alt.politics.british, uk.politics.misc, uk.legal, alt.politics.usa.republican, uk.politics.parliament, alt.journalism.newspapers, soc.culture.british

Wotan wrote:
> HAPPY ST. GEORGE'S DAY EVERYBODY.
>
> IN THESE TIMES ENGLAND IS UNDER ATTACK
> FROM MANY ENEMIES, FROM WITHOUT, BUT
> EVEN MORE SO FROM WITHIN.
>
> THE TOAST TODAY IS:
>
> "TO ENGLAND'S TRIUMPH"
>
> PLEASE RELAY.

Every war brings something into the country that is to be regretted. WWII brought chewing gum, WWI brought the widespread habit of smoking, the Crimean war brought some dodgy knitwear and the Crusades brought a silly foreign flag, a silly lion emblem (when was the last time you saw a lion in England, let alone three?) and a foreign saint whose claim to fame has been lost in the mists of time.

I don't need symbols to feel proud of England. I don't need crosses, or saints or kings or gods or anything of the sort. I'm comfortable with who I am, I don't need myths to prop up my identity.

--
Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

When you think about it, considering the number of people who could read and write, let alone have travelled to Africa one wonders what they actually made of it at the time. Vague stories handed down by word of mouth about a pussy cat big enough to bite your head off?

Who'd believe that? Must have been in the same league as sea serpents.

DG

There were lions in the bible, so we must assume that man's quest to annihilate all forms of wildlife hadn't at that time eliminated lions from the unholy land.

Apparently there were some Panthera leo spelaea in Ice Age England, but before there were Englishmen, so it doesn't really count.

The first lions in English heraldry came with the frenchified Viking William of Normandy. Before that English kings had dragons and martlets on their standards.

The "Gules three lions passant guardant or" that we associate with England now come from the homosexual Frenchman Richard I, a git who spent a grand total of six months in this land raising a tax to fight an unnecessary middle eastern war, after his genocidal exploits in the unholy land which were of such horror that children of the Levant are scared to sleep with his memory to this day. The price of releasing this nutter from the clutches of an Austrian who captured him coming home from the crusades was 150,000 marks, three tons of silver, or three year's GDP of the nation at the time. And how does this nation remember him? By casting a Scot to play him in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. Fucking marvellous, eh? That's the English for you, they blamed the taxes on John, who raised them to ransom his psychopath of a brother because John was scared of his mother who doted on her gay son who could do no wrong.

The story of the death of this French English hero is also rather bizarre. Some French peasant digs up some treasure in his field, whereupon his baron claims it is his, whereupon Richard claims it is his (the feudal system eh, great for feuds I suppose) Richard decides to teach his lord a lesson about who's boss and besieges the village. (Presumably at this point the peasant is regretting digging the stuff up) Richard marches around like the great puff he is and spotting a bowman with the temerity to point a bow at a king he salutes the bowman, "great, now I can hit the big puff", thinks the bowman and lets fly a shot that finds a gap in the royal armour. Pratt to the last Richard refuses treatment and dies of infection. So dies a great "English hero" who added not a single acre to the kingdom and cost it a fortune such as has become a proverb for a large sum: a king's ransom. Whereupon he is of course buried in his beloved Anjou.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

Hello, I agree that Richard might appear a bit of an odd choice to be a national hero, but I thought the article was a bit harsh.

Richard was probably gay, but that should not be held against him. He was very manly and sexy to.

The third crusade is only unnecessary by todays standards, at the time it seemed very necessary. The Christians had managed to retain a foothold in the Holy Land by keeping Muslim countries divided and playing them off against each other. This was no longer working because Saladin was unting Islamic counties under his banner and pushing the christians out. Christian pilgrims could no longer travel safely to Jerusalem.

OK children were scared with stories of 'Melech Ric', but there was also respect for Richard amongst the Islamic army. Richard was a brave and daring warrior who personally fought in the battles with his men.

He got caught and ransomed; it makes a great story. He had been helped from Cyprus by some pirates, he was in disguise, he got caught he ripped the heart out of a lion that had been put in his cell and ate it raw (who cares if it's not true?).

He went into Sherwood forest in disguise met Robin Hood and they got on well. Once again cool story. Ok he was played by a Scotsman, but Robin was played by American, lets not get too picky. And Sean Connery is very cool.

John was easy to blame for problems, he was there to blame and no one seems to have got on with him that well.

Richard finally got shot, he probably wouldn't have done if he hadn't been so cocky, but thats what he was like, he was involved with his battles and didn't watch from the side lines. He forgave the person who shot him.

When he died he left his sins to various organisations, he left his pride to the Templars and greed to the Cisterians etc. He obviously had a sense of humour.

I agree that Richard was more French than English, but that should be forgiven because he represented England, and under him an English king lead the third crusade. An English king represented Europe on an international playing field. And an English king got the better of the French king.

The whole point of my rant was that Richard was not an English hero, he was a French king who got England involved in a pointless genocidal foreign war and cost the country a fortune. He wasn't brave he was foolhardy. He didn't do anything for England or the English just his own glory. He was the George W Bush of his day.

The cause of the English has nothing to do with Christianity. That is all Richard fought for, Christianity, the church and his own personal glory. There was no benefit to England or the English from anything Richard did or attempted to do.

Can you imagine what the compound interest on that ransom would be worth, or what it could buy?

If England wants a hero there are many finer examples who were born and died in England and actually achieved something worthwhile and made England and the world better for having lived.

What of Darwin, Newton or Shakespeare? Or somebody who did more for the English and humanity than all the kings in Christendom, Sir Joseph William Bazalgette, the man who made the city civilized. We have no need for a psychopathic religious maniac of a Frenchman, flaunting himself like some camp pro-wrestler to be a symbol of England.

You ask who cares if the legend is true? I do. History and posterity have no need for inflated myths. And the time has come for the English to take back their history from the spin machine of the church. Arthur wasn't one of us, the English didn't live in England then, the English if we existed in any meaningful sense were who Arthur was fighting against. It is the Christian church that has rewritten history to wrap the flag of patriotism around the cross so tightly we cannot see the truth. English history has always been taught as if the purpose of history was to create the modern Church of England, no doubt due to the fact that for most of our history the church only allowed its own people to be fully educated, everybody else was kept in ignorance. Those who served the church well were the good kings. Arthur kept the heathens out of Britain for a few years, so he was a good king, and in the view of the church A Good Thing. Richard led the crusade to allow pilgrims into Jerusalem, so he was a good king. John didn't, so we can dump on John.

Neither the Romans nor the Britons they invaded were Christian so two cheers for the home team, play up and play the game, wot! Then later they became Christians and civilized (we'll pretend that was at the same time). Both Harold and William were Christians so two cheers for the home team then let's just cheer for the winners, eh? And Henry VIII. Bugger. What a problem he was! No clear line emerges there.

The British Empire? It Christianizes the darkies, so it has to be A Good Thing, doesn't it? Well, actually, no it doesn't. I refuse to have my agenda set by the church any longer. It wasn't the introduction of Christianity that made Britain civilized in the first instance. There was more civilization here to start with than Christian history teaches and Christianity was a late-comer to the scene of Romano-British civilization. Christianity was a major cause of the Dark Ages and a major reason for getting into wars.

Civilization is a Good Thing. Christianity is a self-serving superstition and English history needs to be purged of this deliberate bias.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org/

Hi, thanks for the reply. I still think that Richard was cool; but agree that there's something dodgy going on to make him such a national hero. Here's a little bit of marxist thinking.

Outside parliament is a statue of Richard, this being there has a lot to do with Prince Albert. Victoria and Albert were a bit obsessed themselves, they were really into chivalric romances, and Richard is seen as an excellent example of a chivalric knight. It wasn't just Victoria and Albert who were obsessed;loads of people were, in Europe and in America. Architecture was made to look like castles, the legends were re read and translated, and there's lots of art from this time with knights in. Victoria and Albert had a fancy dress ball on the theme, Victoria liked Albert to dress up in armour and in Bavaria, king Ludwick went a bit mad, building fairy tail castles which inspired Disney and pretending to be Percival. The victorians adapted the chivalric tales to suit their culture, but the question arises- why the fascination?

Chivalry had the function of teaching people how to behave and formed an escapism that much of upper class society got sucked into. The attraction of chivalry may have been related to class uneasiness; it was a world were the social system was changing, the middle class was rising in power and numbers, the middle class could now aspire to some of the privileges and luxuries associated with the upper classes; and the upper classes had less to separate themselves from the middle classes. The revival of chivalry gave the upper classes a code of ethics which elevated them above other classes and allowed themselves to be immersed in a world were class differences were distinct, were respect was show to superiors. Certainly, some people of the time, such as Mark Twain (Girouard 1981), recognised this aspect of the revival of chivalry and were actively against the fantasy. At the same time there was also an idea of muscular christianity. Having a fit body to serve God with. Muscular Christianity was influence by, and influenced the chivalric legends. Maybe this has something to do with why the Richard the Lionheart statue looks so muscley.

Richard I: Classic Mesomorph

I agree that the church has had her hand in the writing of history, but I think that there is more to it than that. He fought for christianity, but is he much of a christian hero? People knew that he was gay, he liked to tell people that he was descended from the devil and he was proud. Richard wanted to be remembered and instigated some of the legends himself. Maybe it was more to do with the monarchy which made him a national icon? Later kings might have wanted to be identified with his warrior image.

Girouardd, M. 1981. The Return to Camelot, Chivalry and the English Gentleman. Yale University Press: London.

Orlanda