The Royal Question.

The Chagos Islands were acquired by the British Empire in 1814 and renamed British Indian Ocean Territory in the 1960s. The Immigration Ordinance 1971 for the Islands gave the right to the Commissioner of the Islands to forcibly remove the people who lived there. By 1972, almost all of the Islanders had been forcibly removed to make way for the Island of Diego Garcia to be used as a US Military Base. All of this was made possible by what is known as an ‘Order in Council’. A Legislative instrument, put forth by the Queen. What the Queen gave her consent to, and in fact, ordered by Order in Council, was a massive displacement effort of the worst kind. And yet, we hear nothing of it. Ever. Firstly, all plantations were closed down so work was very scarce. The idea was to make the inhabitants leave the island voluntarily to find work. As was food, which the British stopped from being shipped to the Island. Secondly, anyone from Diego Garcia who had travelled to Mauritius for work, or to use the hospital or other health facilities were refused entry back to their homes.
Their houses were left, their possessions now belonged to Britain. They were not allowed to even contact family on the Island. Thirdly, the local population had developed a sense of family that included two children, a wife, a husband, and a dog. Every family had and cherished their pet dog. Sir Bruce Greatbatch MBE, Governor of the Seychelles ordered all dogs were to be killed. John Pilger in “Stealing a Nation” notes that families of the islanders he had spoken to, had said they remember as children watching the British walk away with their dogs, and throwing them into a room to be gassed. The dog deaths was used as a warning to let the locals know that they had to leave, or they would suffer the consequences. This is the consequence of Royal prerogatives used to rush dangerous, and quite frankly, evil policy through the democratic process, and away from public scrutiny.

One of the great myths that people push to defend the British Monarchy, is that they are wonderful for tourism. It is simply not true. There seems to be a misunderstanding of tourism here. It isn’t the Queen herself, nor Prince Charles, nor the slightly racist rants of Prince Philip that drive tourists to Britain. It is the history of the Monarchy, that does not depend on a continued Monarchical presence within British Democracy for its tourist attractiveness. Buckingham Palace is closed for most of the year, to tourists. 50,000 people visited Buckingham Palace in 2007. Millions visit Versailles every year. France’s tourist trade has coped wonderfully since the abolition of the Monarchy. In fact, the abolition itself became a fascinating cog in the history of France. The historical remnants of Monarchy, are what attract people, not the present Monarchy itself.

“Visit Britain”, which promotes tourism to the UK conducted a survey of 26000 people from 26 different countries, what pulled them to want to visit the UK. The Spanish visitors said visiting Stately Homes, and old Royal Castles were more of a pull than Buckingham Palace. The Norwegians rated current Royal sites 14th on their list, behind shopping and football. Overall, Buckingham Palace didn’t make it into the top 20 of Tourist Destinations from Visit Britain’s survey. The only Royal Site that did make it, was Windsor Castle, at 17th place. The Palace is still a top tourist destination, but simply for a photo op. Abolish the Monarchy tomorrow, and it’d be just as much of a tourist pull. Open the doors all year round to tourists, and Buckingham Palace would be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the Country. Much like Versailles.

So, with the tourism argument down, what’s left? There appear to be two more strands of reason for continued Monarchy. Firstly, ‘value for money’, and then ‘tradition’. For the former, I have to confess, I don’t know what this means. They cost us. They don’t bring anything in. Or at least, nothing that can be quantified easily. Their costs are often skewed and hidden away, and presented as rather cheap. The latest media hype, is that the Royals cost the public 62p each. The BBC gave us this rather manipulative breakdown of the Royal costs. It is manipulative, because it doesn’t include security costs. The cost for protection for the Duke of York alone, came to £1m according to Dai Davis, former head of Scotland Yard’s Royal Protection. Brand Finance agreed with ‘Republic’ (the pressure group for a British Republic) that Royal security adds up to around £101,000,000 a year. That’s about three times as much as the Royal costs set out in the BBC summary. Nor does it account for costs to local authorities making arrangements for Royal visits, paid for by taxpayers.

This also doesn’t cover the income the Royals receive from the two Duchies. Let’s take the Duchy of Cornwall, which gives Prince Charles an annual income of around £17,000,000. He did nothing to deserve it. He didn’t build up a business. It is simply a lot of land (representing about 2% of Cornwall, including practically the entire Isles of Scilly, and covering 141,000 acres; half of which are in Dartmoor in Devon) that Parliament grants to the Royals, and that the Royals do not own, and yet gives them a lot of money from commercial and residential areas; thus draining the treasury of much needed funds. It is the equivalent of a portion of your city, being given to one citizen, for no discernible reason, who then rakes in almost £20m a year from it. Given this enormous income from land he doesn’t own, nor deserve, it is no surprise that the Prince uses his non-democratic, influence within a democratic framework.

In late 2012, the Government fought viciously to suppress the disclosure of 27 letters that the Prince had sent to Government departments, because they contained, and I quote:

“Much of the correspondence does indeed reflect the Prince of Wales’s most deeply held personal views and beliefs. The letters in this case are in many cases particularly frank.

“They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality.”

- In other words, it might make the Monarchy look bad. And we can’t have that. For a government now obsessed with ‘freedom of the press’, it seems to me that they mean freedom to harass celebrities, but not say a bad word of the Royals. The Attorney General quite clearly accepts that the Prince is not behaving politically neutral. He just doesn’t want us to see to what level. “If revealed”, doesn’t change the fact that the Prince isn’t acting politically neutral. The Attorney General wishes for Prince Charles to be allowed to continue having influence over policy, without being challenged on it.

A Freedom of Information tribunal decided that the public had the right to know of the meddling in Government affairs, from the Royals. The Attorney General, veto’d the ruling. This, along with 2010 changes to the Freedom of Information Act that give the Royals complete exemption from revealing his details with civil servants. He invites secretaries of State to dinner. He sends letters. But we aren’t allowed to know what they say. Between the start of 2011 and the end of 2012, Charles’s aides had 18 face to face meetings with Downing Street officials, including the head of the Civil Service, and four secretaries of State. But we’re not allowed to know what was said. Why? What reasonable basis could there possibly be, for allowing one man such unfathomably undemocratic power over an entire nation?

According to ex-Labour spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, Prince Charles often overstepped his constitutional boundaries, by constantly trying to undermine policy such as; fox hunting, and the abolition of hereditary peers, in a letter from the Prince, that Campbell describes as ‘menacing’.

In 2009, Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, was caught offering access to her husband, Prince Andrew, by Mazher Mahmood of the News of the World posing as an Indian businessman, for £50,000. Clearly access to the Prince is a very valuable commodity for some reason. What does that £50,000 buy you? In 2011 the Telegraph reported that of the public funds spent on Prince Andrew’s lavish lifestyle, he spent “£154,000 on hotels, food and hospitality and £465,000 on travel“.

The Monarchy is also afforded a special place above the law. The Monarch is immune from arrest. She is the law. The police are below her. The Prosecution service is below her. The prison service is below her. They all exist to serve her. If she were to commit a terrible crime, it would fall to Parliament to debate legislation in order to bring her to justice. Because, she was born with the privilege of being better than the law. Unlike the rest of us. We are all her ‘subjects’, we are all ‘inferior’ to the Monarch.

In February of this year, the NHS Choices Website, which supposedly offers evidence-based guidance for treatments for patients, decided not to publish a report stating that there is no real evidence that Homeopathy works or should be offered via NHS services. The report was kept off the site after lobbying from the highly controversial Foundation for Integrated Medicine; a ‘Foundation’ run by Prince Charles (a supporter of Homeopathy). The Foundation has since closed, due to allegations of fraud. Surprisingly. The Prince seems to be lobbying to quiet any report or evidence that contradicts his political agenda. He can pay for all this, with his lovely Duchy of Cornwall money tree.

The Attorney General went on to say that to release information on what the Prince has said to top officials:

“would be seriously damaging to his role as a future monarch”

- Shouldn’t the public be given all the information, to make the informed decision whether we actually want Charles as a future head of state? Why should we only be given positive information on the Monarchy? Why does our media focus entirely on the Queen’s birthday, or Kate’s shoe stuck in a grill? Why should their dealings within the democratic framework of the UK, not be transparent? On what rational basis, is Charles not only permitted a huge system of revenue through “his” Duchy of Cornwall, but also allowed to pursue a political agenda, with access to Whitehall, whilst the rest of us aren’t? The only reason the Monarchy retains such high support with the British public, is because they are not open to scrutiny. We do not get to hear the way they intrude on public life, the agenda they push, the way they use their illegitimate power covertly, and free from Freedom of Information. We are only exposed to the positives; the Diamond Jubilee, the Royal Wedding, what gender is the Royal baby? If we were free to inspect the negatives – their convert intrusions into politics – I suspect their support base would shatter, which is perhaps the reason the Attorney General does not wish the public to know the scale of the Prince’s political influence over the democratic process. The remnants of the Feudal system within our modern democracy, is self protecting. There is a concerted effort to bury the negative side of Monarchy, promote positives through the illusion of ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’, in order to ensure that there is no credible challenge to the established order.

The Monarchy simply isn’t a tourist attraction, nor is it a commercial enterprise, nor is it a harmless left over. It wields power, it has in the past fifty years caused misery to people in far off lands, it is protected from scrutiny, and it amasses great wealth during the most difficult of economy struggles. ‘Tradition’ is simply not a good enough argument i’m afraid. Let us not forget that we also have wonderful Republican traditions and figures. John Locke, Jon Stuart Mill, Thomas Paine; all fantastic English political philosophers and Republicans. There is absolutely no reasonable argument for an unelected, hereditary Head of State.

The United Kingdom is a curious constitutional compromise; give the people a sort of quasi-say over the way the system works, keep the completely discredited power of Royal lineage in the background out of the way of public scrutiny, but wielding power whenever it so wishes, and if that doesn’t work; talk about tourism. With this curious constitutional compromise, comes Lords, Bishops, unelected yet able to influence the legislative process. Why so? What gives a Bishop any right to decide upon matters of public policy? How are they better equipped to offer input? They are not answerable to any constituency. They are a single religious group, given by the consent of no one, the special right to partake in Parliamentary business, approved simply for being quite good at believing in Jesus. This is absurd. And it relies solely on an established Church, given such status, by its head, the Monarch.

A non-transparent, non-accountable Monarchy, promoting its own agenda, and a state religion, is not to be trusted, nor accepted in a 21st Century Secular Democracy.

Addressing the real problems within the constitutional settlement and the political system – the Lords, the Bishops, an established Church within an apparent ‘secular’ society, the curious terms used in Parliament “the right honourable gentleman”, the Duchy’s and all the other remnants of a Feudal system that we have swallowed into our current system, that neither demands it, nor requires it – starts with a completely transparent Monarchy. From there, I see no reason why Republican values would not become more pronounced and acceptable. The Monarchy cannot just be abolished over night; it takes a change in attitude publicly, and that can only begin when the Monarchy is open to the scrutiny that it has so far been able to work its way around.

They contribute little, they take a lot, they own land they don’t deserve, they influence public policy from a position outside of a democratic framework, they are largely free from critique, and they suppress information contrary to their political agenda. Tell me again, why do we still have a Feudal relic, that refuses to give up its Feudal influence?

…wouldn’t you just eat a salad?

“we are always asked
to understand the other person’s
viewpoint
no matter how
out-dated
foolish or
obnoxious”

In my Politics class, we sit and have a rather tedious discussion most weeks. There is a bin in the corner, about 3 metres from where I sit. I sit with a bottle of water most weeks and finish it by the time the class is over. I wonder if I throw the empty bottle in the direction of the bin, if I will get it on target. I position myself by swinging slightly backward on my chair. I always decide against it. It is tedious because there is no control over the class. People talk on one table about subjects that are absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of debate. Others frequently don’t understand the point of the arguments made by specific political philosophers, and end up rambling on for a moment or two about nothing. They would say more, if they didn’t speak. The day previous, at the gym, in the changing room, a man was in the toilet cubicle. He obviously thought no one was in the toilet and randomly said “Oh fuck it’s a big one!!!!” I am not sure how to respond to that. It’s obviously a sentence of genius. Do I edge slowly toward the door and leave quietly? Or do I bow down in front of the cubicle and worship this legend as he comes out of his castle? Two Christian girls in our class, during a rather slow discussion on Nietzsche attempted to link the entire concept of democracy (not just modern democracy, democracy in general) to Christianity. Christians often narrow mindedly take credit for concepts they simply didn’t create; usually in the subject of art, as if without Christianity there would never have been a Leonardo. But I’ve never seen such a terrible argument presented as to why democracy is a loving gift bestowed upon the World by that beacon of democracy; Christianity.

I pointed out that forms of democracy (quite different to democracy today, I accept) appeared long before Christianity stamped its ugly, overbearing foot on the progress of humanity. One of the two girls looked at me as if I was an utter idiot. She told me, in a naturally patronising voice that democracy came long after Christianity and was a product of it. I mentioned Rome to her, and the election of Tribunes of the People’s assembly, the Senate, and that after around 300bc the lower classes were allowed to stand for office, and that although Rome’s democracy was massively flawed; it was still democratic by the standards of that particular time. The Roman people idolised their Republic. They were scared of absolute power. The Ancient Greeks, long before Jesus Christ wasn’t born, invented Constitutions and in some respects, invented Democracy. She said “no“.

Then more talking ensued…

One person talking louder to make themselves known after the last person. About eight different conversations in the same small room is too much even for my confidence and ego to try to fight over. I dropped my argument. I stared around the room and out of the window. My Kindle holds thousands of books. I have downloaded at least 200 so far, and have only started reading one. Tony Blair’s most recent book. It’s very self serving and has an air of utter arrogance about it. He describes himself as a rebel at heart. He was certainly a great statesman and I have a lot of time for much of what he achieved. But the fact remains, his “modernising” turned the Labour Party into a Tory-Lite Party, capitulating to the excessive power of finance capital. I am reading poems by Bukowski too. As you can tell by the start of this blog. I wish I had more time, and a quiet room. That way, I would have spent the next thirty minutes destroying the argument of massively misinformed, delusional Christians. I get a kind of sadistic enjoyment out of it. I don’t respect or understand their view, when their view is ridiculous, and just outright bullshit.

Democracy, previous to Rome can be traced back as far as pre-historic civilisation. Tribes working as a unit would presume to work together far more democratically, for the common good, than any system forced upon humanity during Christianities harsh hold over Europe. In fact, Christian Europe resembled a system far closer to the that advocated in the Old Testament. The first Pope, in the Bible, says:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴ or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. ¹⁵ For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. ¹⁶ Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. ¹⁷ Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
-1 Peter 2:13-17

I think that’s pretty conclusive. Firstly, I take issue with ‘live as God’s slaves’. No. The Christian God disgusts me. I cannot think of anyone worse, to be the ‘slave’ of.  Secondly, it is evident that the first Catholic Pope demanded that his contempories submit to the sovereign authority, whom at the time, was an Emperor, far removed from any democratic principles. St Peter’s role in the Church spanned four Roman Emperors; Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and eventually being crucified under the despotic lunatic Nero. We don’t know who he was writing about when he demanded we all submit to Caesar. I doubt it was Nero, given that Nero really didn’t like Christians. But even if St Peter had demanded that the Caligula, Claudius or Tiberius were to be submitted to entirely, the nature of those first three Emperors after Augustus should be examined. Perhaps they were deep down, democratic?

Tiberius was massively disliked, especially before he died. He spent far more money on the Imperial palaces than on the people. Although the area that St Peter would have lived for much of his life; Israel, has a town named “Tiberias” after the Emperor………. created by…….. King Herod. Executions for small crime went up under Tiberius. He was a bit of a maniac. In fact, he was so anti-democratic, he had his main opponent in the Senate; Gaius Asinius, executed for treason, simply for opposing the Emperor. Why would a loving God desire his faithful subjects to give themselves up to such tyranny? Why didn’t he demand the overthrow of such evil, for a far more democratic model? Why wasn’t that God preaching democratic values, if democracy truly is the product of Christian logic?

Caligula was no better. He had absolutely every Senator who opposed the Emperor investigated, and if he deemed it necessary, executed. This sent a stark warning to the Senate and the final remnant of the old Republic; submit entirely to the Emperor, or die. He then started dressing as a God in public, he called himself Jupiter in documents, and he made Senators who he distrusted, run by the side of his chariot to show their inferiority. Two temples were created and funded by Caligula, for the sake of worshipping…. Caligula. Perhaps this is the beacon of democracy and rule by the people that St Peter was obviously referring to when he demanded people ‘honor the emperor’.

Claudius, likewise, was not elected by popular democratic means. He was the grandson of the sister of Augustus; Octavia. So he believed, through his bloodline, that he was entitled to the Imperial throne. Inherited public power is about as far removed from democracy as it is possible to get.  He pronounced himself the Judge and Jury in many trials during his reign. Absolutely less democratic than even the hardly democratic Republican era of Rome.

So, that leaves us with the notion that St Peter, when asking his people to submit as slaves to God and as subject to Caesar, did not care one bit for democracy, or for personal and intellectual freedom, or the plight of the Imperial subjects and the injustices within the Empire. And so we must conclude, that early Christianity has more in common with its Middle Ages history, than it does with a couple of Christian students’ warped interpretation of democratic history.

Christianity during the Middle Ages was most certainly responsible for the most cruel period of human history in Europe. It was also used as the basis for Monarchy. Kings and Queens did not use Christianity in a manipulative sense just to hold on to power, they genuinely believed, as did their subjects, that they had a divine right to rule, laid out by God. They had inherited the throne of David. That was the justification for Monarchy ruled by ruthless, violent Christianity. Henry VIII was so worried about how he was to be viewed as a King by God, that he divorced Catherine of Aragon, on the pretence that God had punished him by giving him no male heir with Catherine, because she was his dead brother’s wife first.

The Pope arguably had the most power in Europe during the Middle Ages. English people did not consider themselves English first. They considered themselves loyal to the Pope. They did not elect the Pope and they had no say over the policies coming out of Rome. They merely had to accept what the Vatican was telling them. Thomas More (who, quite comically, is now a Saint) advocated the burning to death of anyone who dared to own a Bible in English. Catholics believed only the Vatican and those who were scholarly and rich enough to read Latin, should have the right to interpret the Bible for the rest of the Catholic World. That couldn’t be less democratic if it tried. It wasn’t until Henry broke with Rome in 1534, that England as a culture and a united people started to take some shape. But even then, the despotic power of Rome was merely transfered to the despotic power of the King. No form of democracy was created. The beginnings of Protestantism were not democratic. Americas beginnings were not democratic. The Athens system in the centuries preceding the apparent birth of Jesus included a system that did not allow women or slaves the right to vote. America, similarly started off, for a very long time actually, not allowing women or slaves or anyone whose skin colour was slightly darker than their own, the right to vote.

Skip a couple of Centuries to America, and some would argue that Christianity was responsible for the birth of the nation. Not true. The historian Robert T Handy argues that:

“No more than 10 percent– probably less– of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.”

Most of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons and Deists. They were, as was America, products of the Enlightenment. Freemasonry and the thinking of the Enlightenment, the moving away from strict Christian dogma, is far more important to the development of early America. George Washington, the first President of the United States of America, and the man who was essentially the pillar on which the early Republic stood and managed to survive the early years, was a devout Freemason from the early 1750s, until the day he died. He became a master mason at the end of the 1590s.

Thomas Jefferson famously despised the dogma of organised religion, stating:

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”

Jefferson received a letter from the third President, John Adams, stating:

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

It is thus evident that the United States was not the product of some new found Christian love and appreciation for democratic principles. The Constitution specifically states that there shall be no religious oppression. It does not mention the wondrous contribution Christianity has made to the onset of democracy.

Democracy, like Capitalism, like falls of Kingdoms and Republics and Empires is the result of social evolution and the collective cultural mind of a population rebelling to meet the challenges of major shifts in consciousness and technology and economics. It is not the result of Christian dogma.

The historical reality is almost always, on every issue, entirely at odds with Christian delusion. They never accept it. They invent history. Just like the two girls invented history, and invented their own special brand of logic in my politics class. It was however, one of the only times that my mind hasn’t wandered in that class. Usually we talk about one particular philosopher and it just gets too crowded with the sounds of unrecognisable voices blurred together. It all just sounds like a constant irritating ringing in my ear. There was a man sat out a chip shop in Leicester yesterday. It was 11am. The chip shop must have only just opened. He had a huge bowl of chips. He had his legs wide open, to accommodate the mass of draping fat that swung down below his knees as he sat. At that point, wouldn’t you just accept you may have been wrong all those years? Wouldn’t you just eat a salad?

The 500 year old conspiracy

England in 1549 was a pretty bleak picture. Even in comparison to earlier times. Edward VI was the king, and was only twelve years old. He obviously couldn’t rule the entire Country at twelve, so a de facto leader named Edward Seymour (The King’s uncle) was named the Protector Lord Somerset. He became hugely unpopular at Court for his ridiculously expensive war against Scotland, which had proved successful but costly. Inflation at record highs, and his mismanagement of religious affairs. He was also considered a friend of the poor, which in 1549 (much like today actually) the ruling classes do not like.

By July 1549, the peasantry in Norfolk were becoming agitated by what they perceived as their land being enclosed by the richer members of the community. And so, they took up arms and started to destroy enclosures including that of Robert Kett. Kett, oddly, then joins the rebels, destroys his enclosure, and becomes the leader of the rebels.

By July 11th, the rebels numbered close to 15,000 men and were growing daily. They entered Norwich on 22nd July and assumed control of the city. And so the Protector in London responded.

And this is where the story gets a little bit odd.

Firstly, William Parr, 1st Marquess of Northampton was sent by the Protector Somerset, with less than 2000 men to attempt to quell the rebellion. He promptly failed. The Protector then sent John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, with 14,000 men. Eventually, Warwick succeeded and defeated the rebels. Kett was hung until half dead, his stomach was opened up whilst still alive, and his entrails burnt in front of him. He was then beheaded. The Tudor period was nothing if not gory.

That’s the official – if somewhat rushed – version of the story. But it seems to go a little deeper than that. And it all centres around John Dudley, Earl of Warwick.

For those of you who have seen the film “Elizabeth“, John Dudley is the father of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who seemingly has a bit of crush on Elizabeth and vice versa. Little is known about Robert’s father.

Chris Skidmore in his book “Edward VI: The Lost King of England” briefly touches upon, but does not expand too much, on quite a vast conspiracy. He suggests the idea that John Dudley may have actually had more to do with the rebellion than the official story suggests.

Dudley was no friend of the Protector, and when Somerset’s government finally fell……. Dudley was proclaimed the Duke of Northumberland, and the new Protector in 1550. However, before all of that, on the 12th July 1549, as the rebellion was gaining force, Dudley was at home having written to the Protector that he was “ill” and so he stayed at home. His home, happened to be right next to the heartland of the rebellion. When he finally rode out to face the rebellion with his men, he offered the rebels a full pardon. Kett, oddly then rides out of the city to meet with Dudley, but is held back by his own men.
If we go back further, to 1543, we see that Kett himself had purchased land directly from Dudley. The two had met on several occasions in fact. Dudley was in the area on July 12th having “phone in ill”, and Kett had wanted to meet Dudley as the rebels and the kings forces sat in wait for battle. Why? What did Kett want to know? He’d got a pardon if he wanted it. What did he need to talk about? Perhaps…. what to do next?

Another figure enters the fray. Sir Richard Southwell was a keeper of the Howard lands in Norfolk at the time. He was a very close friend of Dudley. Southwell’s will, written in 1564, leaves £40 (which was a large sum of money in those days) to Richard Kett…. the son of Robert. When Kett was in the Tower of London in August 1549, no one came to visit him, except Sir Richard Southwell. Not only that, but during the time of the rebellion, Southwell’s deputy-baliff, was the brother of Robert Kett. Southwell’s implication in the rebellion is even further suggested by a man named Sir Edmund Knyvett, who wrote:

… of such money as Robert Kett principle leader of the rebellion had from Sir Richard Southwell then having charge of the king’s treasure sent down by him for the surpressing of the said rebels and tried out by the said earl upon examination of diverse the said rebels t be conveyed in particular sums amongst diverse persons which was by the said earl gathered together and delivered over to this accomptant….£497 15s

…. which, according to Skidmore, means that Southwell was funding the rebellion from day one, out of the King’s treasury.
Southwell then broke into the office of William Cecil who held this disposition, and stole it. He was effectively off the hook.

It goes without saying, that Dudley benefited the most from pulling the strings of both the rebels and the Protector. He seems to have played both sides off against one another beautifully, and used it all to his own benefit having secured his place as Protector less than half a year later. After Norfolk, Dudley found himself with a huge army of men, and linked up with another leader named Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of Southampton, and forced Somerset from power. The whole rebellion fiasco ended with the Council supremely unhappy with Somerset’s leadership. Was this Dudley’s intention? Did he know a rebellion would fail, did he instigate it, and then destroy it to make both himself look like a saviour and the Protector look weak? Did he plan it, knowing by the end of the rebellion, he would be left with thousands of troops? If so Dudley has quickly became my favourite character in Tudor history, surpassing Thomas Cromwell as the most devious.

There are no biographies of which I can find at least, of John Dudley, except that of Loades. Loades’ book costs £95 on amazon and I simply don’t have that kind of money. I would like to investigate Skidmore’s allegations in depth, because it appears fascinating, and it is a largely unexplored direction to take with regard to Kett’s rebellion. It intrigues me to know that a man who had relatively no power in Council, was pulling the strings behind the scenes and in fact had quite immense power. It would make for an interesting research project. It makes me wonder what else Dudley was involved in, throughout his career.

We often focus on the Monarchs themselves throughout history, yet the most impressive and intriguing characters are the players behind the scenes. Thomas More, Francis Walsingham, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Seymour, and John Dudley all do not have all that much written about them, and yet they play pivotal roles in the development of the Tudor state during the 16th Century. Fascinating to contemplate.

The Right to Love

August 27th 2009 will mark the one year anniversary of the death of Dorothy Martin. Mrs Martin was a pioneer for lesbian rights, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the 1960s and 1970s across America. Dorothy Martin died two months after fulfilling the dream of her fifty year relationship with girlfriend Phyllis Lyon, by marrying in June 2008, in California. They should be commended for their work. Anti-discrimination laws, the right for a gay lady or gentleman to visit a loved one in hospital, work place regulations in support of gay rights, society as a whole owes both Lyon and Martin a great debt for their courage and their relentless fighting.
I cannot think of a more pro-marriage fight, than that put up by Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all allow same sex marriage. Vermont is soon to follow on September 1st 2009, and Maine will join that list of States on September 14th 2009. And whilst I welcome the right of the State to provide it’s own definition of marriage ahead of the Federal Government, I’d suggest further that it is the individual’s right to decide what is and isn’t acceptable. It is not the State’s legislature who decide the arrangement of love. If you do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, then simply don’t attend a gay wedding. Legally consenting couples, whether straight or gay have a right to express their love for each other via a ceremony of vows and commitment. It has the business of no one else. It does not impact your daily life. It does not undermine “traditional marriage” (a subject I shall come on to later).

The Defence Of Marriage Act is quite clearly anti-homosexual. I’m not entirely sure what Marriage needs defending from? It’s a thriving business as far as i’m aware. The Defence of Marriage Act, is simply a bigoted few, denying the rights of a section of society, that simply doesn’t conform to the narrow minded Republican view of what is decent and correct. It is indefensible that Congress simply assumes it has the moral authority to decide who should and shouldn’t be recognised as “married”. I’m unsure why same sex marriage is even a question any more, why it’s even debated. It is surely for the two people in any relationship, to decide if they want to take a vow of devotion or not? It is the jurisdiction of politicians on any side of the political divide to decide. As “rights” and as “freedom” goes, the freedom to fall in love and to commit to whomever you so wish, is one of the most basic rights any of us is entitled to, without being punished or alienated.

A rather vicious little group, ironically named “Alliance for Marriage” in 2001 announced it’s intention to create an Amendment to the Constitution that would have ultimately destroyed the right of homosexual couples to be married, whilst alienating them further, as they were sub human. The Amendment was referred to as “The Federal Marriage Amendment“. It would have meant that every State would be forced to recognise, the description of the FMA, which happened to be “SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” A nasty little piece of discriminatory legislation.

In short, the Amendment would have been a step backward, for diversity, tolerance, acceptance and difference. The homosexual community is not an alien race hell bent on destroying America. The homosexual community is no different to the heterosexual community, other than possessing a different preference when it comes to love. They are the Police officials who keep you safe, doctors who keep you alive, fire fighters who save you from burning to death, teachers who prepare your children for the future, they are the Oscar Wilde’s, and the Leonardo Da Vinci’s. It is simply a case of personal preference when it comes to love. Banning same sex marriage is as ridiculous a notion to me, as banning marriage between those with different coloured eyes or hair. It makes no sense. The Federal Marriage Act was a disgusting piece of legislation. The Federal Bigotry Act would have certainly been a more apt name. The Constitution is not a tool for discrimination.

Shockingly, Gallup reports that 40% of people asked, believe Homosexuality itself (not gay marriage) should not be legal. 40% of people asked would like to criminalise people, purely for being gay.

In order to pass into law, and become a Constitutional Amendment, the proposal had to attract the votes of two thirds of each House, and ratification by three fourths of the States. On July 18th 2006, a vote took place in the U.S House of Representatives, and failed by 236 yea to 187 nay votes. It needed 290 votes to pass the House. Whilst I welcome it’s failure, 236 yeas is slightly worrying, for perhaps the World’s most powerful and apparently “free” nation. The deeply held bigoted attitudes still in force.

The Constitution of the United States thankfully possesses the clause, Article IV, Section 1, which states quite unequivocally “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” States are required, by the Constitution, to recognise the marriage rights of those who were married in other States. George Bush, said at the time “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people“. A statement that is quite frankly regressive, and a product of the eight years of the Presidency of Bush – fear. Why is it “critical to American families and American society” that same sex marriage be banned? Given the past eight years, i’d suggest that letting Texans run for President is critical not just to American society, but Global society as a whole. George Bush would have decided that because he doesn’t approve of the relationship between Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon, that it is therefore “un-American” by the standards of the Constitutional Amendment, he shamefully backed. For the 21st Century, I cannot believe an Amendment was even discussed.

Ex Republican Congressman, Richard Curtis voted against banning discrimination against Homosexuals, he also voted against domestic partnerships for Homosexual couples. In 2007, Curtis (who is married and has two daughters, and is very very anti-gay rights) was forced to resign his position, because he was found to have dressed in women’s clothes, and had sex with a male gay porn model named Cody Castagna, in a hotel room, in Washington. A smile was brought to my face when I read this story.

It seems the American Right is unwilling to move forward. Although, that’s nothing new.

In 1924, the Virginia Legislature passed a law entitled “The Racial Integrity Act” which made interracial marriage illegal. The idea, was to kill off any It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving V Virginia, that the United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling, when interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced to a year in Jail, simply for marrying. They worked tirelessly to overturn the Racial Integrity Act and were successful in 1967. To us here in 2009, the entire idea of blocking interracial marriage, is abhorrent. The Judge presiding over the case of the Loving’s, which sentenced them to a year in Prison, is quoted as saying:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Religion. Of course it’s Religion. Whenever someone feels the need to discriminate, or impose bigoted judgements on others, they tend to use the Bible to help justify the unjustifiable. As with the Lovings case, the fundamental argument against same-sex marriage, comes from the frankly ridiculous religious notion that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, and nothing more. It sounds as if the Bible is strict and straight forward in it’s proposals on marriage. It simply isn’t. It is therefore perplexing as to why those with such deeply held Christian principles of the Religious Right, are wasting their time focusing on same sex marriage, when they should also be focusing on Biblical insistances they otherwise tend to pretend don’t exist?
1 Corinthians 11:8-9, which states “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” is pretty straight forward in suggesting that women should exist simple to serve men. Can I expect a “Role Of Women in Society Act“?
David is admired, by Christendom, and so perhaps those with such strong opinions against Gay marriage from a Religious stand point, could help introduce legislation to allow polygamy, because as 2 Samuel 5:13 quite clearly states, the role model that is David “…took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.“
I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time before those guardians of all that is moral and decent in the World, over at “Alliance for Marriage” really do themselves proud by truly sticking to what the Bible says of family life, especially in relation to Genesis 19:31-32, which says:
“One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
Only recently has marriage started to become more about love, than strengthening family ties. Nobles throughout 16th Century Europe would almost invoke Exodus 21:7, by “selling” their daughters into prominent Catholic families, to strengthen relations. A great example of this, would be of Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who was set aside to marry Arthur Tudor, the son of Henry VII of England, purely to strengthen the claim of the Tudor’s to the throne of England due to Isabella’s Royal English ancestry. This wasn’t a match made out of love. Neither was Catherine’s subsequent marriage to Arthur’s brother Henry, who of course became the tyrant, Henry VIII. Love and marriage (whilst a fantastic Sinatra song) did not go together like “a horse and carriage“, until very very recently. “Tradition” is irrelevant.

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and damaging to society. No it isn’t. Religious intolerance though, now that’s damaging to society. Wars, death, torture, inability to accept the diversity of humanity, is so disastrously detrimental to the future of society, to blame homosexuality is pathetic at best and shockingly ignorant at worst. And surely it is not unnatural to disagree in principle with Aquinas’ teachings on the theory of Natural Law. It is surely unnatural though, to repress your desires and your very human needs, just to suit the narrow minded, homophobic views of a few bigoted individuals and their pretty damn evil God. Religion, is far more unnatural.

I’m not entirely sure that dogmatic Religious nonsense is to blame though. I’d suggest that homophobia comes is simply an illogical prejudice, and that the Bible is purely used to apply justification for such ridiculous prejudices. The Bible is nothing more than a tool to advance individual bigotry.

If the opponents of same-sex marriage could give me legitimate reasons why homosexual couples, in loving relationships, should not be allowed to marry, i’m more than willing to debate this with you.