Elizabeth I

Four hundred and seven years ago today, Elizabeth I of England died, and was replaced by James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England and Scotland.

I studied the early reign of Elizabeth I, her religious policies, her use of council, and her relationship with Europe but I only really started to sit up and take full notice of her reign, when I read “Elizabeth” by David Starkey. A biography of the Elizabeth from her birth, to her coming to the throne. I have since read it twice more, it is a great read and supremely recommended.

Elizabeth, in my opinion, was the greatest monarch this Country has even seen. She reigned at a time when the country had spent the past 150 years in turmoil. The disastrous period of the wars of the roses, followed by the horrendous upheaval of Henry VIII and Edward VI’s attack on Catholicism, Mary’s attacks on Protestantism meant that England was at boiling point. Elizabeth created stability and prosperity, a sense of brotherhood, that did not exist prior to her reign. This relentless panic to produce an heir, plagued the Monarchy from Henry VIII, through to Mary, and the power hungry obsessiveness of the Seymour family after Henry died, needed to come to an end. I’d recommend reading “Edward VI: The Lost King of England” by Chris Skidmore for a detailed analysis of Edward’s reign. It’s a great read. The Seymore brothers, and Thomas in particular have become my favourite characters from Tudor history, since reading that book.

As a child, Elizabeth was brilliant. She was taught Latin, French, Philosophy, History, Maths and Greek from an early age, and according to her teacher, Roger Asham (one of the most formidable scholars of the day), she was one of the best and brightest students he’d ever taught.

I think perhaps Catherine Parr, last wife of Henry, gets overlooked in her significant role as step mother to Elizabeth. Starkey points out that:

“Catherine, in short, was running a Tudor Open University course in religion at Henry’s Court. Elizabeth was certainly a receptive student. We can imagine her listening, intent, and white faced, to the lectures in the Queen’s privy chamber. In religion at least, Elizabeth was the student, and Catherine was the tutor”.

This suggests that the religious turmoil that came to an end with the religious settlement that Elizabeth ingeniously put in place during her reign, can be traced back to her education under Catherine Parr.

Elizabether seems to embody Niccolo Machiavelli’s statement that a Renaissance ruler should strive to be both loved and feared. Machiavelli saw this as a bit of a Utopia; unachievable, and so he goes on to point out that whilst one cannot be both loved and feared, one should strive to simply be feared. This position has been rather manipulated over the years.

Elizabeth, as a woman, was expected to marry. As the daughter of the King, she was expected to marry a rich noble perhaps of foreign descent, whom would then rule England, and she would take a merely ceremonial position. She refused. She wanted to rule. During her early life, she had lost her mum, two step mums and another step mum was gone. She had witnessed the 16 year old Jane Grey become the pawn in a game of power between her young brother’s protectors, and the power hungry Grey family, that resulted in Lady Jane’s beheading at only 16 years old. All because of Royal marriage. She knew how Royal women get treated. And given the pain of the previous Tudor monarchs (although, Edward was far too young to have much influence, it could be argued that his reign, was the reign of Somerset and Northumberland), it was a miracle that she managed to achieve what she did. An acceptable religious settlement in 1559 that put to rest the problems between the Catholics and Protestants who’d spent the past thirty years at war throughout Europe. Although, it may be said that it was far more Protestant than Catholic, given that Pope Pius excommunicated her for it. But still, it was an acceptable religious settlement for most of the Country, and so she was loved for it.

She established close relations with the Russians and the Ottomans, effectively attempting to explore the World further than ever before. She even considered an alliance with the Muslim world, because she, like they, believed they were both under threat from the Catholic Church at the time. She oversaw the first English expedition to Japan also. The theatre flourished, English culture had witnessed a golden age because of a Queen who seemed far less narcissistic and power hungry than her predecessors.

She became feared across the known World, after the ruthlessly powerful Philip of Spain (ex-husband of the now dead Queen Mary of England, and so brother in law of Elizabeth, and staunch Catholic) attempted again to overthrow his sister-in-law because he believed he should be the true ruler of England, and reunite the Country with Rome. Philip, and Spain, lost. We won. Howard and Drake are largely unknown as military geniuses, but in my opinion, for their defeat of the Spanish Armada, they’re the best Britain has ever seen.

“Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated.”

Here, Machiavelli describes how a feared leader, must not cross the line into a hated leader. It can be supposed that Machiavelli’s contemporary, and ruler of Florence, Giovanni de’ Medici, was hated. Supremely hated in fact. He had destroyed the Florentine Republic and the liberties upon which it stood. Giovanni become Pope Leo X in 1513, and was so hated, that an entirely new sect of Christianity (Protestantism) arose because of widespread disillusionment with the Catholic Church, on Leo’s watch. Perhaps Machiavelli was describing, subtly, the inadequacies of the Medici, in his writing. He goes on to describe how a ruler should not be cruel.

Elizabeth was neither hated nor cruel. She could so easily have been dismissed as the daughter of an adulterous mother who almost tore England apart. But she escaped that, owing to her own ingenuity in never mentioning her mother’s name in public. No doubt Elizabeth was influenced by the Protestant World she had been brought up around; if she had, she kept it to herself. Her father and her sister were cruel, and history has judged them to be tyrants. Elizabeth however, never crossed that line. She remained in power for close to fifty years, and was loved throughout. There has been no Monarch before her, or since, that has commanded that sort of respect and admiration.

Elizabeth I, who died on this day, 407 years ago, is the closest any ruler across the World, since her day, has come to being the Machiavelli Utopian ruler.

The rules of Marriage

It is rather ironic that anti-gay marriage proponent, and self named “defender of Traditional Marriage” in California, Doug Manchester is getting divorced. Almost poetic. Perhaps if Mr Manchester had spent less time funding anti-gay movements, less time stealing $9.3million from the joint account of him and his wife of 43 years, and more time trying to save his traditional marriage, this essence we know as Karma wouldn’t have made him a bit of a public laughing stock.

Mr Manchester told the New York Times in July 2008, that he was funding Prop 8, because; “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” I hope I can count on Manchester’s money to help me fund an initiative designed to ban divorce… because the Catholic Church doesn’t look too kindly at that particular subject.

The word “traditional” in the horribly right winged mantra; “traditional marriage” is almost ironic in itself. In the same way that American’s tend to call tall people “shorty“. Whilst marriage certainly has been a case of man and woman throughout history (mainly because society had not evolved to the stage where homosexuality was acceptable, and that punishment for homosexuality was considered perfectly legitimate, yet for some odd reason all Christians, even Mr Manchester would agree we’ve evolved enough as a society to ignore other sections of Biblical “traditions“, such as Exodus 21:7 – “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do“), it has no traditional precedent in the slightest.

Take Biblical marriage for example. If the homophobes among us are going to chant the boring, unoriginal, ridiculous mantra of “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” (God also made Eve out of Adam’s rib. So when you’re finished attacking Gay people, why not surgically remove your own rib, and try to raise it into a Female, go on, try it!) then they also have to, by their very own logic, point out that Exodus 21:10 states “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights“…… So, traditional marriage, in the very earliest sense, the very essence of what marriage traditionally meant, was that you can marry as many women as you like, as long as you look after the first wife.

Now, if we skip forward to the New Testament, we see; Matthew 22:23-32, which paraphrases Deuteronomy 25:5, with; “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him“
Traditional Marriage is becoming a little bit complicated. It certainly isn’t a romantic union of pure Love between a man and a woman. It can be apparently between a man and many women, a man and his brother’s widow, or if you’re King David – anyone you quite like the look of on that particular day.

Roman marriage was not much filled with love and romance either. Roman women were expected to marry, purely to produce a son, and purely because the wealth of the girl, when married, moved entirely to the husband, who would use it as political capital. The ceremony itself did not involve mother-in-laws crying at how happy their Daughter looked, or the kissing of the bride, or the romantic glance into each others eyes. Instead, it consisted of the two households signing into agreements about property and wealth, and the agreement from the new wife that she would provide children, pretty much on demand. If a wife failed to produce male offspring, the male would often divorce her and just move on to another woman in the hope of producing a male.

Skip even further, to Renaissance Europe, and England in particular, we are presented with the death of King Henry Tudor, and the crowning of his second son (Prince Arthur, originally supposed to succeed his father, died young), the 17 year old King Henry VIII. Henry’s new bride, and the widow of Arthur (sticking with tradition so far!) Catherine was the daughter of the recently formed Spain (the marriage between Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile) and so a powerful Princess. The marriage between Arthur, and then Henry, and Catherine was one designed purely to create an ally out of England and Spain in the face of a powerful enemy in France. Henry soon became overly bored with Catherine, given that she failed to produce any living sons to succeed Henry. She gave him a daughter, the future Queen Mary, and Henry wanted a son. He became convinced that he was cursed to have no sons, and that God did not appreciate him marrying his Brother’s widow (clearly the contradictions of the Bible confused him). It was always going to be difficult to get a marriage annulment from the Pope, given that the Pope was now under the control of The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who just happened to be Catherine’s nephew. This in turn, lead to Henry deciding he didn’t need the Pope’s permission, and so broke from Rome, which set the ball rolling for what he now know as the Protestant Reformation – cemented fully, during the reigns of Henry’s only son King Edward, and his daughter Queen Elizabeth – the very reason us Brits aren’t some mindless Catholic drones. Meanwhile, Catherine, was simply banished from Court. And the subsequent marriages of Henry, were all designed purely for the creation of a male heir. Marriage in Tudor England, Renaissance Europe, and in fact, the preceding centuries had absolutely nothing to do with love, nor was it anything like it is today. Marriage was reasons of power and wealth, the joining of two strong families with visions of grandeur. It is the reason Henry’s father, Henry Tudor married the niece of Henry’s enemy, Richard III. It cemented the Tudor dynasty beautifully. Marriage in the proceeding centuries following the Tudor’s comes directly from our 16th Century King, marrying six times, executing two, and divorcing two, all for the sake of a male heir.

A couple of centuries later, and America has just elected it’s first President. George Washington at the helm of perhaps the most impressive Government in American History. John Adams as Vice President. Alexander Hamilton at the Treasury. John Jay as Chief Justice. And most importantly to this blog, Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State. Jefferson is possibly one of the most contradictory characters in American history. He promotes small government, wont actually shut up about the joys of small government and how destructive large government is….. and yet it is Jefferson who expands government the most when he becomes America’s 3rd President. Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, writing that “all men are created equal” yet, he owns many slaves. When Jefferson’s wife died, it is widely assumed that he had a long affair with a slave in his possession, Sally Hemings, whom he does not free, but instead, has sex with. His own personal sex slave. She then has children, which DNA testing has supported the notion that all six of them, were Jefferson’s. The four surviving children, also become his slaves until the age of 21 (two ran away). A man has needs!!!! Jefferson refused to marry Hemings, stating of mixed race marriages; “The amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent“. So, marriage between blacks and whites during the 18th Century, it would seem was just as sneered upon by the elites, as gay marriage is today. Jefferson, was the 18th Century’s version of Doug Manchester when it comes to marriage.

In fact, it was only in 1967 that the U.S Supreme Court announced it’s decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, that Anti-Miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.

Marriage has been a subject that has no formal tradition. It isn’t something that has been set in stone since the Biblical era. In fact, it doesn’t resemble Biblical or even early Christian traditions in any way shape or form. It has been used for wealth, prestige, political gain, property, and power, producing of children, much much more than anything to do with a sense of love and unity. Marriage, like society, evolves. We exist at a time when the next stage in the evolution of Marriage is occurring, and whilst 16th Century Europe struggled to come to terms with a major stage in Marriage evolution, with what it meant for a King to proclaim himself more important than the Church when it comes to the institution of Marriage itself, I’d suggest that in today’s World, society in general has evolved to a much more sensible and reasonable level to be able to accept changes, like the inclusion of homosexual couples, without taking opposition to the extreme.

If we are to cite obscure passages in the Bible, to state our case against certain subjects, then we must also cite the Bible to state our case against accepted norms. I’m sure I can count on Mr Manchester’s support when I start selling my children into Slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7-11.

Immigrants: We need them!!

This blog will argue that immigration is much needed. I’d appreciate genuine arguments against my blog instead of the usual “fucking muzzies coming to our country with their fucking burkas, fuck off, you terrorist scum”.

INTRO:
I’m becoming increasingly uneasy about the level of animosity toward anyone who happens to have an Asian skin complexion in this country, particularly in the City I live, Leicester. Whenever someone says “I’m not racist but….” you can guarantee they’ve been reading the Daily Mail, and are about to spew some disgusting out of date bile.

I’ve said before, the majority of British Nationalists, who insist that they love our Country and see immigration eroding our culture, have absolutely no knowledge of our ‘culture’ other than the fact that they like to drink a lot, fight a bit, and be a bit racist. Our culture consists of historical events like the Protestant Reformation during Henry VIII, Edward and Elizabeth’s reigns, the Civil War of the 17th Century, art movements like Gothic, Renaissance Realism, pop art and post-modernism, the horrors of the Great War that saw the deaths of millions of people for less than a square foot of land. The fight for liberalism, as Churchill’s army of warriors defeated the destructive force of Fascism. This is our culture, and the Nationalists are the ones responsible for trying destroying it.

We have a large Asian community in Leicester. One of my friends tried to suggest that the white man is in the minority in Leicester now. He went on to suggest over 70% of the City must now be foreign. I disagreed. He laughed and decided to insult my intelligence some more. It annoyed me quite deeply. He suggested that if I look around, it’s like “spot the white man”.
Firstly, even if that was the case, why is that a problem? If I were the only white guy living on my street, what’s the problem? As long as they don’t treat me like shit, why should I care? It’s a skin colour. It does not go deeper than that.
And secondly, I was fucking right. According to Leicester City Council, the White race accounts for 63% of the population of Leicester. So to sum that up, I was right, he was wrong.

I’d now like to argue against those who believe Immigration should be cut off, and we should “keep Britain White”.

AGE:
During the 1950s, after the War, we in Britain had what is described as the “baby boom”. Soldiers coming home and starting families. Between the 1980s and today, we have a “baby slump”. Hundreds of thousands of more women are starting careers early and not having children. Which means, we have an ageing population. The baby boom generation is getting old. The younger generation need to support the pensions of those ageing majority. This is known as the “dependency ratio”. Given that there aren’t enough younger people to deal with this, if we took the BNP line and stopped immigration completely, we’d have the worst pensions crises ever. If this extended to Europe, according to the author Philippe Legrain, the population of Europe would fall by 60 million by 2050. This creates a worker shortage, meaning businesses close, deflation sky rockets. An economic disaster. You need immigration.

The Welfare State:
I refuse to give a response to the awful “they come over here, taking all our benefits” whilst in the same breathe muttering “they come over here, taking all our jobs”, it’s an old outdated argument that no one has been able to prove.
The majority of immigrant workers come to Britain (according to Home Office Stats) in their 20s. They then start to work, they pay taxes.
Those workers have not been to British schools and so they have cost the tax payer nothing, whilst they pay back into the tax system. Which means more investment into public services like The NHS. So actually, we benefit, not them.
Many then start up a business, paying more into the tax system. Perhaps they’ll then have children, who will go to British schools, on the money pumped into the tax system by their parents, which is fair and just. All the time contributing to an ageing British population.

“GO HOME!!”
Many immigrants come here for a better life. If you lived in a Country where you feared for the life of you and your family every day, wouldn’t you jump at the opportunity for a better life elsewhere?
The Phillipines has began calling those people who leave the country, to work abroad “heroes”. This is because the workers, after paying tax in America for example, then send some of their earnings home, which boosts the local economies, allowing the National economy of these countries to grow, lifting millions out of poverty. It has no damaging affect on America. It’s a boost to the poor nation’s economy, and it’s much needed. Otherwise we get rich, whilst the poor get worse and worse, and that’s simply wrong. It also then means the poor countries are able to create new opportunities, new jobs, new exports, which benefit us directly.

Job Creation:
“Stealing all our jobs” seems to be suggesting that there is a static number of jobs, limited in presence, and that immigrants are fighting the British born Whites for those jobs. This is simply ignorance.
When an immigrant comes to live here, he’s going to need a house, a car, a bed, a bath, a towel, a mug, a photograph frame, sugar, a carpet, and every other luxury you can possibly imagine. When 200,000 come here, there is a sharp rise in demand for such objects, which means production needs to increase, which means new jobs need to be created for supplies to meet demand, which means instead of stealing all our jobs, immigration create jobs. It’s basic economics. If we denied these people access to our country, demand would fall sharply, prices would deflate, wages would dramatically decrease because the pool of unemployed would get bigger and bigger as businesses everywhere shut up shop.
We’d all be worse off.

“This Country is a mess!!”
To suggest the country is now a mess, is to compare it to a previous time when it wasn’t a mess. I’m not sure that this has ever been the case. Was it the 1900s during a needless war in which parents watched as their children were sent to their deaths for no good reason? Or the 1920s during the Great Depression? Or the 1940s and World War, when kids were sent away from cities and their parents? Or the 1950s/60s when women were treated as 2nd class, gay people were imprisoned simply for their sexuality and racial prejudice was rife? Or the 1970s when our binmen went on strike leading to the winter of discontent? Or the 1980s when the miners went on strike and 60% of Liverpool was unemployed? Or the 1990s when The Spice Girls topped the charts?
When was the World and in particular Britain, perfect? It wasn’t.

My conclusion:
A Nation is simply a line on a map. A meaningless flag. A place where those who have deep Patriotic feelings can get together and proclaim just how wonderful their Country is compared to the rest of the World.
We are all citizens of the same Planet. We all benefit each other economically. We all bring with us knowledge and cultural awareness that can benefit each other both socially and for our own mental strength. Only by mixing and interacting, sharing and understanding, can there ever be anything near to peace.