Showing posts with label Kings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kings. Show all posts

Wednesday, 17 December 2025

Kings Fall Apart: Or, It's Not Always Good to be King, Mr Trump



TRUMP has been trying to make himself the first King of the USA since a revolting people gave George III the boot in 1776. Laying aside the argument that the Donald is a much worse leader than the last king, the King of Orange should think twice about being on a throne, however golden. George III, a Far Better Man Than Trump

The history of monarchy in the British Isles, which I know best, should not inspire a desire to play Macbeth and Don a crown. Few kings or queens have been able to enjoy their reigns, short or long. Only one British king has been called "The Merry Monarch," Charles II, and even he faced a sea of troubles, partly of his own making. 

Charles II did manage to last twenty-five years and die in bed with his crown on his head, a fate denied many other monarchs. The last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold, was killed in battle against the 1066 Norman Invasion led by Duke William of Normandy. Tradition holds that an arrow landed in Harold's eye. He had been king for only a few months. 

William I, Harold's Conqueror, did much better time-wise. But he had to deal with an Anglo-Saxon populace which did not welcome being ruled by a king who rewarded his French-speaking warriors with their lands. He dealt with the opposition by killing lots of peasants and destroying their homes. His corpulent body exploded when he was being forced into a too small tomb, emitting a foul smell and showering those nearby with unmentionables.

William II, the Conqueror's eldest son, had a nasty and short reign, cut short by an arrow again. On this occasion, the archer may have been an assassin hired by his brother Henry, who succeeded as king. Henry I he had a fairly lengthy reign. Legend has it that he died from eating a surfeit of lampreys. It is more probable that  a stroke killed him. Or maybe he died of worry about the succession.

Henry had no male successor, only a daughter, Matilda. He named her as his heir, but when he died, the alpha males among his barons decided they could not stomach being ruled by a woman, and chose his nephew Stephen as king. Those familiar with the US election of 2024, when Americans chose Trump over Kamala Harris, will understand. 

The result was nearly twenty years of fighting between the supporters of Stephen and those of Matilda. The Anarchy, as this period is called, was not a good time for anybody, except for some robber barons. Peasants, as always, paid a heavy price. 

In the end, the two sides reached a deal: Stephen would remain king, but on his death, the throne would pass to Matilda's son Henry of Anjou. When Henry II became king in 1154, he started a line of kings known as the Angevins or Plantagenets. Henry also inherited a large part of France, directly, or through his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. He was always moving about to keep control his large and diverse territories. He faced many rebellions among his nobles and vassals. The rebels eventually included his sons and Eleanor. 

Two of his sons became king after him. Richard and John, of Ivanhoe and Robin Hood fame. That's all fantasy, but so is Richard's "Lion-Heart" reputation. He is the only king to have a statue outside of Parliament, for some unfathomable reason. Richard spent a mere six months of his ten year reign in England, and like Trump, treated the country like a cash cow. He massacred thousands of Muslims, Jews, and even Christians while Crusading for Christ in the oddly named Holy Land. He also died when struck by an arrow, while besieging a rebel castle. Gangrene set in, and that did for him.

Richard I had no children. Enter his brother John, the only English king of that name. Let's see why. (NB: This is not John)



End of Part I.





 




Tuesday, 13 September 2022

God Save the King! (Or Queen)

Since the accession of Charles III, we have often heard the phrase "God Save the King!" It seems strange after 70 years of hearing "God Save the Queen!" uttered for Elizabeth II. 

"God Save the King" is the original, of course. It is not known how old the phrase "God Save the King" is. It appears in 16th century translations of the Bible. "God Save the King" is used in reference to King Saul, the first king of Israel. 

As early as 1444, navy seamen were instructed to say "God Save King Henry" as a watchword aboard ship. That was Henry VI, a pious monarch who needed all the saving he could get. He was king when the Wars of the Roses started. The sailors used the phrase as a watchword on board ship. 

"God Save the King" had become a popular rallying cry by the mid-18th century. How much it was used before then is obscure. The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, which threatened to topple the Hanoverian King George II, gave the cry a boost, and a song of the same name as well.  

The Gentleman's Magazine published a version of the song in 1745. It specifically names King George as the object God should be saving. [Image: George II by Thomas Hudson, 1740s]




It opens: "God save great George our king, long live our noble king." God apparently responded: the Jacobites led by "Bonnie Prince Charlie" met their final defeat at Culloden in 1746. The Catholic Stuarts ceased to be a royal threat. [Image: Charles Edward Stuart, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie, by Alan Ramsay, 1745]




Somewhere around that time, the song "God Save the King" had appeared. Historians disagree about who composed it and when. They have suggested dates between the 1680s and 1740s and Henry Purcell, Thomas Arne, Charles Burney as the composer. They all had a hand in it, it seems.

The phrase "God save the King" is used purely by custom and tradition. It has no basis in law. Similarly, the song of that name is not the official national anthem, although it is often treated as if it were.  

It is unlikely that the UK will ever have an official national anthem, even if it doesn't break up. Few of the English like "God Save the King/Queen," and even fewer Scots or Welsh. Most people sing it with all the enthusiasm of the dead. In Northern Ireland, Loyalists or Unionists like the song. Republicans detest it. 

Many in England have suggested for an anthem "Jerusalem," William Blake's evocative poem, rendered to music by Sir Hubert Parry in 1916. "Jerusalem" is often played as an anthem at English rugby and cricket matches. But it is about England, not the UK, so has little following in the so-called "Celtic Fringe." It is often sung as a hymn in churches. 

The same is true of another tune some people have proposed as a national anthem: "Land of Hope and Glory" from the tune by Edward Elgar, with lyrics by A.C. Benson (1901-02). It has imperialistic overtones that offend many people nowadays.

The Scots usually play "Flower of Scotland" as their anthem at sporting events. That isn't going to catch on in England or Wales. 

One rousing song that was highly popular during the imperialist age is "Rule Britannia," music by Thomas Arne, lyrics by James Thomson (1740). It celebrates Britain, not just England. Alas, it is too warlike and racially insensitive to be considered as a national anthem. 

The lines "Rule Britannia! Rule the Waves, Britons never will be slaves" make the song's unfitness for the current world obvious. When it was written Britain was the greatest slave trading nation in the world. And Britannia certainly doesn't rule the waves anymore. Waives the rules, maybe. 


If you enjoyed this post and would like to become a follower of my blog, just click on the blue "FOLLOW" button on the right side of the first page. Below there you can also find my previous posts. Thanks!