Insight into History

The Lymm High School History Magazine Issue 2: Feb 2021 The Royal Issue

1

Welcome message

Welcome to The Royal Issue!! After the success of the last issue, we’ve had so many more volunteers to help, so this issue is a lot longer than the last. We have articles covering a lot of the past monarchs, as well as some about the current Royals. We hope you will find something you are interested in and learn some new facts too!

If you are interested in being involved in the magazine in the future, whether that is writing full articles or just recommend- ing a film you have watched and anything in between, please send us a brief message on our Get Involved page.

We hope you enjoy reading our magazine!

The Insight Into History Team

2

Meet the Team

Editor-in-Chief = George Pitcher Deputy Editor-in-Chief = Gemma Jackson Head of Design = Alisha Bushnell Head of Marketing = Charlotte Wood Editors Chief Political Editor = Jay Palombella Deputy Political Editor = Anna McDonald Gender + LGBTQ Editor = Jessica Salmon Minorities Editor = Emma Parkinson TV + Film Editor = Poppy Harris Head Interviewer = Lauren Cliffe Opinions Editor = Pierre De Villiers

The Writing Team Year 12 - Amy French, Hattie Cosgrove, Emilia McMonagle, Sacha Jones, Bella Charlton, Ellie Colquhoun. Year 10– Amy Deeks Year 8 - Jake Sands Year 7 - Annie Martin, Reuben Roberts, Tom Matthews, Lily Norton.

Fun Facts contributed by Beth Pitcher (Year 9).

3 Contents

In a Nutshell: The role of the - p6 Henry VIII and his 6 wives - p8 Henry VIII: Was he really the he was made out to be? - p10 : Empress of India - p13 Fact file: George VI - p15 The Great British Scandal: Andrew- p18 William the Conqueror: Taking control of – p21 Royal Dogs: The Queen’s Corgis - p23 Meghan Markle and the British media - p24 The overlooked triumphs of Queen consorts - p26 Fact file: James II- p28 The Commonwealth - A Relic of Imperialism or A Harmonious Family of Nations? - p29 Queen Elizabeth II: Is she truly the “Ultimate feminist” - p31

4

Edward and Mrs Simpson - The Scandals - p33 Diana: The People’s - p36 Fact file: Charles I- p38 - p39 Bloody Mary: England’s First Queen - p41 : The funding behind the slave trade - p43 Fact file: William I - p44 Fact file: Mary Queen of Scots - p44 The Royal Family: Is their time up? - p45 Recommendations- p47 The Interview - p51 This Month in History: Royal Events in February - p53 The Quiz - p54

5

In A Nutshell: The Role of the Royals

The Royal Family is arguable the most famous family in the world, but what exactly do they do? Throughout this article I am going to explain what they do, and how their role has changed over time. For centuries, the role of the and Queens of England was one of complete power. Power to make laws, declare war and generally decide the path of the country. However, eventually the lost a lot of its power, all thanks to one person: King John. John was strongly disliked by his , church leaders and the general public due to him abusing his power and asking for too much money from everyone. The barons drew up a document that restricted the power of the King and made sure that he had to follow the same laws as everyone else. This document was called the Magna Carta, and on June 15th, 1215 the barons forced John to sign it. The Magna Carta was the first step towards the creation of England’s constitution. After the Magna Carta, the Monarch still held the majority of power of

Did you know? There has only ever been one King called John. It is suspected that this is due to the unfa- vourable reputation of the first King John. With nick- names like “the phoney king”, it is easy to guess that not many monarchs would want to be associated with him. Or they might just not like the name!

the country, however they were regulated by the nobles. In some cases, the monarch made specific decisions with the permission of most trusted advisors, that still affect us today. For example, Henry VIII who changed the religion of the country from Catholicism to the , which he invented because the Pope (Head of the ) would not allow him to divorce his first wife, . The concept of Parliament developed over 100s of years, and it was these officials that kept the Monarch in check.

6

Modern historians often consider the first Prime Minister of England to be Robert Wal- pole in 1721-1742, however he never had that official . In fact, the first time the title of Prime Minister was used was in 1905 with Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Nowadays, it is the Prime Minister of the UK that has the power over the country, and they are elected every 4 years. So now we know how the monarch’s power has faded over the years, what is their role today? Well firstly, they ’t have to worry about money because they are supported by taxpayer money. This angers a lot of people, but it is worth adding that they do earn the UK King John approximately £1.8 billion a year, which includes the revenue from the millions of tourists that travel to visit royal attractions every year. The main role of the royal family is to carry out public and charitable “engagements”. These engagements may include overseas visits to represent the nation in other countries, especially Commonwealth countries. Members of the Royal Family often are involved in charitable causes that are close to their hearts, for example the and Duchess of Cambridge have a mental health charity called Heads Together. Another example is Prince Charles’ Trust that he started in 1976 to help vulnerable children across the country. In a nutshell, the role of the Royal Family is to be a figurehead for our country and to represent national unity. Some may argue that this is no longer necessary, but many also find great joy from the Queen and her family. However, I am interested to see if the love for the Royal Family continues after the Queen dies.

Fun Fact: Kate Middleton was the first royal bride to have a By George Pitcher university degree, when she married Prince William in 2011. 7

Henry VIII and his 6 wives

1. Catherine of Aragon A Spanish princess who had been engaged to Prince Arthur, Henry’s older brother, since childhood, who would become king of England. She travelled to England in 1501 to marry him, however when he suddenly died in 1502, she was betrothed to Henry. Married: 11 June 1509 - 23 May 1533 Children: Mary I born 18 February 1516 Divorced because she was getting older and Henry feared she wouldn’t be able to give him a son, who he desperately wanted as an heir to the throne, to continue the Tudor name and bloodline.

2.

Anne was a courtier gracing his court when he first caught feelings for her, however she wasn’t necessarily the first in her family. It is highly suspected that Anne’s mother, Elizabeth Howard, was one of Henry’s many mistresses.

Married: 25 January 1533 - 19 May 1536

Children: Elizabeth I born 7 September 1533

Beheaded when charged guilty for treason, as Henry held many charges against her, including adultery, incest and conspiracy against the king.

3.

Jane was Henry’s favourite wife, and they are buried together in St George’s Chapel, Winsor. This is most likely because she was the one of his wives to give him a son, Edward, however she sadly died in childbirth.

Married: 30 May 1536 - 24 October 1537

Children: Edward 12 October 1537

It is suspected that had she not passed away giving birth to Edward, she would’ve been Henry’s forever wife. 8

4. -

Anne arrived in England on 27th December 1539, landing at Deal in Kent, in preparation for her forthcoming marriage to King Henry VIII. Henry was excited about meeting Anne and so he decided to disguise himself and travel to Rochester to surprise her.

Married: 6 January 1540 - 9 July 1540

Divorced as she wasn’t as pretty as she was in the painting Henry saw before agreeing to marry her, he claimed she looked like a horse.

5.

Catherine and Henry met through his wife, Anne of Cleves. The young and reportedly beautiful Catherine Howard was maid of honour to Henry's new queen, and they got married just 19 days after the divorce of Anne.

Married: 28 July 1540 - 13 February 1542

She was the second of Henry’s wives to be beheaded for treason. After he was given evidence that she had had affairs before their marriage and that she was having an affair with her cousin, Thomas Culpepper, Henry had her imprisoned

Fun Fact: 17 British monarchs are buried at Abbey, the first was King Edward to the 13th century.

6.

She impressed Henry when the country was in religious turmoil, by reading about the Church of England, and saying she believed it was much better than Catholicism.

Married: 12 July 1543 - 28 January 1547

Catherine was Henry’s final wife and outlived him.

Click here to listen to the Horrible Histories song.

By Gemma Jackson 9

Henry VIII: was he the really king he’s often made out to be?

Henry VII is arguably one of the most well-known and recognisable monarchs, with the overwhelming majority of people being able to identify him from his silhouette alone. Every school child has heard the story of his six famous wives, along with the famous rhyme “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded survived”, but was he actually the glorious king he is usually perceived as? On 24th June 1509, Henry Tudor officially became Henry VIII of England when he took his coronation oath, where he made many promises to the people of England to mark the beginning of his reign, however, it is questionable whether he stuck to some of the most important premises of his coronation oath. I will discuss the following three elements of the oath · Uphold the Church

· Deliver Equal and Rightful Justice

· Uphold laws and Customs and use them to illustrate how Henry didn’t obey the rules of the monarchy, and therefore doesn’t necessarily deserve the honour he often receives.

In 1521, Henry was named the “defender of faith” and as a devout Catholic who attended mass five times every day, was protecting his and his country’s religion against Martin Luther and the rise of in Europe. However, this was only fleeting, as his desire to divorce Catherine of Aragon transcended his faith and devotion to the church. Henry famously broke from the Catholic church in 1534, when the Pope, as the head of the Catholic Church, didn’t condone the termination of the marriage.

Fun Fact: King Edward VII made his dinner guests weigh them- selves before and after the meal to ensure they were eating properly. It is rumoured that this tradition still continues today.

10

The new religion Church of England was formed, and the Act of Supremacy made the English monarch “Supreme Head of the Church”. Henry was now head of his own religion and could dictate all rules to suit him, allowing him to divorce Catherine of Aragon, and marry the youthful Anne Boleyn. Other incentives of doing this included the act that as head of the Church, he owned all church buildings and artifacts, which he could make money from to repay all his debts from fighting with France. It’s evident that in changing the religion of England, he was acting in his own self-interest, and these insular actions highlight how throughout his reign, he failed to uphold the Church.

One of the most well-known examples of Henry not delivering equal and rightful justice is beheading two of his six wives, but Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard weren’t the only ones to lose their heads to Henry’s tyranny. Despite the 1534 Act of Supremacy, a large proportion of the English population refused to recognise Henry’s full authority, keeping their loyalty with God and their Catholic church. For example, a large group of Carthusians who refused to sign the Act of Supremacy were locked up in the Tower of , then dragged to their execution. Thomas Moor was one of Henry’s closest friends and was the only person allowed to call him “Harry”, however, this wasn’t a ‘get out of jail free card’, as he was executed in the Tower of London when he refused to recognise Henry as head of the Church. Pilgrimages play a large role in the Catholic faith, whereas they’re not recognised in the Church of England, which irritated devout Catholics. A group of people unsatisfied with the new irrelevance of pilgrimages in England decided to embark on the ‘Pilgrimage of Grace’ in 1536, in which they wanted to show their loyalty to their king while practicing their religion. Despite their respect for Henry, over 220 of them were executed. To be executed by Henry, you didn’t have to actively disobey his rules. He said that he wanted to execute people with Yorkist blood, as he believed they could be a threat to his reign, and some of the most famous people purged by Henry for this reason were the Duke of Buckingham and Margret Pole at 67 years old.

11

It is estimated that throughout his 37 year long reign, he executed up to 57,000 people, many of whom were either members of the clergy or ordinary citizens and nobles. This substantiates the point that Henry once again, failed his people by not delivering equal and rightful justice. The third and final assertion that I will be discussing how Henry failed to stick to it is ‘to uphold laws and customs’ Only a totalitarian dictator would try to control the way their subjects think... surely? The 1534 Treasons Act was an attempt from Henry to uphold his tyranny, making it treason to write, speak, or even think ill thoughts of the King. As for abandoning the country’s customs, the Dissolution of Monasteries, 1536-1541, was when Henry believed he could maximise the country's wealth by confiscating the Church's assets so stripped Churches back to minimalistic buildings, using the profit made to repay his debts from war with France. Treasures of religion were lost, and books burned. The country’s religious history was almost entirely lost. Many religious buildings were torn down, including the Fountains Abbey in north Yorkshire, which is now said to be haunted by its past monks and nuns.

Ultimately, Henry failed to commit to the promises he made to his people when crowned king in 1509 ad due to the way he enormously let down his country, he does not deserve the respect and honour he receives today. There were many more tragedies than just his failed marriages.

By Gemma Jackson

12

Queen Victoria: The Empress of India

Queen Victoria was declared the Empress of India in 1877 by Benjamin Disraeli, the Conservative Prime Minister at the time. This came after 39 years already on the throne for Queen Victoria and after British power in India being passed onto the in 1858. The following occupation of India lasted until India gained independence in 1947 and had many effects not only in India but also across Britain as well.

The announcement of Victoria's new title of Empress of India came after the country had already been formally accepted into the British Empire in 1858. The new title was only a formality passed in the Royal act of 1876. The country was included officially in the British empire after the British East India Company (EIC) dissolved. They were a British trading company which controlled many parts of the Indian subcontinent. Their dissolution came after the Indian Rebellion of 1857 which was a country wide mutiny against the harsh treatment of the Indians by British people who ruling at the time. It was only suppressed when the EIC called for reinforcements. After this major event, the British were forced to reorganise their army and administration in India. Queen Victoria then issued a statement to the Indians which promised that they would have the same rights as a British citizen living in the Empire and many Indians later used this statement when being mistreated in the following decades although it never had a legal constitution.

13 The effects on India of this new inclusion into the Empire were seemingly limitless. In 1857, education's importance was increased with new universities being established in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. Under the Empire, the postal service expanded rapidly with 889 post offices processing 43 million letters and more than 4.5 million newspapers annually by 1861. However, India's traditional Hindu and Islamic law courts were broken under the Empire in favour of British common law which may have caused some unrest with those used to the original systems. The British empire also exploited the natural resources of India such as spices, jewels and textiles which left many people across the country in extreme poverty while those in power lived in luxury. At the beginning of the 18th century, India's share of the world economy was 23 percent but by the time the British were forced out of India in 1947, it had dropped to less than 4 percent. The push by Disraeli to convert the country to Christianity meant that missionaries flocked to the subcontinent which led to almost the entirety of North East India got converted to Christianity. This meant that the unique culture, language and lifestyle of the area faded.

Fun Fact: Queen Victoria was the longest serving The effects of British British monarch with her reign lasting 63 years, until rule are still being felt Queen Elizabeth II overtook her in 2015. today by many Indians. The colonisation led to deep-rooted and dangerous ideals that fairer skin is more attractive. This has led to bleaching treatments gaining popularity among women in India who are desperate to get fairer skin. Colonisation has led to the insecurities of thousands of women in India who undertake sometimes dangerous treatments to achieve the ‘perfect’ look. Some even believe that skin colour determines social status which is undoubtedly an ideal left behind by the British rule of the past.

In conclusion, British rule had many negative effects on India and ones that are so deep-rooted in society that some are unable to even recognise it which means that it will be even longer until they are able to undo its effects. We need to be bringing more light to this issue and attempt to undo the hazardous effects that Britain left behind.

By Anna McDonald 14

Fact file: George VI

Albert Fredrick Arthur George was born on the 14th December 1895.

He was known as ‘Bertie’.

His Father- King George V, was very overbearing and ‘Bertie’ was frightened of him. He was a poorly child and had a stammer. It made people think that he wasn’t very intelligent. He lived in the

He was left-handed and was forced to write with his right hand.

shadow of his brother, David who was heir to the throne.

When he was serving for England, he finally got the respect of his father. In 1909 aged 13 he was sent to Navel College. Then in 1914 he was called to serve in WW1. Bertie was married on April 26th 1923 at to

Initially, she did not want to marry into the royal family , she refused twice, but Bertie persisted.

Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Bertie was very shy and hated public speaking. In 1925 he had

Elizabeth found help and took him to a speech Therapist Lionel Logue who helped him overcome his fear of speaking in public.

to give a speech to over 100,000 people and he hated it. In 1926 Princess Elizabeth was born, followed by Princess Margaret in 1930. Bertie was a very different father than his father. He was very loving and caring towards Elizabeth and Margaret.

15

On the 20th January 1936 King George V died and David became King Edward VIII. On the 11th of December 1936 he abdicated from the throne and plunged the royal family into chaos. On the 12th May 1937 Bertie became King George VI. People did not think he would make a good King.

The Queen consult Elizabeth had a huge impact on King George VI and was INCREDIBLY SUPPORTIVE.

On the 3rd September 1939 Neville Chamberlain declared war against Germany.

Within hours of war he prepared for the biggest speech of his life. At 6 pm he went live to talk to the people who were very frightened. It is believed to be one of the most IMPORTANT speeches ever.

In 1940, Chamberlain resigned, and was appointed the new Prime Minister of England. The Royal Family stayed in England throughout the war- it was a huge risk. It boosted morale and they were seen as a symbol of hope.

A 50kg bomb hit the palace but didn’t explode and a few days later another one hit WHICH did explode. The Bombs were so close it was a miracle they survived.

On the 8th May 1945 war in Europe ended. The King made a speech and the stammer was a thing of the past. King George VI was seen as a national inspiration and a hero.

In 1951 he was diagnosed with lung cancer and had a pioneering operation to remove one of his lungs. He died on 6th February 1952 aged just 56. At his funeral thousands lined the streets to pay respect for their beloved king.

16

In the queen’s speech for the 75th anniversary of VE day last year she paid a touching tribute to her father. She had a photo of him on her desk and talked about how he spoke about never giving up and never despairing.

King George VI was a shy man who preferred to stay out of the spotlight but went on to become one of the Greatest Kings in English History

Fun Fact: King George VI competed in Wimbledon when he was a Duke in 1926.

By Reuben Roberts

17

The Great British Scandal: Prince Andrew

TRIGGER WARNING: content some readers may find upsetting

Princes throughout history are known to have humility, courage and the utmost graciousness and courtesy to all members of society, particularly women. So why is this not the case with Prince Andrew? The Duke of York spoke last year during a BBC interview about his friendship with the convicted sex offender, . The Duke has vehemently denied any wrongdoing; however, he has stepped back from his royal life and duty. Prince Andrew admitted that it was a "mistake and an error" to meet Jeffrey Epstein in 2010 after it was public knowledge that he was a convicted sex offender. However, he has never said he regretted his relationship with Epstein. When questioned in the BBC interview with , the Prince failed to display any sympathy for Epstein's victims and denied all Virginia Giuffre's claims against him.

You can watch the BBC interview here

TRIGGER WARNING: content some viewers may find upsetting

Their friendship allegedly began when Prince Andrew was acquainted with Epstein through , Epstein's girlfriend at the time. The Prince claimed to be much more familiar with Ghislaine than Epstein. Despite the fact that Prince Andrew revealed that he had stayed at numerous properties owned by Epstein, however he only "saw him infrequently and probably no more than once or twice a year." Even after Epstein's arrest, Prince Andrew remained taciturn about the matter. Though, when Buckingham Palace did comment, in August 2019, Prince Andrew claimed that he did not "see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to [Epstein's] arrest and conviction."

A day before Epstein's suicide, legal documents were discovered about Epstein's criminal case, one included allegations about Prince Andrew. On August 27th, Virginia Roberts Giuffre held a press conference about her allegations against Prince Andrew saying "he knows exactly what he's done, and I hope he comes clean about it." In an interview with NBC, Giuffre said that Prince Andrew sexually abused her three times. Again, Prince Andrew denied this.

18

A photograph of him and Giuffre was a huge talking point on the BBC interview:

The photograph has been said to have been taken in March 2001; yet, Prince Andrew explicitly claims he doesn't remember it being taken, let alone even meeting Giuffre, who was 17 at the time. She says that the photograph was taken in Ghislaine Maxwell's house (Epstein's girlfriend at the time) in Belgravia, Central London after a night out at the Tramp nightclub, Mayfair. She says that she was forced to sleep with Andrew on three occasions, including once when she was just 17. When explaining the photograph, she said: "All of us went upstairs, and I asked Jeffrey to snap a picture of me with the Prince. I wanted something to show my mom.". The Duke insisted that the allegations were false, and on that day, he had taken his daughter to Pizza Express in Woking for a party. When questioned about the photograph, he believes that it had been fabricated, as he claims he was not

Just a few days after the "car crash” BBC interview, Prince Andrew announced he was stepping down from all royal and public duties "for the foreseeable future". His full statement reads:

It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein have become a major disruption to my family's work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support. Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty the Queen if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission. I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.

19

Nevertheless, the scandal Prince Andrew has been dodging for years does not appear to be going away. Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on multiple criminal charges relating to Epstein's trafficking and sexual abuse on July 2nd, 2020. U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss told reporters: "I'm not going to comment on anyone's status in this investigation. But I would say we would welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk with us. We would like to have the benefit of his statement." If the Duke were to travel to the U.S. to testify, Epstein's victim's lawyers could and serve him with either a subpoena (an order issued by a court that requires a person to appear in court and testify) or a lawsuit. The royal would most likely not be shielded by sovereign immunity. It appears Prince Andrew is playing a wait- ing game, any testimony Maxwell gives could possibly be incriminating forcing him to testify. Therefore, this leaves the case in the headlines and the Prince in the eye of the continuing media storm.

By Hattie Cosgrove

20

William The Conqueror: Taking Control of England

From the moment William the Conqueror came to power on the 25th December 1066, after having defeated King Harold in the Battle of Hastings, he was confronted with a need to consolidate his power and position within Britain as King. His battle was not yet won, he’d go on to be met with almost two decades of resistance and rebellion from dissatisfied English opposing his reign. However, William was insistent on the continuation of his authoritative tactics and over the coming years he’d implement revolutionary devices into Britain like the Feudal System and the Domesday Book to subdue England. The way in which he did this was undeniably brutal, the riots which ensued from his win would be met with unhesitant violence. The most notable of these riots being in the north of England in 1069 which sparked William’s destructive campaigns, known as The Harrying of the North. After William had defeated the rioters, he still lacked trust in the English people so in the north-east of England he commanded villages to be destroyed, people to be killed, herds of animals and crops were burnt and the majority of people who survived starved to death. Even in the context of that time, this act was seen as excessively cruel and unnecessary, but it did allow for William to take control of the north and minimise the risk of future rebellions and he now was really able to set about methodically implementing his systems.

William realised he himself couldn’t govern over the entirety of Britain so instead introduced Feudalism to England, a system already well established in Europe. This meant there was a hierarchy, at the top was the king and in return for loyalty and taxes he’d give land to the nobles, who would loan their land to the , who would lastly loan their property to the peasants who would work the lands. This allowed William to monitor Britain and eventually, the Normans had almost completely transformed the entire Anglo-Saxon aristocracy. As land was now being increasingly distributed, a new problem arose for William, tracking ownership of this land which led him to demand a survey be taken. 21

This survey led to the creation of the Domesday Book, created in 1086, which contained complete records of property ownership across Britain, in 13,418 settlements, so that William could assess the value of his country and find out how much in taxes he was owed, along with the written documentation to avoid disputes over this. Although William died before he could truly see the benefits of the book, William II had access to extensive knowledge of Britain, including owed taxes and noblemen with wealth that would potentially pose a threat to the throne. William had created a critical device in maintaining control over Britain.

Along with this attempt to dominate, William built a multitude of castles and reorganised the churches in Britain. William had his nobles build castles to defend themselves against the Saxons, more than 100 motte and bailey castles were built, and it’s said some were made in just 8 days, although exact numbers are unclear. These castles allowed to patrol over their local areas as well as acting as a physical sign of William’s constant dominance throughout Britain. William also showed his power through the reorganisation of the church, a very highly respected source of wisdom at the time, as he brought men from France to be bishops and abbots in order to replace any religious leaders who opposed him, he wanted to ensure he could trust his religious advisors. He also built great cathedrals and monasteries. So overall, although William the Conqueror could not speak English and was believed to be illiterate, he and the Normans undeniably transformed Britain: advancing building, enhancing administration, bringing success as warriors whilst overall establishing Britain more than ever before as a collective, coherent nation instead of various independent shires and under a united system of ruling that would remain prominent in Britain for many years to come.

By Amy French

22

Royal Dogs: The Queen’s Corgis

Did you know that the Queen has had at least 30 Corgis in her lifetime. It is thought her love for corgis stems from her childhood. When Elizabeth II and her sister Margaret were children they were each given their own dog that they were taught to look after and had the responsibility of grooming and feeding them.

However, her love for Corgis came about from her beloved Susan, who was a Corgi gifted to her on her 18th birthday. Elizabeth and Susan were extremely close and she even took Susan on her honeymoon back in 1947. They were inseparable and she was so devoted to her that she bred her in order to have her still with her when she sadly passed in 1959. To this day all 10 generations of Corgis the Queen has owned can be traced back to Susan!

The Queen has always had multiple Corgis after she found her love for them through Susan. But British tabloids reported in 2015 that the Queen had stopped breeding her Corgis as she was afraid they’d outlive her and she didn’t want to leave any Corgi behind. Therefore, she hasn’t owned a Corgi since her last, Willow, died in 2018.

By Ellie Colquhoun-Lynn 23

Meghan Markle and The British media

It is undeniable that Meghan Markle has had a tumultuous relationship with British media. Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, the Duchess and Duke of Sussex, left the British public stunned when they announced on January 8th 2020 that they were departing their position as senior members of the royal family. Arguably, one of the most significant changes they made was stating that they would no longer participate in the traditional royal press system that grants exclusive access to a select group of UK outlets, such as, the , the , The Telegraph, and , including many more. Their decision to remove themselves from “royal rota” coverage came after years of ‘tone-deaf’ press coverage and editing decisions that they feel have been biased, filled with favouritism, and callously aimed to turn public opinion against Meghan in particular.

Perhaps some of the most shocking and unfair press involving the Duchess of Sussex are the stories from these outlets that show a blatant double-standard between press coverage of Meghan and her sister-in-law Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge. For example:

Meghan Markle, a biracial woman, being disproportionately criticised for the very things that affluent, white Kate Middleton was praised and admired for shows the British media’s out-right prejudice, which is upsetting yet not surprising. 24

In 2016, Prince Harry put out a statement condemning “the outright sexism and racism of social media” and “the racial undertones of comment pieces” that Markle had already been subjected to. For example, the press has talked about her “exotic DNA”; describing her as “(almost) straight outta Compton”. However, commentators across the country seem to have conveniently missed all of this whilst claiming the coverage of Meghan has been welcoming and amiable, but when they are confronted with the evidence which proves this false, they shamelessly ask: Is it really racism though?

Some, like Piers Morgan, have fervently argued it is not racist to talk about the Duchess’s DNA as “exotic”, although this Piers Morgan is exactly the kind of blinding ignorance from the press that allows racism to operate in the UK, undermining the notion that our country is “tolerant” and “progressive”.

It is clear that a deciding factor in the couple’s exit from this poisonous limelight is due to the perceived racism that Meghan was unfortunately subject to leading us to question the apparent anti-racist country we live in.

By Emilia McMonagle

25

The overlooked triumphs of Queen consorts

Queen consorts (the term for wives of the reigning king) are often regarded as merely there to birth heirs and be the King’s devoted wife. However historically, many queen consorts have taken on responsibility and achieved feats within their own right. I will be highlighting just 3 of the many women who deserve more recognition for what they accomplished in a patriarchal society in which women were not seen as capable of leadership.

Eleanor of Aquitaine- was perhaps the most powerful woman in 12th-century Europe. She ruled as regent of England from 1154-63 whilst her husband Henry II was away in battle securing his French lands. When her son, Richard the Lionheart, was away crusading she became regent of England once more. A regent meant that Eleanor was simply appointed to temporarily rule until the ‘real’ monarchs returned. However, Eleanor went above what was expected of her and showed her capability as a leader when she settled disputes between religious figures and became a dominant figure at the great council meetings. Eleanor’s biggest achievement as regent was her reaction to the threat of John- her youngest son attempting to take the throne of Richard. Not only did Eleanor, now of 70 years old, stop him securing a French alliance with King Phillip, but she made battle preparations by fortifying the beaches in case of a French invasion. Although Eleanor never obtained the luxury of ruling alone as Elizabeth I and Victoria did, she essentially was a Queen in her own right regardless of her actual title.

Elizabeth of York-, through her sacrifice, managed to successfully end the civil war between the Houses of Lancaster and York that had divided England for 30 years in the 15th Century. She managed to unite both warring families when she married the Lancastrian Henry Tudor and set aside any future she may have been expecting to become the first Tudor Queen. It was solely down to Elizabeth that normality could be restored to England as she became the mother of the new Tudor . Her devotion to her family far exceeded the expectations of a when she taught a young Henry VIII personally. Furthermore, being charitable was a part of a queen consort’s job but she made it her passion to help the very needy. It’s said no one left the queen’s audience without some financial compensation- despite her being in debt due to her husband controlling her finances very closely. 26

Philippa of Hainault - was a capable regent when her husband was away warring in 1346. She was not just Edward III’s spouse; she was an advisor and a trusted co-ruler. Unconventionally for a Queen consort, she accompanied Edward on his expeditions to Scotland and the European continent in his early campaigns of the Hundred Years War. When King David II of Scotland (aided by the French) attempted to invade England in Edward’s absence, the queen summoned the troops and personally rallied the English soldiers before the battle of Neville’s Cross, which led to an English victory. She was also known for her kindness and restraint, frequently pleading for the lives of those who had been sentenced to die. Her most famous example of her kindness is when she convinced her husband to spare the lives of the Burghers of Calais in 1347. Despite being pregnant, she begged on her knees for him to spare the men. Without Philippa’s constant input on Edward’s snap judgments, he would have probably been remembered more for brutality than kingship. Furthermore, an example of the queen's intelligence is that The Queen’s College in the University of Oxford was founded by one of her chaplains in honour of Phillipa due to her dedication to education.

By Jess Salmon Fun Fact: Only 31 countries have some sort of monarchy today.

27 James II

Background-

James II was born on 14 October 1633 and died 16 September 1701. His parents were King Charles I of England and of France. He was the last Catholic King and the last Stuart King in the direct line. He inherited the throne in 1685 from his elder brother Charles II. James II had two daughters with his first wife , Mary II (who was married to William of Orange) and Anne who both went on to be Queen. He then had a son, James Edward, with his second wife Mary of Moderna.

Reign-

On April 23, 1685, James was crowned at Westminster Abbey and took the name of James II as King of England and Ireland, and of James VII as King of Scotland. In May, the new Parliament proved favourable to the sovereign and assigned the same income as his predecessor. The Kings most trusted advisor was the of Sunderland. He soon faced a rebellion known as the Monmouth rebellion, it was led by James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, the illegitimate son of Charles II, and Archibald Campbell, the Count of Argyll. The attack was divided; Argyll acted in Scotland and Monmouth acted in London. Argyll and Monmouth were both defeated by James II and both of them were sentenced to death. The 1688

James II converted to Roman Catholicism before inheriting the throne and his placement of Catholic allies in high positions in the court and army coupled with the birth of his catholic son, alarmed the Anglican establishment. They decided to invite the Protestant William of Orange and his wife, James' daughter Mary II, to invade and depose him. They were successful in removing him from the throne and the revolution resulted in Parliament being permanently established as the ruling power of England.

By Bella Charlton 28

The Commonwealth - A Relic of Imperialism or A Harmonious Family of Nations?

The final lines of Percy Shelley’s great sonnet “My name is Ozymandias, ‘Ozymandias’ teach us that civilisation is a fragile King of Kings; and brittle thing and, though however strong and omnipotent it may seem, it can easily fall and sink Look on my Works, ye into the endless barrens of time, leaving only its Mighty, and despair! desolated edifices behind. Nothing beside remains. Round the decay The British Empire was the largest empire this world has ever seen. It far surpassed the great Of that colossal Wreck, Roman Empire and fierce Mongol Empire; it was a boundless and bare towering entity which oversaw some great victories, The lone and level sands but at the terrible cost of millions of lives. But now, stretch far away.” much like our dear friend Ozymandias, it seems a relic of past times and is scarcely talked about. We can say with some certainty that it took its last dying breath some decades ago and is now resting peacefully in the pages of history. However, some may argue that it still lives on in some pseudo-imperialist form, this form being the Commonwealth. One might argue that the Commonwealth is, metaphorically, the statue of Ozymandias and serves only as a crumbling relic of the past. Whilst others may disagree stating that the Commonwealth is a unifying community of nations working together for ‘prosperity, democracy and peace’. It is certainly a complicated and multifaceted issue, and if we wish to understand it, we must

The Commonwealth began in 1887 when all the leaders of the dominions of the British Empire (dominion meaning a semi-independent country but still largely controlled by Britain) met and held their first meeting. Four decades later at their meeting in 1926 they agreed that they were all equal members of a community within the British Empire. They all owed allegiance to the British king or queen, but the United Kingdom did not rule over them. This community was called the British Commonwealth of Nations. Following a couple of developments, most notably the creation of the Republic of India in 1950, they dropped the ‘British’ and the ‘Commonwealth’ was born. Only a couple years into this new birth it seemed in danger of becoming irrelevant, with the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis and Britain having significantly more involvement with Europe, the commonwealth was starved on attention. In addition to this one of the key parts and attractions of the Commonwealth was the freedom members had to immigrate between countries, this was soon heavily restricted, and many were quickly realizing that they had been, as the director for the Institute of Commonwealth Studies Professor Phillip Murphy writes, “robbed of the tangible benefits that Commonwealth membership had previously been associated with it’’. This, though, was soon saved by a heroic and inspiring crusade in the 1970’s to help put a stop to the vicious South African Apartheid Movement, which re-established the Commonwealth as this charismatic and progressive political force. 29

However, one could argue that the Commonwealth is the statue of Ozymandias and but a derelict artefact of past times. The Commonwealth was founded by ‘dominions’ of the empire, the head of the Commonwealth is Queen Elizabeth of , and historically it was an outgrowth of the British Empire. There are perfect grounds to argue that the Commonwealth is but a pseudo-empire, masking itself in the façade of being a ‘community’.

But in reality and on closer inspection, although it had its roots in colonialism it has far transcended them, I believe it is a wonderful force for good in the world and it represents a family of nations striving for ‘prosperity, democracy and peace’. I’m sure that the Empire’s Ozymandias is still standing half sunken in the barrens of some desolate waste land, and I can say with some certainty that it is not the Commonwealth.

By Jay Palombella

30

Queen Elizabeth II: Is She Truly The “Ultimate Feminist” ?

Not only is Queen Elizabeth II the most powerful woman in Britain, but she is also one of the most inspiring women in the world. Her reign has outlasted all other British monarchs, as well as most other world leaders. On September 9th, 2015, Queen Elizabeth surpassed Victoria’s record reign of 63 years and 216 days. She is often described as a ‘feminist icon’ by many. In order to consider her as such, we must first consider what it means to be a feminist. A feminist is a person who supports the social, economic, and political equality of sexes. The question is: can she be considered a feminist purely based on the title she holds? Or is it her actions and beliefs that define her as such?

Now, if we are to judge her role as a feminist based on her political position, then we should consider the fact that the crown also makes her a symbol of inequality. The British monarchy, historically, is responsible for countless acts of oppression. It is more important to give weight to the actions and beliefs of Queen Elizabeth, rather than her title. When Princess Elizabeth, as she was at the time, turned 18 in 1944, she insisted upon joining the Army, where she trained as a truck driver and mechanic. It is important to note that she remains the only female member of the royal family to have served in the Army. Politically, her actions as monarch have been described as ‘sneakily feminist’. Though this could be an indication of a lack of action, it could also be seen as highlighting the difficulties she may have faced when trying to make progress. In 2011, the Queen oversaw a major change to succession laws as agreed by the leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries that meant sons and daughters of any future British monarch would have equal rights to the throne.

31

At the time, Prince William had recently married Catherine. This change would have meant that their firstborn child would still be third in the line of succession to the British throne, regardless of gender. In terms of social impact, Queen Elizabeth II has had an astounding impact on female empowerment: the queen has landed in the top five Most Admired Women more than 50 times since Gallup started their annual survey in 1948. Most notably, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia visited her in Balmoral, the Queen insisted on giving him a tour in her Land Rover. Up until 2018, it was illegal for women to drive in Saudi Arabia, making this interaction quite the power move.

All things considered, I would argue that, although Queen Elizabeth II most definitely has the key attributes of a feminist, she may not be deserving of the title “the ultimate feminist”. Undoubtedly, she is a symbol of female power, proving that a woman can effectively rule at a time when it was practically unheard of. However, I would hesitate to call her much more than a figurehead. In my opinion, the “ultimate feminist” would be someone who actively advocates for equal rights. Considering her political position, the Queen has had the power to make great progress for 68 crucial years, yet she seems to have achieved so little.

By Sacha Jones

Fun Fact: Buckingham Palace was built in 1703 as Buckingham House, it was bought by George III for Queen Charlotte.

32

Edward and Mrs Simpson: The Scandals

Edward VIII, Prince of Wales and eldest son of George V & Queen Mary, was the first monarch in British history to voluntarily abdicate from the throne. The reason? Love. Wallis Simpson, an American Socialite, is responsible for one of the biggest scandals in the . But this scandal erupted a whole new speculation.

In 1936, after the death of his father, Edward VIII became the King of England. 5 years before he was King, Edward had fallen in love with an American woman who was formerly divorced and currently married. During the 5 years leading up to the moment he would be named king, their relationship grew, and she became the woman he wanted to marry. A previously divorced American woman in the royal family would’ve put their image, and the image of the UK, in ruins. Therefore, Edward, desperate to follow his heart, was blocked by the demands of the sovereignty and therefore could not pursue his interest in Mrs. Simpson anymore. Or, could he?

Edward and Wallis had the intent on getting married, but like all royal marriages, the King or Queen had to approve. With this duty now in his hands, Edward had to choose between his family or his love. Edward was a King that had great respect from the public. His affair with Mrs. Simpson was reported in American and continental European newspapers, but due to a gentlemen’s agreement between the British press and the government, the affair was kept out of British newspapers. Not only did his decision have impact on his life and the royal family, but it also impacted the image of Britain.

On October 27th, 1936, Mrs. Simpson obtained a preliminary decree of divorce, presumably with the intent of marrying the king, which provoked a major scandal. Debates amongst MPs and official representative of the Church of England became increasingly intense as it became more and more likely that Edward would marry Mrs Simpson. The country was in a state of disagreement. Should he be given the freedom to do what he wants? Or should he respect the policies of the crown? After numerous attempts of persuasion from British Politicians, Edward still had the intention to marry Mrs. Simpson. Edward suggested that their marriage could be morganatic, meaning she wouldn’t be given any titles or property. On December 2nd, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin disapproved this and stated that it would be impractical. With his desire to be married stronger than his need to be King, Edward announced his abdication via a radio broadcast on December 10th. The throne was therefore passed on to his brother, George VI. 33 Listen to his abdication speech here https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/december/ edward-viii-abdication-speech

The Aftermath of the Abdication

Edwards title of “Prince of Wales” was removed and he was instead given the title, “Duke of Windsor”. And on June 3rd, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were married in Mont’s, France, by a Church of England clergyman, with zero royal family members present. The absence of the royals made it clear to the public that they had been declared outcasts. The life of the Duke of Windsor was targeted by all major tabloids, his abdication threw him into the limelight. But not only did the British do this, some Germans did too. The abdication scandal

occurred during the growing speculation that World War II was inevitable. The Duke and Duchess were heavily criticised by the papers after their marriage due to a tour of continental Europe. Edward and Wallis made some acquaintances that did hold the same British values a member of the Royal family was expected to rely on, the Nazis.

The British Royal Family are descended from Germany, it was during WWI when they changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to “Windsor”. Unlike the rest of the royals, Edward had a strong relationship with his cousins from the East, therefore he strongly embraced the German culture. When Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party began its rise to power in the late 1920s and early 1930s, many in Europe, Edward included, applauded the economic recovery of war-torn Germany. Edward, and many hierarchal powers in the government, were becoming more open to the idea of fascism. Edward himself once told his German cousin, “Dictators are very popular these days. We might want one in England before long.”

Edwards support for British fascists, such as MP Sir Oswald Mosely, and the new German sentiment, made him a target for the British intelligence organisation, MI5. Their phones were tapped, and members of their Scotland Yard security team were tapped to provide information about the king they were once charged with protecting. Edward had been seen with members of the Nazi party, including Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Göring, on numerous occasions. He even visited Hitler himself in the Bavarian Alps, however the transcript of their conversation was lost. Edwards relationship with them was so prominent, they involved him in the scandal, that did not occur, of overthrowing the British throne. 34

Edwards relationship with the far-right German group may have proven to the royal family, and the public who once held great admiration for him, that his abdication was the best thing for the country. Did this relationship bloom because he was shunned out of the family? His memoirs describe Hitler as a “somewhat ridiculous figure” but others have claimed he has referred to Hitler as “not such a bad chap”. What were Edwards true beliefs on Hitler? Edward was involved in some of the biggest scandals of the Royals. It makes you wonder, what would life be like today if Edward didn’t abdicate for the woman he loved?

That is something we will never know.

Charlotte Wood Fun Fact: There have been 61 monarchs of England, but only 12 of the UK since it formed in 1707.

35

Diana : The People’s Princess

Princess Diana was by no doubt one of the most popular members of the royal family , being dubbed the ‘People’s Princess’ by the nation for her efforts into humanitarian work , showing her support for the homeless, disabled and AIDS patients; being part of 100 different organizations to provide relief for many. One of the main contributions to being loved by the public was how despite being a Princess in one of the most prestigious families in the world , she remained like a ‘normal’ person, openly expressing her opinions and talking about her own mental health struggles, including bulimia, where normally this would be considered quite a taboo topic. This openness about mental illness caused the press to name it the ‘Diana Effect’ –so the shift in public awareness about these topics by Diana meant that women found it easier to identify with Diana, if a Princess in the royal family could be bulimic then so could they, likewise if Diana overcame her eating disorder, so could they. This created a positive domino effect in society as it seemed to destigmatize the previously frowned upon mental conditions.

So if Diana had such a positive input on people, why was it that she was treated as an outcast in her own family?

In the years leading up to her fatal car crash in Paris, 1997 , Diana was becoming increasingly distant and disapproving by the royal family with almost every newspaper headline being centred on her, the press seemed to take note of her every move with Diana describing herself as a ‘good product that sits on a shelf , you sell well , and people make a lot of money out of you’ , on multiple occasions she expressed how exhausted she was becoming.

36

Diana was likely disliked for her consistent disregard of royal protocol , her most famous rebel being the outfit she wore in the light of Prince Charles’ infidelity which massively broke royal dress code. This defiance drove her closer to the public eye but further from her own family and husband. Queen Elizabeth never openly criticized Diana , yet made it quite clear that she was very disapproving of her ‘unprofessional’ behaviour, surprisingly the Queen being the one who ordered for a formal divorce between Charles and Diana rather than continuing their married separation which shocked many as divorces in the royal family aren’t a typically approved thing.

Ultimately , the life and death of Diana will probably always remain somewhat of a mystery , from what made Charles cheat on her to what really happened at her death. Yes , it was a fatal car accident but many conspiracies point to it being more than just an accident, it’s likely that we’ll never know. For now , we have the legacy of Diana’s time as Princess through her children , Prince Harry and William who are constantly making efforts to support the same causes that their mother did, from Mental Health to global issues ; starvation , outbreaks and water shortages in suffering countries etc…

By Poppy Harris

37 King Charles I

Date of birth: King Charles I was born on November 19 1600.

Religion: Protestant

Parents: James VI Of Scotland and

Year he got the throne: 1625

Charles I was married to a Catholic which made his subjects suspicious and Puritans worried that his wife may influence his decisions to do with religion. Between 1625 and 1629, Charles dissolved Parliament three times. King Charles believed he had a ‘God given right’ to rule – he was an absolutist monarch. Charles was becoming increasingly unpopular.

King Charles I attempted to force a new prayer book on Scotland but they refused so Charles recalled Parliament for money to fight them. In November 1641, tensions were raised further with disagreements over who should command an army to suppress an uprising in Ireland. Charles then marched into Parliament with troops and attempted to arrest five MPs who criticised him. But Parliament had helped them to flee. In August 1642, Charles I raised the royal standard at Nottingham and the English Civil War began.

The Royalists (Charles) lost to the Parliamentarians due to Parliament’s improved New Model Army. The king’s army lost and he fled to the Isle of Wight in 1647. After the ‘Second Civil War,’ which Parliament won again, Charles was put on trial for treason. He was found guilty and executed on 30 January 1649 outside the Banqueting House on Whitehall, London.

By Jake Sands

38 Queen Anne

A Queen being outed as gay by a circulating gossip magazine not only sounds rather futuristic considering Queen Elizabeth has, of yet, shown no interest in women but also incredibly far- fetched.

Thus far the general consensus is that the main royal family has forever been straight.

Despite this, I present to you Queen Anne.

A powerful woman, she ruled from 1702-1714 as the last of the Stuart monarchs. Not only did she achieve the union of England and Scotland but she brought the war of the Spanish Succession to a conclusion. Clearly, she was an incredibly influential and formidable woman and yet her part in history is often ignored.

Throughout her reign Queen Anne was plagued by rumours of her homosexuality despite her marriage to Prince George of Denmark. The subject of a multitude of gossip magazines the Queen was continually undermined by the relationship she had with her female ‘favourites’. Because of this, most historians today (such as Chloe Foussianes) would define Queen Anne as gay.

A broad term not meant to confine the Queen however it appears inevitably true and this may be the reason from her apparent erasure from mainstream history despite the teaching of other, arguably more irrelevant, royal figures.

Queen Anne’s ‘favourites’ sparked as much controversy at the time as they do between historians in modern day society. One controversial ‘favourite’ was Sarah Churchill. The Queen and Sarah had been friends since childhood and when Anne ascended the throne their bond only strengthened. Rumours began circulating when the two felt that the status gap between them was at risk of driving them apart. To combat this the donned the nicknames Mrs Morley (Anne) and Mrs Freeman (Sarah). This immediately raised suspicion in wider society as it was not the custom for female friends to be quite so close.

39

Due to Anne’s close patronage Sarah Churchill and her husband were rapidly promoted through the royal court and emerged as Duke and Duchess of Marlborough meaning the two women were now even close – not only in status but within their relationship. Sarah was also awarded the highest positions available to women in the court such as and keeper of the privy purse meaning she effectively controlled the Queen’s estate and wealth.

Letters between the women also suggested they shared a sexual relationship with direct quotes such as ‘Oh come to me as soon as you can so that I may cleave myself to you’ or simply the two of them begging for moments alone. Their correspondences appear to make no attempt to disguise their relationship and it was this opaqueness of their passion that scandalised court.

Whilst the relationship may not have been as pure as love due to Sarah’s manipulative nature coming to light when she continually attempted to take advantage of the impressionable Queen and influence the decisions she made so that Sarah may further climb society’s ladder (this eventually soured the two women’s relationship) it is clear the two did have a relationship. At the very least Anne was proven to be consistently infatuated with women since childhood, openly admitting having a crush on a court lady named Frances as a young girl.

With such proof of Queen Anne being gay why is it not more widely talked about regarding British history?

Many credit this apparent erasure from history as an attempted cover up of homosexuality in the royal family whilst others argue that such speculation was feared during the time period and so vehemently denied for centuries.

Either way the topic of a gay Queen should not be so taboo that we cannot continue this debate in classrooms and in wider society.

Let us not erase homosexuality from history.

By Emma Parkinson

40 Bloody Mary – England’s First Queen

Queen Mary I, famously known as Bloody Mary, has been remembered in history as a failure of a monarch and an extremist due to the almost 300 heretics (people that went against the Catholic Church) she burnt at the stake.

Even in the 16th century, burning almost 300 people was seen as excessive, but Mary was not the only extreme Catholic at the time. Her maternal grandmother, Queen Isabella Of Spain, started the Spanish Inquisition – a Roman Catholic institution notorious for its torture of those accused of heresy. Her father, Henry VIII, was named ‘Defender of the (Catholic) Faith’ by the Pope for his criticism of the religious reformer Martin Luther. Ironically, Henry then changed the religion in England to Martin Luther’s Protestantism in order to divorce Mary’s mother Catherine Of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn. However, the Protestant faith was only enforced in the six-year reign of Mary’s brother Edward VI.

It is important to note that Catholicism had been the main faith in England for over a thousand years whilst Protestantism had only been there for twenty and only enforced for six at the time when Mary took the throne. So, Mary would have seen it as her God-given duty to restore England to, what she considered to be, the true faith. Whilst execution by burning seems drastic, Pope Gregory IX ordered that all convicted heretics and witches were to be burnt.

Her road to becoming England’s first Queen was not easy. At age 17, she went from being the heir to being illegitimated after her parents’ divorce. After the death of her brother, she was passed over again in favour of her Protestant cousin Lady Jane Grey. After only nine days and with the population of England behind her, Mary was crowned and the 15-year-old Jane was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

41

Unfortunately for Queen Mary, her reign did not go as smoothly as she would have hoped. After her marriage to fellow Catholic, King Phillip Of Spain, a group of lords rebelled against the new queen in order to replace her with Lady Jane Grey, or Mary’s sister Princess Elizabeth. The rebellion was quickly quelled and the leaders were executed. Mary was reluctant to order the death of her young cousin, but after the plot to replace her, Mary’s hand was forced and Jane was beheaded. Fearing other rebellions, Mary imprisoned her sister to stop Protestant lords backing her instead. After a short time in captivity, Elizabeth was released and placed under house arrest.

Fun Fact: Charles I is the only English Monarch ever to be executed. He was beheaded on January 30th, 1649.

Mary’s private life was not happy either. Her father had prevented her from being married in his lifetime so she was unable to wed until after his death and until she was crowned queen. She was therefore only married at age 38, a relatively old age for the times, and when her childbearing years were behind her. Even when she had a husband, she was unable to get pregnant as King Phillip spent most of his time in Spain and she stayed in England.

After only a five-year reign, Mary died with no heir and her attempts to change the religion back to Catholicism failed. Mary’s Protestant sister Elizabeth inherited the throne and Protestantism has been the main religion in England ever since. It has also been written into British law that no Catholic can be monarch or consort.

By Amy Deeks

42

Queen Elizabeth I: The funding behind the slave trade

It is no secret that the history of the British royal family is heavily intertwined with slavery.

It was disgraceful enough for the Church of England to have played an abominable role in the African slave trade - including bishops who owned slaves but made worse with the realisation that the then reigning monarch herself, had a significant involvement in the horrifying trade.

The slave-trading initiatives endorsed by the English monarchy set about with Queen Elizabeth I’s fervent support and sponsoring, of pirate John Hawkins’ slave trading expeditions in the 1560s.

Hawkins departed on three separate voyages, passionately supported, and funded, by government officials, London merchants, and the Queen. He raided African settlements on the West Elizabeth I African coast and seized hundreds of enslaved captives from Portuguese ships, then sold his ‘cargo’ of African captives in the Spanish Caribbean.

Pirate John Hawkins was not the first Englishman to trade slaves, but he was the first to run the triangular trade from Africa to America and back to John Hawkins England, profiting from every stop.

For over 150 years the British Royal Family not only shamelessly monopolised the slave trade, but awarded other prominent figures for their contribution, evident when after Hawkins’s profitable second voyage Queen Elizabeth I honoured him with a coat of arms and crest featuring a nude African bound with rope.

Undeniably, The British Royal Family including Queen Elizabeth I, blatantly exploited the Atlantic slave trade, and to this day, people still call for a sincere apology from the Royal Family and reparations for their ancestors’ torturous injustice, caused by the careless and callous acts of the British monarchy.

By Emilia McMonagle 43

William I

Other names– William – Duke of Normandy, William the conqueror, William I of England. Born - in Normandy France 1028 Died – in Normandy France 1087 How did he become king of England ?– by winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066 Achievements – Winning the battle of Hastings, conquering England, introducing the Feudal system and Domesday system into England, defeating rebellions and building castles. Interesting facts about William – Even when he was king of England, he spent most of his time in Normandy. He rode into battle riding a black stallion that had been given to him by the king of Spain and after the battle, after he had punished all rebels, he rewarded people for their loyalty. Successor – His son William (William II)

By Annie Martin

Fun Fact: King Henry VI was only 9 months old when he inherited the throne in 1422. He is the youngest British monarch in history.

Mary Queen of Scots

Mary was born on the 8th December She was Queen 1542 and died on the 8th February from 1543 to 1567 1587. and her mother was French. She was 6 days old when Mary was King James V’s she became Queen Of only child. Mary was found Scotland. She was involved in a plot guilty of treason in 1587 and was Francis, King of France, to kill Elizabeth and take executed. Danley and the the throne for herself. of Barthwell were all She had three terrible marriages and people married to Mary. even suspected she murdered her second husband, Lord Darnley. By Tom Matthews 44 Royal Family- Is their time up?

When I was asked about a month ago to write this article, my views on royalty were that it was an archaic, now useless entity which seemed to- in some ghastly sadistic way- glorify our horrific, imperialist past. Furthermore, I viewed the Crown as a symbol of oppression and elitism, a clear portrait of the disparity between the rich and the poor in Britain today. But have I changed my seemingly ‘republican’ views? And is the Royal Family’s time

Firstly, let it be known that I am no means a modern-day counterpart of Robespierre, nor a Prince Charlie fanboy. No, my views on monarchy have not and I don’t think will ever be that extreme, but nonetheless my opinions on them are continually stained by a mark which will be very hard to remove.

The Royal Family, especially in Britain, is regarded by most people as a symbol of unity and pride. We observe their many weddings and jubilees with wide eyes, as the golden carriages glide along The Mall, and princes wave whilst dressed in flamboyant attire adorned with military paraphernalia. At these moments I believe it is very hard not to feel an ounce of pride or respect, not only for the Royal Family, but for the nation they serve, it would seem that during these blissful moments our country seems unified and any struggles vanish, albeit for a few hours.

Perhaps a perfect example of this would be the 1981 Royal Wedding of Charles and Dianna, this was in the wake of the new Conservative, Thatcher government. Strikes, austerity and record levels of unemployment casted a dark shadow over Britain in that year- and indeed many more to come- but this wedding did something remark- able. In the middle of unspeakable poverty and depression, the opulence and the glamour of the wedding far from annoyed people or forced them into a jealous rage, it seemed to, just for a few short days, unite the country as one. We basked in glamour and imperial magnificence the wedding had created; it brought together a torn country, and to many it reminded them- just for a moment- of the Britain they had one served, when it was mighty empire and world superpower.

45 The power the Crown has to unite the country is still visible in the weddings of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan, and in this respect, it is a great force for good. The family, the decorations and the traditions all embody a sense of unity and patriotism- I have no grievances with any of these and I believe they benefit Britain not only domestically, but in terms of foreign relations as well. However, there is one aspect of the monarchy that still prevents me feeling wholly good sentiments, and this is the dark history the Crown has been involved in.

I believe that the British monarchy today is so shrouded in deep history, admiration and respect, that we are to afraid to look at it in a raw and more realistic way. Therefore, I am going to attempt to do it, imagine this: a country which has indulged in the destruction, cultural and religious appropriation, militarisation, economic and material theft, and vicious murder of over quarter of the globe and has been doing so for the last 500 years. Now imagine that the rulers of this ‘nation’ came from a long line of inheritance and vast wealth (the wealth obviously gained from their various exploits around the world), each child richer than the last, a long family tree overflowing avarice and greed, whilst their ‘subjects’ lived in vile, indescribable poverty and died of various diseases and illness. If you cannot tell I am talking about the horrific and disgusting history of the British Empire. Like any historian would know successful Empires can only be created off exploitation and enormous amounts of control, and it is safe to say that the British Empire triumphed in this respect. It was the largest Empire the world had, and will, ever see and was controlled by the very same family that ‘rule’ the country today.

Now, many of you may argue that the empire is a thing from bygone era. It is history and is no longer relevant today. And to you I say no, the Queen still occupies the role of Head of State in 16 of the previous colonies, the world’s once largest diamond- Koh-I-Noor Diamond- which is estimated to be worth over $10 Billion, was originally stolen by the British in their dominion of South Africa and the Crown still refuses to give it back. The Queen still owns over 30 palaces in Britain and the Crown’s net worth is currently over $80 billion. So as a historian, and moral person I cannot fathom the elements of destruction and agony the Crown enforced in its history and for this reason I can’t ever fully support the Crown until they stop preserving and blatantly show-off these stolen artefacts in museums and palaces, and until publicly apologise for the disgusting displays of inhumanity of their recent ancestors.

In conclusion, though now I am aware of the unifying impact the Crown has on Britain and the positive effects it has domestically, I personally cannot fully support the British Royal Family on account of their ugly and barbaric history worldwide and their shocking lack of repentance for it.

By Jay Palombella 46 Recommendations

Here we have some of our recommendations for films, TV shows, books, podcasts, and videos around the topic of the Royal Family for you to check out to learn more about it. If you have any you would add to the list, please get in contact with us and we can put it on our website on the Recommendations page.

Videos

Horrible Histories – The Monarchs song

Horrible Histories – Terrifying Tudors

Fun fact: Queen Elizabeth II served during WWII as a mechanic.

47

Films and TV - by Poppy Harris

48

49

Books and Podcasts - by Gemma Jackson

Book:

By Carolyn Durand and Omid Scobie

50

History Extra Podcast The latest news from the team behind the BBC History Magazine, hosted by Rob Attar. This covers many aspects of history, including some more recent, political discussions www.historyextra.com

Episodes linked to this magazine issue: Convert Catholicism in Elizabethan England – 30th December 2020 Historian Jessie Childs tells the story of Thomas Tresham, who was set against the Virgin Queen due to his religion. He built a remarkable secret monument to his faith, and risked facing the wrath of Queen Elizabeth. https://play.acast.com/s/historyextra/editor-spick-covertcatholicisminelizabethanengland

Thomas Becket: from murder to martyrdom – 29th December 2020 Eight hundred and fifty years before this episode was released, the archbishop of Canterbury, was brutally murdered in his own cathedral, by four knights acting on what they took to be a command from King Henry II. This was ambiguous. Dr Emily Guerry explained what subsequently followed this, and why a cult immediately sprang up around Beckett. https://play.acast.com/s/historyextra/thomasbecket-frommurdertomartyrdom

Magna Carta: everything you wanted to know – 13th December 2020 Professor David Carpenter responds to listener questions on the medieval charter and its 800-year- long legacy. He discusses King John, and the impact the Magna Carta had on medieval England after being signed in 1215. https://play.acast.com/s/historyextra/magnacarta-everythingyouwantedtoknow

Imperialism on the oceans – 9th December 2020 Professor Sujit Sivasundaram discusses his book ‘Waves Across the South: A New History Revolution and Empire’ which rewrites the story of the British empire’s expansion across the Indian and Pacific Oceans, putting indigenous experiences front and centre. https://play.acast.com/s/historyextra/imperialismontheoceans

Tudor Queens on Screen – 24th October 2020 Eleana Woodacre delivers a lecture on the portrayal of historical queens in cinema and television, from Mary Queen of Scots to The Spanish Princess. https://play.acast.com/s/historyextra/tudorqueensonscreen

51

The Interview: Dr Sharkey

Interview by Lauren Cliffe

What is your opinion on the Royal Family? “I think the Royal Family are an archaic institution. They perpetuate the idea that, in the UK, what matters most is who your family is. If we want to hold ourselves up as a meritocracy, a society in which hard work is rewarded (with those who work the hardest being rewarded the most) then why do we have this utterly bizarre system where those at the top of the class system are there in virtue of who their parents are? I think this message (of family-based elitism) is classist (some people are just better than you, in virtue of their birth) and potentially racist (those who are better are those who have a certain genetic lineage). Further, it is fundamentally unfair. The Royal Family have accumulated enormous, self-perpetuating, wealth as a consequence of the power some distant relative illegitimately obtained for them. I find it offensive that the taxpayer funds the Royal Family; some of which goes towards the upkeep of the wealthiest people in our country. I do noy buy the argument that the Royal family are responsible for bringing in significant amounts of money in tourism. I have three arguments against this view: a) There are tourists in parts of the UK where the Royal Family are not present, for example, Edinburgh (the greatest city in the world) obtains vast amounts of money from the tourist trade that has absolutely no relation to the Royal Family. B) There are next-to-no tourists where the Royal Family (sometimes) are. For example, the Royal Family have a home in the north of Scotland (Balmoral Castle) – Balmoral (near Braemar) has basically no tourist industry. I think these two factors are sufficient to show that the Royal Family are not a necessary feature for tourists. HOWEVER, I would add c) France have loads of tourists and loads of tourists visit their fancy palaces and they haven’t had a Royal Family for decades. If we get rid of the Royal Family, we’d still have these publicly owned and utilise them for the (exclusive) public good. If it were up to me, I’d turn them all into an Aldi. In short, I think the Royal Family send out a harmful message to the UK (what matters is your family name, not how hard you work). I think they personify and perpetuate an abhorrent class system based on heredity and exclusion. I think they have no obvious benefit (economic or otherwise). I think they are undemocratic.” 52

Do you think it’s important for the Royal Family to move towards a more modern system as our society has moved on? “I think the Royal Family are inherently traditionalist. They could modernise only if they abdicated and dissolved themselves (as an institution, not literally). They are irreparably reactionary force in the UK, and they are the very brake on social progress. People often see their role as being counter-modernisation, as defenders of tradition, and therefore, people see the Royal Family as a public good. I’d like to remind people that we have abolished other traditions; for example, we have a tradition of disenfranchising women, demonising LGBT+ people, slavery, child labour and incest in the Royal Family. Because something is traditional does not make it good.”

Do you think the idea of a monarch is outdated? “I do think the idea of the monarchy is outdated. Perhaps, I’d even argue that there was never a time when the monarchy was appropriate. I do not know a single question that has ‘the monarchy as a good answer, other than ‘name a stupid system’… I’m being polemical, but I really dislike the monarchy.”

These are the opinions of Dr Sharkey, do you agree with him?

53

This Month in History: Royal Events in February

February 2, 1901 – The state funeral of Queen Victoria took place at Windsor, after she died on the 22nd January after 63 years on the throne. Victoria left strict instructions regarding the service and associated ceremonies and instituted a number of changes, several of which set a precedent for state (and indeed ceremonial) funerals that have taken place since. February 6, 1952 – Queen Elizabeth II acceded to the throne while visiting Kenya, after her father George VI died. Princess Elizabeth heard the news of her father's death while staying at Treetops, a Game Lodge, in Kenya. Princess Elizabeth, now Queen Elizabeth II, and The Duke of Edinburgh returned home to England on 7th February. February 8, 1587 - Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was beheaded at Fotheringhay, England, after 19 years as a prisoner of Queen Elizabeth I. She became entangled in the complex political events surrounding the Protestant Reformation in England and was charged with complicity in a plot to assassinate Elizabeth. February 12, 1554- Lady Jane Grey, Queen of England for only nine days, was executed at age 16. It was Mary I who had her killed because she felt Jane could cause an uprising with the Protestants, even though Jane was completely innocent. February 13, 1542 – Catherine Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII, was executed for adultery. They were only married for a year from 1540-41. February 25, 1570 – Pope Pius V excommunicated the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I. He declared her a heretic and released Catholics from any loyalty to Elizabeth and called upon them to remove her from the throne. The Pope was trying to capitalise on the discontent caused by the arrival of Mary, Queen of Scots in England, as well as the recent rebellion of the Northern .

By George Pitcher

54

The Quiz

How much have you remembered?

1.Who is Henry VIII’s fifth wife?

2.Which Royal has competed in Wimbledon?

3.How many Corgis has the Queen owned in her lifetime?

4.Who was married to Edward III?

5.When did James II inherit the throne?

6.What year did Princess Diana die?

7.What is a heretic?

8.What is William I more commonly known as?

9.What date did Harry & Meghan announce they were stepping down as Senior Royals?

10.How many years ago was Queen Victoria’s funeral?

55