To understand Britain's present political situation it is vital to understand the Stuart Dynasty, of 1603-1714, and also that England is the land of Shakespeare. The Stuarts are somewhat overshadowed by the Tudors who preceded them. But history tends to repeat itself and so much of the political scene today is a reenactment of events during the Stuart Era.
The beginning of the Stuart Dynasty was when Elizabeth I died childless in 1603. England and Scotland were separate countries but a king of Scotland had married Margaret Tudor, who was a daughter of Henry Tudor who began the Tudor Dynasty by reigning as Henry VII (7th). This resulted in the King of Scotland, James I, also inheriting the throne of England.
The rule of two countries by the same king is known as a "personal union", but it does not mean that the two countries are completely united. From 1603 to 1707, England and Scotland were joined in the "Union of the Crowns", as a personal union with the same king. Scotland then joined Britain in 1707.
When Scotland held a referendum on separation, in 2014, it was announced that an independent Scotland would still recognize the monarchy and use the pound as currency. They were seeking not a total separation but a return to the Union of the Crowns, of the Stuart Era.
While the central event of the Tudor Era had been the Reformation, the central event of the Stuart Era was the Civil War. The leaving of the European Union, known as "Brexit", is a reenactment of England leaving the Catholic Church in the Reformation. Notice that Scotland was generally opposed to Brexit. That was rooted in the fact that Scotland was not yet with England, in the Union of the Crowns, when England separated from the Catholic Church, although Scotland joined the Reformation separately.
The central event of the Stuart Era, the Civil War, was a religious war between Puritans and Anglicans. The Anglican Church had been founded by Elizabeth I, the final monarch of the Tudor Era, as a compromise between Puritans and the remaining Catholics. Puritans generally wanted to live by just the Bible, with a minimal church structure.
The Civil War was not between Protestants and Catholics, as were the wars around the same time on continental Europe, but between two denominations of Protestants. Religion had become entwined with politics and the Royalists supported the Anglicans while the Parliament supported the Puritans. This is the only major conflict that I can think of between denominations of Protestants.
The Puritans, led by Oliver Cromwell, emerged victorious and there was a resulting interruption in the monarchy from 1649-1660, known as the Interregnum. The monarchy was abolished, King Charles I was executed and, the Crown Jewels destroyed. The son of Charles I escaped by hiding in an oak tree and then going into exile. But the Puritans fell out of favor after the death of Oliver Cromwell. The son of the executed king returned and was crowned as Charles II. Some of the Puritans left to build their own society in Massachusetts, and that is where America's Pilgrims and Puritans came from.
With that background, what do you notice about modern British politics, considering how history repeats itself? Margaret Thatcher, as a staunch Conservative, was a secular reenactment of Oliver Cromwell. Just as the Interregnum, the Puritans' interruption of the monarchy, lasted for eleven years, from 1649 to 1660, so Margaret Thatcher's term in office lasted for eleven years, from 1979 to 1990. Just as Cromwell's movement fell out of favor and the monarchy was restored, so Margaret Thatcher fell out of favor and was removed by her own party.
Now the Civil War battle between the Puritans and the Anglicans is being reenacted again, in modern secular form between the Reform Party and Labour. Nigel Farage, of the Reform Party, is the latest potential incarnation of Oliver Cromwell. Just as the Anglican Church, created by Elizabeth I, was intended to be a compromise between the Puritans and the remaining Catholics, so the present Labour Party has it's two sides.
It is interesting that the Reform Party is so-called because it is a secular reenactment of the Puritans, led by Oliver Cromwell, who considered themselves as the true heirs of the Reformation. But instead of protecting England from outside control by the Catholic Church it is protecting it from extensive immigration.
The Anglican Church refers to it as the "high church", more Catholic, side and the "low church", more Puritan, side. The present Prime Minister is of the "low church", more rightward, side of the Labour Party and his possible replacement is the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, who is of the "high church", more leftward side of the Labour Party.
Andy Burnham has made clear that he will re-nationalize certain industries if elected as Prime Minister, reversing the extensive privatization done by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s which, as we saw, was a secular reenactment of Oliver Cromwell and his Interregnum.
Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham are thus a secular political reenactment of Charles I and II while Nigel Farage, and his Reform Party are playing the role of Oliver Cromwell. If Keir Starmer is forced out then it will be a reenactment of the overthrow and beheading of Charles I. If Nigel Farage wins the next general election it will be a reenactment of the Interregnum. If Andy Burnham replaces Kier Starmer and thwarts the appeal of the Reform Party, it will be a reenactment of the Puritans falling out of favor and the restoration of the monarchy with the crowning of Charles II.
A reenactment of the Interregnum tends to alienate Scotland because it was a separate country while the Interregnum was going on in England. Scotland joined England, to form Britain, in 1707.
COMMUNISM
There is some more recent history behind this, other than the Civil War. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are considered as the founders of Communism. Both lived in England, Marx in London and Engels in Manchester. Marx visited Engels and the two had a discussion in Chetham's Library. The result was the world-changing book, "The Communist Manifesto".
Their economic theory was intended for the industrial workers around Manchester and I am sure that they never imagined that Russia would be the first nation to adopt their theory. Andy Burnham's background is as the Mayor of Manchester and this economic theory is reflected in his intent to reverse much of the industrial privatization done by Margaret Thatcher.
This image of Chetham's Library, in Manchester, is from Google Street View.
ISLAM
There were two opposing demonstrations in London, one was pro-Palestine but the other had an anti-Islam element.
To understand what is happening we have to go back more than four hundred years. Never forget how important history is. We tend to repeat history, sometimes intentionally but often without realizing it.
In the Sixteenth Century England had been Catholic for a thousand years, from long before it was a united country. Henry VIII (The Eighth) broke with the Catholic Church and supported the Protestant Reformation, which was already going on in continental Europe. But his daughter Mary, who had been removed from the line of succession because she insisted on Catholicism, eventually managed to gain the throne and tried, unsuccessfully, to bring the country back to Catholicism by force. But she did get a mixed drink named after her, the Bloody Mary.
When Mary died her half-sister, another daughter of Henry VIII named Elizabeth, took the throne. She made it clear that the new Protestant order was here to stay, although she did start the Anglican Church as an attempt at compromise and today the Anglican Communion is the largest single Protestant denomination.
But there were still a considerable number of Catholics and they wanted the old order back with the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, on the throne. They began a short-lived rebellion, the "Rising of the North".
This is being reenacted today but the controversial new religious order is Islam, rather than Protestantism.
THE MODERN ERA OF NATIONALISM
One thing that we rarely stop to think about is that the modern concept of the nation-state is a relatively recent development. Even early in the Twentieth Century there were quite a few people in remote areas who weren't sure which nation they belonged to. It wasn't really that important because the tribe or religion was what counted.
When people went to war in the Middle Ages it wasn't their country that they were fighting for, it was their god. A country was just a collection of people with something in common. The idea of giving one's life just for one's country was somewhat absurd.
In the late Nineteenth Century secularism increased. But people are designed to believe in something and if they lose faith or don't believe in God they will just replace Him with something else. That "something else" is often nationalism, political-economic ideologies or, racism. How many people have you known whose "religion" is their country or their political-economic ideology? The thing that is especially attractive about racism is that it not only gives people something to believe in but, unlike traditional Christianity where one has to admit their sinfulness, everything is the fault of the other group.
In the Bible, the world is messed-up because it's sinful inhabitants mostly fail to follow the Word of God. In the modern ideologies, xenophobia and racism, everything that's wrong is "their" fault and the world is messed-up because of "them". It's never "our" fault.
Much of the extensive recent nationalism and flag-waving is really a secular replacement for what humans were really designed for, to follow God. A reenactment of the Crusades is also part of it and a few people were even dressed up as knights. This explains the pro-Palestine movement. The Crusades were about liberating the Holy Land from Islamic control but now it has been reversed and is about liberating the Palestinians, but it's still about the same Holy Land.
Can you believe that, around the beginning of the Twentieth Century, there were people saying that, because most wars are about religion the coming century should be very peaceful. Yet the Twentieth Century was the century of nationalism and political-economic ideologies and was the deadliest century yet.
THE LEGEND OF KING ARTHUR
With people arriving in Britain by boat being such an issue nowadays why don't we review the Legend of King Arthur.
King Arthur is the probably legendary English king who defended the island against Anglo Saxons. Fortunately he was less than successful and Brits today are sometimes referred to as "Anglo Saxons".
The Anglo Saxons are one of the several groups that mixed to form England. The others being the original Britons, Vikings, Danes and, Normans.
The arrival of the Vikings and Normans, who were descendants of Vikings, was more like organized raiding and invasion but the most important group of all, the Anglo Saxons, were arrivals of migrants by boat. The migration of Anglo Saxons was probably driven mostly by Feudalism. Property was inherited by the oldest son, leaving the others to consider seeking their fortune on the island out in the sea.
The arrival of the Anglo Saxons was ironically just like that of the people in boats today. History is repeating itself, as it so often does. The boat arrivals that are so scorned today are the modern incarnation of the Anglo Saxons that are so central to British history.
This is just like a play about King Arthur. Nigel Farage is in the role of King Arthur, trying to defend the island against the arrivals by boat. The government ministers are playing the Knights of the Round Table. Those trying to get into Britain by boats don't know it but they are playing the role of the Anglo Saxons.
Shakespeare never wrote a play about King Arthur, or about reenacting the Rising of the North, but I'm sure he would be absolutely delighted with this, the entire nation staging a play with the script being the reenactment of history.
No comments:
Post a Comment