing homes by returning elderly hospital patients to their nursing homes without first being tested for coronavirus; the doling out of PPE contracts to the mates of government politicians; and the abject failure of the expensive test-and-trace programme.

Through all of this, there was Johnson’s refusal to sack government ministers, including Robert Jenrick (for a favourable planning decision that saved a Tory donor millions of pounds in local taxes), the Home Secretary Priti Patel for several offences (including that of breaking the ministerial code), Gavin Williamson for oversighting a chaotic education department, and Matt Hancock for continually misleading the public about the state of the nation under the pandemic (including the mis-information regarding testing of the above-mentioned rest home residents returned to their institutions from hospital)

There is also the question as to the extent of Johnson’s understanding of the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK. He failed to attend a significant number of Cobra meetings through 2020, ostensibly as he was hidden away at his Chequers residence concentrating on the writing of his autobiography.

Then, of course, there was the Mr Johnson’s protocol that put a border down the Irish Sea, even after he had vowed never to do this, or put the Irish membership of the union in peril; his internal market bill that declared its intention to break international law; his illegal suspension of parliament – overturned by the supreme court as a violation of fundamental democratic practice. Added to this were his previous lies as he added his jovial personality, and self-serving objectives, to the Brexit campaign. These lies included the NHS £350m on the side of the bus, the story that lucrative trade deals with numerous countries were just waiting to happen post-Brexit, and the news that Turkey was poised to join the EU, with the UK powerless to do anything about this.

Boris Johnson was guilty of “racist musings” against the President of the USA, Barack Obama, his designation of Muslim women as “bank robbers and “letterboxes”, and Africans as “piccaninnies” with “watermelon smiles”. He ran Spectator newspaper articles castigating Liverpool FC fans at the time of the Hillsborough disaster. It is no surprise that Johnson has been fired from both the Tory front bench and the Times newspaper – both times for lying.

For many, however, the biggest of Boris’ bungles was the appointment of Dominic Cummings as his top adviser at Downing Street. Cummings was, of course, the person the “Leave Campaign” employed to successfully mastermind the Brexit operation during the EU Referendum process. That seems a long time ago and, thankfully, the tide now seems to have turned in the outward direction for this Machiavellian figure in British politics. It remains to be seen what impact the accumulation and accounting of these scandals will eventually register with the British public, especially when it is viewed against the background of the strange and continuing affection of so many citizens of the USA for that walking scandal of a President, Donald Trump!

Who bears the responsibility for the person that is Boris Johnson becoming the leader of a once-respected Conservative Party, the party that took the UK out of the EU? Who and what is the real Boris Johnson, the current Prime Minister of a British Government that governs with seeming impunity, in a Parliament that ill-deserves its large majority in the House of Commons? Moreover, a Prime Minister surrounded by multiple scandals, and who is, so often, the judge and jury of his own progress and fate.

Is it the system of government, or the characters who compose it – or both, as one inevitably impinges on the other? Does the fault lie with a parliamentary opposition that seems unable to approach its task with strong conviction, unalloyed effort and unity, and relish for the task? Does the scandal lie with me, you, and the British public who are seemingly seduced by the privileged, buffoonish, Boris Johnson – whose unkempt appearance seems to reveal a similar mind? Is it a testimony to the contemporary mind-set that Johnson’s appeal seems to resonate with a country that increasingly looks to the past for meaning and fulfilment, but fails to find answers in historical institutions such as the Church, royalty, and other established institutions?

Late last year, the people of the United States began a fightback against the four years of reckless, rationale-defying, popular and personality-centred government of the Trump mal-administration. But, even so, lies and half-truths remain like a cancer in the American body politic. However, as much as we, the people of the UK, can learn from the American experience, we cannot allow ourselves to be pre-occupied with affairs across the pond. This is surely not a time in the history of this country when we should be following the fads, fashions, and follies of the USA.

What can, and should, be done, about the automatic assumption of a new monarch – in the event, as shown by examination and analysis, a man not fit for purpose – when the present Queen passes on? What action can be brought against the ownership of a Duchy of Cornwall that keeps UK citizens in perpetual dependence upon the privileges and power of the past? What can, and should be done to alleviate the shame on us, the people of the UK, for allowing a shameless man the license to manage a government in our name – a man and a government also not fit for purpose?


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Enigmatic man – revolutionary musician

This article concerns the revolutionary operatic compositions of the enigmatic German composer, Richard Wagner (1813-1883).

However, it is the view of the Music Historian-in-Residence with the San Francisco Performance, Professor Robert Greenberg, that any review of Wagner the composer must begin with a consideration of a fellow German composer, Carl Maria von Weber. Greenberg believes that Weber’s opera, Der Freischutz, “almost single-handedly spawned a German nationalist opera tradition”. This opera was a major influence on the late romantic operas of Richard Wagner.

Not only considered to be “a superb composer, brilliant pianist, and conductor, as well as a sharp and perceptive music critic”, Weber pre-dated Wagner in his determination to instigate “a desire for nationhood” into the German musical style. The result was Der Freischutz, “a self-sufficient work of art.”  The title of this work is translated into English as “The Magic Bullets”. However, in German, it is more accurately called “The Free Shooter”. As for the opera itself, the reader can agree with Philip Spitta, the German musicologist, when he said that “the German nation had found its musical voice”. This discovery was to have ramifications beyond the realm of music.

Echoes of the style, if not the content, of Der Freischutz can be heard in the early operatic works of Richard Wagner, notably Die Feen (The Fairies). As with the latter, Der Freischutz is about “the collision of the mortal and spirit worlds, an opera in which myth mixes freely with newly invented dramatic situations”. The foregoing elements combine to produce an opera which has an overall theme of “redemption and triumph over evil”. This was to become a major theme in romantic German opera, used firstly in the work of Weber, and then extensively featuring in the operas of Richard Wagner.

It is instructive at this point to mention the place of “Recitative” in the development of the operatic tradition. Recitative is a half-sung, half-spoken, simply accompanied, syllabically set passage in which words and the actions they represent are of primary importance. As such, recitative is an essential part of high romantic opera – as it was in all opera during Weber’s lifetime. These dialogue sections can, however, be somewhat intrusive on the flow of the music in the romantic opera tradition

The non-stop musical accompaniment to operatic drama, without the dialogue, was not to flower until Richard Wagner’s arrival on the European musical scene. Therefore, the recitative sections of Weber’s opera, as well as the early Wagner operas, need to be judged on their own merits. In the case of Der Freischutz, the recitative is easy on the ear, limited in duration, and provides something of a preparation for the ongoing enjoyment of the music, and, peremptorily, for the operas of Wagner.

Richard Wagner brought a revolution into the arena of operatic composition. Music replaces dialogue; drama replaces the spoken voice. Not only a composer of great music. Wagner was also a theatre director, polemicist, and conductor who is chiefly known for his operas. Unlike most opera composers, Wagner wrote both the libretto and the music for each of his stage works.

With Wagner, nothing was to be permitted that would impinge upon the dramatic narrative his operas were composed to tell. The “music drama” operatic form was created by Wagner and refers to “a thoroughly composed operatic work that stresses dramatic and psychological content, and in which voices and orchestra are completely intertwined and of equal importance” (Greenberg, The Music of Richard Wagner, 2010). The music served the story being told, and, increasingly, this story focused on the development and importance of the German nation.

In time, this aspect of Wagner’s compositions would assume not only a major importance in music, but also in the shaping of the consciousness of the German people, with major effects on German literature, the psychological and religious attitudes of the German people, Germany’s developing militarism, and, eventually, on the direction of world history.

In the view of Robert Greenberg, Richard Wagner was “a composer of the greatest genius, a poet, a self-styled theorist, and a rabid German nationalist.” He is primarily known for his major operatic output – The Flying Dutchman (1841), Tannhauser (1845), Lohengrin (1848), Tristan and Isolde (1865), The Mastersingers of Nuremberg (1867), Parsifal (1882), and the four music dramas that constitute the “Ring cycle” (Das Rheingold, 1869; Die Walkure, 1870; Siegfried, 1876; and Gotterdammerung, 1876). Each of these is massive in proportion, detailed in their story-telling, and inspirational in their musical dimensions and emotional depths.

Greenberg is again instructive when he says that “Wagner brought together the diverse strands of his political and philosophical beliefs, musical iconography, and compositional technique, to create an artistic legacy wholly his own. There’s nothing else remotely like it in the history of western music.” (The Music of Richard Wagner, 2010)

It is over two hundred years since Richard Wagner was born. In all that time, his first three completed operas have not found a firm place in the repertoire. This is surprising, as each of these compositions has its appeal, particularly so in the case of Rienzi, der letzte der Tribunen (Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes, 1840). The other two operas are, in order of their date of date of composition, Die Feen (The Fairies, 1834), and Das Liebesverbot (The Ban on Love, 1836).

Die Feen has to do with the interacting world of fairies and mortals, hidden identities, betrayal, underworld punishment, and reconciliation through the power of music. Das Liebesverbot is based on Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. It is set in Palermo, Italy, and focuses on the Regent Friedrich who has banned sexual immorality from his kingdom. But he himself is guilty of the same and, when his hypocrisy is revealed, he reverses his decision. Rienzi, the most successful of Wagner’s early operas, is based on the Edward Bulwer-Lytton novel of the same name, Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes. Set in 4th century Rome, Rienzi, a dedicated republican, refuses to become the king of Rome. He is conspired against by a rival family and is excommunicated from the city, eventually dying with his sister in a fire which destroys the Capitol.

As these early operas show, from the outset Wagner had a “cosmopolitan view of opera and its sources”. Already with The Fairies, Wagner revealed that his operatic material would be drawn from a “strange amalgam of myth, history, and fairy-tale”. His operas increasingly drew on Germanic folklore as, building on a foundation laid by Carl Maria von Weber’s opera Der Freischutz (see above), Wagner constructed a musical edifice to manifest the further development of German nationalism.

Each of the first three operas have their distinctive features. Wagner never saw a performance of the complete Die Feen, and the world premiere of Das Liebesverbot was a not a success. Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes, was different, it was one of the most successful of his operas during his lifetime, making it the more surprising that it has not since found favour amongst operagoers. However, the later operas of Wagner contain echoes of these early compositions, for example, in the Overture to Tannhauser we can hear expansive echoes of the Overture to Die Feen.

Notwithstanding, the first three above-named operas never quite reached the heights of popularity obtained by Wagner’s other ten completed opera compositions. Today, this can be seen, not only in the absence from opera house productions of the first three operas, but also in the paucity of available recordings of the same. Nevertheless, in the later operas there can be seen some of the motifs that first appeared in earlier works – a noticeable one being the redemption of a man through the love of a woman, as well as those that prefigured Wagner’s German nationalism.

It is arguable as to whether Wagner’s version of German nationalism was expressed through his music, or whether the music’s characters and background developed his nationalism. It was, nevertheless, in his later operatic compositions that Wagner’s version of German nationalism can be most emphatically seen, starting with The Flying Dutchman (1840-41) and ending with Parsifal (1877-1882). In between there were the music dramas of a visionary genius, albeit emanating from a person who was once described as “perhaps the most unattractive human being in the history of Western music, and many would prefer to ignore his character and instead focus on the music he composed.”

Richard Wagner is often criticised for being a main contributor to the 19th century formation of German anti-Semitism, and this was one factor in Wagner losing the admiration of and friendship with the philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. However, to forensically dissect the character of Richard Wagner would seem to be an impossible task, as it was Wagner’s “attitude and beliefs that gave him the strength to survive the [personal] crises of his life and the experiential grist from which he created his theatrical production.” (Greenberg, 2010).

Richard Wagner, the enigmatic man, is certainly not above criticism; Wagner, the revolutionary musician, is another matter!

(For readers who may wish to follow-up the recorded output of the operas of Weber and Wagner, the following recommendations may be of service.

Carl Maria von Weber: Der Freischutz: Nicholas Harnoncourt, conducting the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, with the Berlin Radio Chorus. This is a digital recording on the Teldec label from 1996, reissued on Warner Classics in 2016.  The recording is as good as they come, with a roll call of well-known Wagnerian singers.

Ricard Wagner: Die Feen, Das Liebesverbot, and Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes: Wolfgang Sawallisch, conducting the Bavarian Radio Orchestra, with the Bavarian State Opera Chorus. This is a 9 CD box set, originally digitally recorded from 1983 live concerts, and now on the ORFEO label from 2013. Again, singers and recordings are from the top drawer of contemporary Wagnerian artists.

The later opera productions of Wagner are all available on CD and DVD, from a large variety of major recording labels, with highly praised singers, conductors, orchestras, and choruses, all of which are ample testimony to the musical genius that was Richard Wagner).


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The passing parade

Earlier this week, I had an email from a UK friend encouraging me to “keep smiling”. The invitation was in relation to the demise of Donald Trump, the former President of the USA. Trump was no longer the President of the USA – that must be a cause for rejoicing. With this I have no disagreement. In my view, Donald Trump had been a disaster for the USA, and it is likely that his influence will be felt for years to come – and not only in the USA.

On a more practical level, it may be considered strange that, on the day of Prince Philip’s funeral, the start times of major football matches are being altered to suit the time of his funeral service. Under present lockdown conditions in England, this decision seems quite unnecessary and over-reactive. The passing of the Duke of Edinburgh was the signal for around the clock extended discussion on the immediate circumstances of his passing, the effect of his death on the major members of the royal family, the future shape of the monarchy, and related subjects – even an elaborate inspection of expensive displays of flowers laid at suitable locations by members of an entranced public. What was not heard was any serious discussion on whether the monarchy had a future!

Coincidentally, around the same time as I received the above-mentioned email, I had another email from an Australian friend. The tone of this email was a little different. The friend was conveying condolences to me on the death of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. Knowing that I was a convinced republican, I can only conclude that my Aussie friend was being just a little facetious.

Whilst the death of the Duke of Edinburgh was nothing to smile about, and duly deserved its moment of pause and recollect, nevertheless, I was amazed at the reaction to this event from the English media. For days on end the tabloid newspapers confronted the public with headlines favourable to both Prince Philip and the royalty he represented. Wall-to-wall television coverage newly informed or reminded the British public of the Prince Philip’s military achievements, esteemed civic service, paternal family relationships, and his personal appeal to the public.

In the event, my response to the correspondence from both friends was similar. I was grateful for the invitation to smile. The removal of Donald Trump from the equation was swift, though his lingering presence on the edge of USA politics is a cause of some concern. However, I gave extended time to thinking around my response at the attempt to join the general consolation over the death of the Duke of Edinburgh.

His military record was over-stated; he was, in fact, in charge of a searchlight on a Royal Navy frigate. Like other members of his family, the medals that glaringly decorated his military uniforms were mainly honorary awards. His discriminatory remarks towards people of colour have been well documented. He was the paternal figure in a seriously dysfunctional family that involved controversy with both his children and grandchildren. He might engender some sympathy for the fact that he spent a substantial proportion of his public life gazing at the back of his wife!

As a republican, I found it to be rather strange that there was little comment about Prince Philip’s death emanating from the office of the British Republican Movement (BRM). In this regard, and in pointing out the fact that the news of Prince Philip’s death has been met with the expected response from the media, there was a strangely muted response from Graham Smith, the CEO of BRM, when he said of Prince Philip that, “His death is a personal and private matter for his family, and we won’t be saying too much about it over the coming weeks.”

However, Graham Smith did wish to point out that BRM, “Had been on the right side of the argument about how the media have responded, with a huge public reaction against the excessive wall-to-wall TV and radio coverage.” This comment was in relation to over 100,000 complaints about the BBC’s coverage of Prince Philip’s death during the past week – one of which was mine!

The nature of my complaint included the fact that the coverage was quite excessive in relation to the place occupied by the Duke of Edinburgh in the national life of the United Kingdom. The programming and its content lacked balance – it tended to be a paeon of praise to Prince Philip, largely ignoring aspects of his character and role that many, including myself, would consider detrimental to the views and practices of British people. At times, the coverage was obsequious, biased, and pandered to a highly favourable view of the monarchy – a view not shared by all British citizens.

In such circumstances as the death of a “royal”, the BBC, unfortunately, reverts to type as the major media outlet for monarchy. This is unacceptable for a public broadcasting network paid for by the taxpayer. Where were the legitimate alternative views in the BBC’s programming – views for which there is legislation in the BBC’s charter?” 

In his letter to members of the BRM, Graham Smith further states that, “The death of a public figure is always something the news media will and should cover. Yet it is hard to imagine a similar response had it been a sitting prime minister or US president dying in office at an old age. This is something broadcasters will need to think very carefully about, as the monarchy is fast heading for a collision with modern British values and democratic instincts.”

Interestingly, no less a journalist than Polly Toynbee picked-up on the rather quiet response from Republic. In an article in The Guardian (15.04.20), she stated that, “No joy even from the anti-monarchy group Republic, which politely sent its condolences.” Toynbee was perhaps nearer the mark when she stated that “The Elizabethan age is slowly drawing to a close. The end of Prince Philip’s long life is a dress rehearsal for its final curtain, when the country will find itself reviewing what it has become, the choices it has made.”

Afua Hirsch is a Norwegian-born British writer, broadcaster, and former barrister, who has worked as a journalist for The Guardian, and was the Social Affairs and Education Editor for Sky News from 2014 until 2017. She is also a woman of colour who, in response to the death of Prince Philip, wrote an article entitled We can mourn Prince Philip, but not the monarchy.

In this article, Afua Hirsch says, “Above all, the unspoken requirement for us to publicly celebrate the monarchy’s gains – or mourn any of its losses – demands that I internalise a history of violence and racism against my own ancestors. The instinct I still feel to apologise for not doing so is evidence of how strongly those forces still exist.”

Hirsch concludes her article with, “So, if there is a fitting tribute to the passing of Prince Philip, I believe it would be to learn – with honesty – the lessons from both his life and the reactions to his death.” The parade is passing, with the hope that it will soon end.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Shadows on a wall

At a social gathering a few years ago, the topic of conversation turned to matters concerning the British monarchy. In due course the conversation turned towards the existence of the position of a king or queen, not to mention the necessity, or otherwise, of having an extended “royal family” linked to that queen or king.

As part of the general conversation, I expressed an opinion that, as a member of the British Republican Movement, I was opposed to the existence of a monarchy in the UK. Not being a stranger to opposition on this topic, it was no real surprise when one participant in the conversation commented “Leave our Queen alone”. My response to this was to assert that, by family background, birth, residence, marriage, and having been a British taxpayer for a significant proportion of my working life, my “British” credentials were impeccable, and that Queen Elizabeth is as much “my queen” as she is of any other – if I so choose!

A king or queen, as well as members of her or his family, is an aspect of governance in the UK. As numerous investigations have shown, this is an undeniable fact. Therefore, the matter of monarchy is, in many respects, a matter for politics. It is fatuous to deny the undeniable. Furthermore, recent events in the lives of the “royals” have shown that they share the moods and modes, as well as the customs and conventions, of British life, in much the same manner as other citizens of the kingdom – even if they do not, or cannot, recognise the fact, or if they take their Britishness to an unprecedented level. Being a political phenomenon, therefore, permits the monarchy to be a matter for discussion.

This consideration of the monarchy being a matter for discussion, has recently been given a new impetus by the interview that Harry Windsor and Megan Markle, the erstwhile Duke and Duchess of Sussex, gave with the American television presenter Oprah Winfrey. This interview was more devastating than many had expected, as one of the more shocking details outlined in it was the claim that, during Megan Markle’s pregnancy, someone in Buckingham Palace had expressed concern about the skin colour of the Sussex’s baby. This revelation continues to have reverberating effects.

Naturally, the British Republican Movement (BRM) picked-up this news and it has been included in the BRM’s campaign to end the British monarchy. In a press release, Graham Smith, the CEO of Republic, said “The interview has shown everyone what we have known for a long time: the monarchy is bad for Britain and bad for the royals. It is time to abolish the monarchy and ensure that the Queen is Britain’s last monarch.”

Republic has launched a new petition, calling for the abolition of the monarchy. The petition is on Republic’s own website ( and, when the time comes, it will be handed to parliament.

As a republican, it is my view that the royals are at the apex of a triangle of privilege within UK society. The institution of monarchy is at the centre of a system of governance, as well as social and economic organisation, that has been dominant in the British Isles for many centuries. The institutions forming this system include military, legal, and religious institutions. Today’s British monarchy may not believe that it possesses the divine right to reign, but its existence contributes to the perpetuation of class and social divisions, of wealth and status inequality, and all, or much of it, is financed by the British taxpayer.

These facts make it more mystifying that, despite major dysfunctions within their family, the huge gap in personal philosophies, living standards and styles between the royals and rest of British citizenry, the nature of the royal family’s inherited existence, and the monarchy’s role in British colonial expansion, there is not a greater antipathy towards monarchy. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the national psychology of the British people. In this respect, the historian and broadcaster, David Olusoga, has said that, “Trapped in a make-believe past, we are unable to recognise how our real history shapes our culture and our attitudes. Fearful of confronting that true past, we struggle to reshape our institutions for the future, even when gifted an extraordinary opportunity for renewal”.

As a former teacher in Secondary School Humanities, it was my privilege and joy to teach “A” Level Philosophy and Ethics. One of the more enjoyable aspects of the course, for students and teacher alike, was teaching and learning about Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”. This allegory belonged to the great philosopher’s theory of knowledge (epistemology). Interestingly, the allegory appears in Book VII of Plato’s “The Republic” (though, it should be noted, a “republic” in Plato’s days was not what it would signify today).

The “Allegory of the Cave” offers several ways of storytelling and interpreting. Basically, however, the allegory depicts chained people living in a cave. The cave represents the world of sense-experience. In the cave, people see only unreal objects, shadows, or images.  The dark cave symbolically suggests the unenlightened contemporary world, and the chained people those who live in this world. The raised wall of the cave reflects the shadows of the chained people when the muted sunlight from the cave’s entrance falls on them. The wall symbolises the limitation of their thinking, and the shadows symbolically suggest the world of their sensory perception, which Plato considered was an illusion.

The “Allegory of the Cave” is a metaphor designed to illustrate human perception, ideologies, illusions, opinions, and sensory appearances. The cave is a prison for individuals who base their knowledge on such things. Socrates, the famous teacher of Plato, and the one whose ideas and teachings come to us via Plato, explains how the philosopher is like a former prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not represent reality.

As I ruminated on the Sussex’s interview with Winfrey, perused the numerous reviews and articles written about the event, and listened to the interminable discussions on it, my thoughts returned again and again to Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”.

For this writer, the allegory can be applied to the British royal family. Their lives are illusions – mere shadowy reflections on the personal and institutional walls of excess, privilege, celebrity, and historical pedigree. Each of the foregoing circumscribe, limit, and ensure their particular and prescribed understanding and appreciation of what it is to be genuinely human. As a family – a cohort – they are chained as slaves to their sense of duty and self-importance, lacking in empathy, and limited in their thinking and appreciation by the institutional bonds that bind them to their mutual ideologies, as well as their self-imputed and self-important activities and tasks.

The monarchy needs to unshackle its chains, tear down its coruscating walls, escape the delusional images of the cave, and come out of the shadows into the full radiance of the light that is the reality of 21st century, democratic Britain. The prisoners need to become more like the philosophers, not mere shadows on a wall.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Who pulls the strings?

When I was a theological student at Whitley college, University of Melbourne, I acquired the reputation of being “the champion of lost causes”. There was no specific cause of which I was attested as being a champion, it just seemed that I was prepared to argue the case for persons and situations for which few, if any, others would be prepared to make a stand.

I am a member of Republic, a movement in the UK that campaigns for the end of the British monarchy. When I make this known to others, through private conversation or articles such as this blog, I often get the same response to that which I experienced as a student. Surely, such a movement is a lost cause in contemporary Britain? I was recently reminded of this now rather distant, but not completely forgotten, personal reputation when reading an article by Polly Toynbee, a columnist for The Guardian newspaper.

Toynbee had written an article with the heading, “Should Elizabeth II be Elizabeth the Last? At least allow Britain a debate.” The article addressed the issue of the extent to which “The Queen is less of a constitutional monarch then we thought.” Prior to Toynbee’s article, The Guardian had revealed that Elizabeth Windsor had “used her Queen’s consent powers to vet more than 1,000 laws before they reached parliament.”

In explanation, the article stated that, constitutionally, the Queen is supposed to act on the advice of the government. The monarch, it is said, “merely signs the laws that ministers bring to her”. This is a charade, conducted mainly behind closed doors, and which shields the Queen’s actions from the public gaze, so that the citizenry fails to realise what is going on. Indeed, documents in the National Archives reveal that Her majesty has managed, in secret, to get laws changed in favour of her personal interests – before even they were introduced!

Moreover, further memos unearthed from the same National Archives have shown how she applied pressure on the UK government in the 1970’s, especially during the prime ministership of Edward Heath, to ensure that the extent of her private wealth stayed secret. However, it was not just the governments of the 1970’s, successive British governments, before and since, had “bent at the knee”, showing how weekly meetings with the Queen had kept prime ministers in awe and subjection.

The words of the winning British entry in the 1967 Eurovision Song Contest, “Puppet on a string”, seem to suggest themselves: “In or out, there is never a doubt; Just who is pulling the strings, I (prime minister) am all tied up to you (the Queen)” (lyrics by Martin and Coulter, sung by Sandie Shaw).

It is an understatement to say that the Queen is a very wealthy woman, with a Sunday Times estimated personal fortune of £350m. The Forbes List puts her down for around £72.5b (much of that, being royalty assets, is, however, not hers to keep). Moreover, the “Paradise Papers leaked to The Guardian showed she personally has millions in the off-shore tax havens of the Bermuda and the Cayman Islands – those shameful last remnants of her lost empire.”

Polly Toynbee’s article goes on to argue that it is not her influence, nor her wealth or secrecy, that is of prime importance. What reflects the real damage to the British people, if not those throughout the Commonwealth, is the fact that the very existence of monarchy “ambushes and infantilises the public imagination, making us their subjects in mind and spirit. The Crown, The Queen and countless lesser dramatisations, remind us how transfixed we are as the soap opera of royal births, weddings, divorces, and deaths marks the timeline of our own lives.”

The roots of such narratives can be found in British history, British exceptionalism, the magic of majesty, the amazement induced by the extent of the British royal fetish, the corruption of an unelected House of Lords (where position can be bought by donation), the institutional links of royalty with the Established State Church of England, and even Shakespeare is partly to blame with his literary focus on the rise and fall of kings. All of this adds up to the absurdity of modern monarchy.

Toynbee draws together the overall argument of her article by stating that the reign of Elizabeth II “is an emblem of Britain’s essential and enduring conservatism.”, and that monarchy “stands as a symbol for our increasingly rigid and immobile society.” This reminded me of some words of the old hymn, “All things bright and beautiful”, I learned as a child in Sunday School: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate; God made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate.” Shameful words with an inappropriate title!

Before concluding her article, however, Toynbee makes the statement that “Republicanism feels like a lost cause.” However, is it a “lost cause”? Whilst three times more people back the monarchy than a republic, yet “little by little opinion inches along”. A recent poll by YouGov finds that support for the monarchy is slowly eroding. Young people are much less monarchist than their forebears; parts of the UK, notably in Scotland, are much less monarchist that the south of England; the next in line to be monarch, Charles Windsor, is much less popular than his mother, Elizabeth Windsor.

The Queen has been an immensely popular monarch. Elizabeth II is now, however, a very elderly woman and when she dies, likely within the next decade, surely, says Polly Toynbee, the question should be asked of the British people, “Should she be Elizabeth the Last?”

As a member of the British Republican Movement, I recently received an email from the CEO of Republic concerning Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall. The content of the email focused on Prince Charles’s bid to win exemption from important new home ownership laws. The Duchy of Cornwall, which Prince Charles runs as his own private business, is exempt from lots of different laws. Either a law does not apply to the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy will face no consequences if they break the law.

Now the government is planning major reforms of leasehold rights. The reforms will mean people who own their homes, but not the land their homes stand on, will find it easier to buy the land, and will be better protected from unscrupulous land-owners – unless you live on Duchy of Cornwall land owned by Prince Charles! Already, Duchy tenants are excluded from the right to buy the freehold, which would give them ownership of the land under their homes.

We live in a land where the introduction of death duties for the aristocracy has seriously depleted their power and wealth – for all but royalty, who are exempt from such taxes! This situation indicates that, in this country, we are not all equal under the law – particularly if your landlord is Prince Charles or you are a member of the extended royal family.

The reforming new home ownership laws (see above) are an opportunity to put that right, but Charles Windsor is already lobbying to get himself exempted from the new reforms. This reflects the actions of his mother who sought to maintain government secrecy about her wealth and, furthermore, endeavoured to change government laws to favour her personal and family convenience and situation.

In the light of the above, the question, “Is Republicanism a lost cause?”, should be replaced with the alternative question, “Does Monarchy have a future?” The more that becomes known of the machinations and subterfuge of royalty with respect to law and government, the more it asks questions of the relevance, efficacy, and morality of a British monarchy. Surely, in the democracy that purports to be the United Kingdom in the 21st Century, the question of the future of the House of Windsor should be at least put to the British people?


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment