The Crown - Season 1 (review)

This is slightly embarrassing. The last time I uploaded a blog post was about...6 months ago. But I'm back, and I'm hoping to upload at least something once a week! It took some brainstorming to figure out what I was going to write about, but then I had a sudden realisation that I hadn't done a review of Peter Morgan's The Crown yet, despite how much I love the series. Honestly, it's difficult trying to figure out how to write about this, because I did not fancy writing about each episode individually - but at the same time, I do have my own personal ratings for each episode. So, without further ado, let's see what I can come up with for this.

Episode ratings:

Episode 1 - Wolferton Splash: 9/10.

Episode 2 - Hyde Park Corner: 10/10

Episode 3 - Windsor: 7.5/10

Episode 4 - Act of God: 6/10

Episode 5 - Smoke and Mirrors: 9/10

Episode 6 - Gelignite: 8/10

Episode 7 - Scientia Potentia Est: 7/10

Episode 8 - Pride and Joy: 8/10

Episode 9 - Assassins: 5/10

Episode 10 - Gloriana: 6/10

First of all, Claire Foy is amazing. I remember when articles were popping out over the new cast of the show a few years ago, and my initial reaction was that of concern. I had only seen Claire Foy in one other thing, and that was Wolf Hall as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn, so all I had to go off was a character known for her charming persona who eventually started to lose her mind under the stress of trying to produce an heir. Far from what we know of Queen Elizabeth II. In hindsight, I don't know why I was so apprehensive. Claire Foy did a fantastic job as the young queen. At the start of the season, she demonstrated a lack of confidence - understandable, Elizabeth was never supposed to be a queen in the first place. But Foy's interpretation of the role changed as the season progressed, going from a shy naval officer's wife who just happened to be royal to Britain's "undoubted Queen". 

It was so fascinating getting a glimpse of what young Queen Elizabeth II was, considering all I've seen in reality are the few appearances she makes now in her grand old age. I think at least 90% of the world's population can easily say they don't remember a time when she wasn't the Queen - but how many know what she was like as a young woman? Not only did she face challenges as a monarch (her lack of education as shown in Episode 7 comes to mind), she had to deal with being the head of the family in a time where women were subject to their husbands' whims; instead, poor Philip was relegated to the submissive role. Yet Claire Foy managed to do it so perfectly, and I can't imagine another actress playing young Queen Elizabeth ever again without comparing them to Foy.

Speaking of Philip, if I was more concerned about any of the characters' depictions in this show, it was this young, brooding Duke. When the trailer was released and I noticed Matt Smith had been cast, I kept wondering whether the show was worth watching anymore. In my mind, Matt Smith was either the clumsy tweed-wearing Eleventh Doctor, or the bumbling pompous Mr Collins. 'Seriousness' was not a word I could associate with this actor. Again, I was proven wrong. I've not read many biographies about Philip and Elizabeth during this time, but the phrase 'fragile masculinity' comes to mind when thinking about Philip's behaviour - not that I can blame him. While Elizabeth vowed at their wedding to obey him in all things, this would clash with her role as Queen. One exchange in Episode 5 stood out:

Philip: It's released an unattractive sense of authority and entitlement that I have never seen before.

Elizabeth: In you, it's released a weakness and insecurity I've never seen before.

P: Are you my wife or my Queen?

E: I'm both.

P: I want to be married to my wife.

E: I am both and a strong man would be able to kneel to both.

P: I will not kneel before my wife.

E: Your wife is not asking you to.

P: But my Queen commands me?

E: Yes.

P: I beg you make an exception for me.

E: No.

How could Philip argue against that? By this point in the episode, he had not only been forced to move from Clarence House, a home he tried to build for the family, to Buckingham Palace, he had also been forced to conform to the name of Windsor. It was rare for a woman in this time to not take her husband's name, and based on Matt Smith's portrayal, it certainly damaged his pride for Elizabeth to change her name once again from Mountbatten to Windsor. That being said, we see throughout the season a desire on Philip's part to encourage Elizabeth to be more assertive, especially with her ministers. I think he just wanted it to be that she was a true ruler over all except him.

One member of the royal family who has been the most fascinating for me has always been Princess Margaret. In my opinion, she was the prettier sister. She had the nicer wedding look, and she was always sporting the latest fashion trends. Having said that, she would not have made a good queen. As princess, she did her duties well, and showed up to her appointments appropriately - but she was rebellious. Being the second child, especially in light of Elizabeth's strong sense of duty and doing what was right, it wasn't a surprise that Margaret Rose was more appreciative of the freedoms she had. Vanessa Kirby definitely nailed the "diva" aspect of Princess Margaret. She carried the role with grace, touched with haughtiness and entitlement.

I didn't know much about the Townsend affair before the series was released. I knew Margaret had her fair share of troubled relationships, but not the extent of it. To be in love with a man at least 15 years older than her who was also a divorced person was scandalous from all angles in this time - but this was a story that would influence how Margaret was to be portrayed for the whole show, not just this one season. The show definitely made frequent allusions to the Duke of Windsor, given the similarities of the situation: a royal in love with a divorced person. Not that it's wrong, but it did make the Duke of Windsor seem more complex than we know.

As for Peter Townsend himself, honestly I don't know much about the historical figure himself, so there's not much for me to say in terms of how he was depicted - but being one of the most important people to influence both Princess Margaret and the Duke of Edinburgh, as his flying instructor, definitely warranted a tremendous amount of focus in the show.

Speaking of the Duke of Windsor, all praise to Alex Jennings. I've seen him in other movies, like The Queen, but there was just something about the way he played the exiled former king that gave me goosebumps. The duplicitous personality of wanting to create a sense of unity with his family, particularly Elizabeth, while writing cruel letters about them to his wife created quite a creepy character. My knowledge of the Duke of Windsor was very basic up until this point, owing largely to The King's Speech, but that depiction did not leave much of an impression. So what if he decided to abdicate for love? Was that really a big deal? 

The Crown definitely indicated that it was a big deal. While the abdication meant a more suitable figure, a family man, would assume the role rather than this populist playboy, it was a cruel move. Because of the abdication, King George VI began smoking even more, advancing his health deterioration; Elizabeth was forced to abandon her dreams of a quiet life; the entire family was put into the spotlight far more than was necessary. But this season does sort of encourage one to feel sorry for the former king. He just couldn't have it all.

What is a historical fiction TV series set in the 1950s Britain without a little bit of politics? Unfortunately, while this was essential to address in the show, this was - for me - the weakest point. I did love the actors who played Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, but it was just all...very dry. Whenever I decide to re-watch the show, I always find myself skipping the political scenes, simply because it's dead boring - and that's coming from someone who loves politics. In theory, it should've been more interesting. The peak of Cold War politics with growing tensions between not just America and the Soviet Union, but also Britain and the rest of the world...one can't help but wonder whether this was deliberately toned down to put the focus on the monarchy. I wouldn't be surprised.

I think it's probably not a surprise I re-watched this show about 5 times when it first came out. I couldn't believe they managed to make a TV show about the Windsor family, but they really pulled it off - and left me in desperation for the next season. Little did I know the next season would be even better.

Charles V - Tyrant or Romantic?

Source: Alchetron

I won't lie, the title sounds like something out of a modern-day erotica where the male protagonist is some hot-shot business guy and should theoretically be in jail for sexual assault but isn't because he's that "dreamy guy". Believe me, this is far from that. Charles V was known as one of the most well-known Holy Roman Emperors. A child of Europe, Charles was a descendant of major ruling families on the continent. His maternal grandparents ruled as sovereigns in their own right that unified Spain through their marriage, and were champions of the Crusades. His maternal aunt was the Queen of England. His father and his grandfather were also Holy Roman Emperors. With such a background, it is not surprising that he was well-versed in various languages, a master of diplomacy, and an expert in warfare. Considering his reputation, he made a number of enemies over his reign. Something I noticed, however, was that there was a lot to Charles' personality beyond his public life. As a husband, Charles was extremely devoted to his wife, Isabella; the two had an unconventional marriage, being one of political significance and of love. More about that later.

History is written by the winners. Always. When you look back at major events, often there is already a preconceived notion of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. The westernised perspective is the dominant one when one studies History. In World War 2, immediately one thinks, "Nazis bad." When 9/11 happened, the first thought is, "Taliban bad." However, it's all about perspective. To Nazi supporters, they might think the British or the French or the Russians as the bad guys. To Taliban supporters, they might think of the Americans as the villains. Such can be said of Charles V. To many historians, especially supporters of the Protestant Reformation, Charles V was a tyrant who wanted to squash what the reformers of the time thought to be the true religion in favour of what they might consider "papist imperialism." In the early 1520s, Charles encountered Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, where he rejected Luther's doctrines openly, while preparing for an ideological war with reformers and their supporters across Europe. Being from a strong imperial and Catholic family, his ascension as Holy Roman Emperor bestowed the heavy burden of maintaining Catholicism throughout Europe. It was an unfortunate coincidence that this would take place at the time of strong reform.

The Holy Roman Empire was frequently at war with France during this time, in spite of their shared disdain for what they considered heresy. It reached a point where Pope Clement VII formed an alliance with Francis I of France against Charles V, believing that the Habsburg dynasty might attempt to take control of the Catholic Church. This alliance resulted in the capture of the Pope, who would be imprisoned in Castel Sant'Angelo. While the Sack of Rome was instigated by Habsburg rebels who mutinied against Charles V, there was a widespread fear around Europe that the Holy Roman Empire was a dangerous power. He took the opportunity to shape the Church according to his own design; Clement VII agreed to his demands, appointing cardinals nominated by Charles, crowning Charles Holy Roman Emperor of the Italian region, and refusing to acknowledge that the marriage between King Henry VIII and Queen Catherine of Aragon was invalid. His zeal for the preservation of Catholicism sparked the movement that would become the Counter-Reformation in 1545, a movement that his son, Philip II of Spain, would push in the form of the Inquisition. Interestingly, Charles was opposed to a holy war in light of the spread of Protestantism around Charles' German territories, largely because the Imperial army was involved in wars against France and, one point, the Ottoman Empire.

Yet while all this was happening, Charles' private life was another matter. Given his reputation as a prince of Europe, a desirable marriage was necessary, not just for the purpose of producing heirs, but also for political gain. In 1507, a betrothal was proposed between Charles and Mary Tudor, King Henry VII's daughter; instead, the engagement was broken in 1513, and Mary was sent to France to marry the King in 1514. In 1521, his aunt,  Catherine of Aragon, suggested that he be proposed to her daughter, Mary, to secure an alliance with England - however, Mary was sixteen years younger than him, and Charles would have needed to wait until she was of proper age to marry. He called off the engagement in 1525, unconvinced at the prospect of waiting in order to have legitimate heirs. Instead, he married Isabella of Portugal, who brought a very large dowry to the marriage. In spite of this marriage being pursued primarily for political gain, the two were very much in love with each other, a concept that was considered foreign in this time. Although Charles frequently took foreign trips as part of his role as Emperor, the two were strongly devoted to each other. Isabella even acted as regent in the times Charles was away, eventually becoming a policy-maker on occasion. The two were married for thirteen years, producing seven children, though only three would live past infancy. Unfortunately, Isabella fell sick during her seventh pregnancy, resulting in a miscarriage; she died two weeks later following post-partum complications resulting in infections.

The death of Isabella was hard on Charles. He exiled himself to a monastery for two months in order to mourn her alone, and dressed in black for the rest of his life. Honestly, it reminds me a bit of Queen Victoria, who went into seclusion after Prince Albert died, and wore black for the remainder of her life. Charles commissioned many artists and composers to create tributes to Isabella. Some of these paintings were taken with him whenever he travelled. Charles did have a brief affair with a mistress some many years after Isabella's death, but unlike many of his royal kin, he never remarried.

Charles V is one of my favourite historical figures, and no doubt Protestant writers will view him as tyrannical. In a way, he was. As an advocate for libertarianism, the idea of a religious conquest to wipe out those with other beliefs is not a concept I could support, largely because even if people converted, inner belief may not reflect actions. Yet Charles was unlike many rulers of this time, and in a way, progressive in the ways of love. Typically, advisors would be encouraging rulers to remarry not long after the death of a consort to ensure the security of the throne. Charles' loyalty to Isabella was immeasurable, and truly beautiful.

Pride for America.

On this day, five years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the matter of Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution allowed for same-sex marriage to be considered a right across the country. Up until this point, not all states viewed same-sex marriage to be valid in civil law; it wasn't until 2003 that the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional. The news sparked worldwide responses, some optimistic and some not so. I was actually staying at a friend's house for a sleepover not long after we had finished our A Level exams when I read the news on Facebook. I didn't know what to think. It had been a mere month since Ireland had just done the same thing. I came to the conclusion that I was in support of the ruling, as long as it didn't infringe on religious rights - a position I still hold today. 

The celebrations were instantaneous. Gay and lesbian couples from all over the country ran to get married. One particular case made me tear up a little; after 54 years of being by each other's side, George Harris and Jack Evans celebrated the news by getting married. They weren't the only ones who had waited decades for a moment like this. I saw people celebrating the news from all over the world, not just those who lived in the U.S. The White House was lit with rainbow colours on the evening of the ruling; former U.S. President Barack Obama called this ruling a "victory for America." Company logos for many businesses were edited to include the rainbow flag, a symbol of the LGBT movement. People took to the streets joyfully waving rainbow flags and banners. The hashtag "#lovewins" was trending on mainstream social media websites. It was a proud day for many all over the globe.

Not many saw it that way. The Westboro Baptist Church, a Kansas-based fundamentalist congregation, predicted that the Supreme Court would rule in favour of same-sex marriage, but not because they wanted it to be that way. In an interview, Ben Phelps, a member of this church, argued that the court will rule in favour of it because "we're in the days of Sodom." He held up signs in front of the Supreme Court Building a mere two months before the ruling that said "God Hates Fags" and "Same-Sex Parents Doom Kids;" other church members who joined Phelps held similar signs like "America is Doomed" and "Fags Doom Nations." While they were not in Washington D.C. at the time of the ruling, they were outspoken about the issue on Twitter and in their local pickets. Another protester, David Grisham, a leader of an anti-homosexuality group known as "Repent Amarillo", believed that the ruling would result in persecution of Christians and that the traditional structure of the family would break down, sparking a societal breakdown with it. 

The Supreme Court ruling of the matter inspired other countries around the world to follow suit. In the years after this ruling, Germany, Australia and Taiwan became among several countries to legalise same-sex marriage. One of the biggest superpowers was leading the way for the LGBT community for the world. Even countries where being gay was frowned upon were starting to change. People saw this moment as an inspiration to be more vocal to call for more support for the community. Will religious freedom be infringed as David Grisham suggested? It's possible. For now, at least, we can still celebrate the anniversary of a significant moment that will be recorded in History textbooks in years to come.

Brexit.

Source: The New York Times

On this day, 4 years ago, people from all sorts of backgrounds living in the United Kingdom (UK) went out to vote on a historic referendum that would decide the fate of the country. After over 40 years of being part of the European Union (EU), the referendum demonstrated a majority of 51.9% against 48.11% in favour of leaving the EU. Now, you might be wondering, how is this relevant to history? It's only been a few years. However, the Cambridge Dictionary defines "history" as being "the study of or a record of past events considered together, especially events of a particular period, country, or subject." Even though it's only been a few years, it is still something that happened in the past, and will be a historic moment to be remembered in years to come. No doubt in a few decades, History students will be pondering the status of the UK within the EU as potential essay questions. I'm not going to go into a political analysis of this issue; as much as I'd love to, that's not the point of this blog. Instead I'll just look at the history of the UK's relationship with the EU over the years.

When the original EU was formed, at the time known as the European Economic Community (EEC), the aim was to promote economic and international unity with the hopes of preventing war by forming alliances with member states. Other communities, such as the European Defence Community, were formed as part of this. In the early 1960s, the UK, along with several others, attempted to join, but French President Charles de Gaulle believed the UK's membership would bring in American influence; these countries were rejected. A little more than 10 years later, pro-Europe Prime Minister Edward Heath reopened negotiations to join, and treaties were signed to allow membership, effective on the 1st of January 1973. In the years leading up to this, the UK's position as a global superpower was declining. The end of the Second World War prompted many British territories under the Empire to revolt and fight for independence. By the time the UK became a member of the EU, they had already lost dozens of territory. On top of this, the British economy was worsening. I believe that the EU was initially reluctant to take the UK as a member partly because the British Empire was still fairly strong, and there were fears that the UK might attempt to rule the EU. By 1973, such a thought was considered laughable.

The immediate aftermath of joining was met with optimism. A referendum was held just two years after joining to gauge the public's reaction to joining the EU, which showed a majority in support of maintaining EU membership. One might suggest that the Labour Party was the main driver in the UK for British position in the EU, as they have been recently, though I learnt less than a year ago that they were originally against it and wanted to withdraw from the EU; the re-election of Margaret Thatcher in 1983 prompted them to change their policy. Her resignation in 1990 sparked Euroscepticism, coincidentally not long before the EU gained its new name in 1993, changing from "European Communities" to the "European Union." Some in the UK began to feel concerned that the shift from an economic organisation of European countries into a political one meant that UK might be subjected to a higher power. In the same year, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) was formed and started to gain some influence in British politics. For 23 years, Euroscepticism would begin to take root within both the government and the public, while at the same time, an opposition of Europhilia would arise to not only maintain but increase the EU's influence in Britain. Tony Blair's leadership in the late 90s up until 2007 would campaign for further integration of Britain into the EU, aiming to adopt the common Euro currency.

The return of the Conservatives to power in 2010 prompted questions of whether there was a possibility of leaving the EU, even though the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was in favour of remaining in the EU. It took several years before the question became a reality, though it seemed as though public opinion leaned towards remaining an EU member. In the lead-up to the general election of 2015, it was promised by the Conservative Party that a referendum would be hold regarding the UK's membership within the EU if they were elected. True enough, plans were made not long after their re-election to begin the process of organising a referendum. I remember this especially well because I had just moved to the UK around this time, and the subject of the referendum was a common conversation starter. At the time, I didn't have much of an opinion about it since I didn't know a whole lot about why the UK would want to leave the EU; now, of course, I do have an opinion about it. One university friend - who I went to school with as well - jokingly pointed out that leaving the EU would mean that we wouldn't have free internet roaming if we went to other EU states. I had the opportunity to vote in the referendum, being a Commonwealth citizen living in the UK, but I was not in the country at the time and didn't know postal voting was even an option. It was a plus I didn't know - to this day, I still don't know what I would have voted.

4 years have passed, and finally the results of the referendum are being implemented. From what I've seen, the effects of COVID-19 have not slowed down the process, and there is still every intention by the Conservative Party to see a full exit completed by the end of 2020. All that's left is to see how things turn out.

The Case of Susan B. Anthony

Source: Britannica

Of many rights and/or privileges we tend to take for granted, one of these is the ability to vote. Some might say it is a right, others a privilege. I won't go into what I think about it, partly because it's a bit complicated, and partly because I'm not writing a blog about my political views. I learnt about suffragette Susan B. Anthony when I was a child, because she was referenced in Cartoon Network's The Powerpuff Girls. Odd show to feature such a prominent figure, but that was the case. The villain in the episode was a misandrist who believed that women always draw the short end of the stick, and thus her villainous actions - in the form of stealing Susan B. Anthony coins - were justified. What she didn't know was that Anthony, while a feminist, did not believe misandry was the way to achieve true gender equality.

For some time, women had begun forming groups in order to fight for the ability to vote. At the same time, many of these suffragettes campaigned against slavery. On November 5th, 1872, Anthony along with a number of other women went to cast their votes. The poll watcher asked them if they had the right to vote, leading to him asking them to take an oath stating that they had the right, which they did. The issue here was that while they could not legally vote, the poll watcher could not deny them the ballot if they took the oath; to make it easier, they let the women vote. However, on November 14th, warrants had been issued for their arrests. Interestingly, when a deputy U.S. Marshal arrived at her house, he did not immediately arrest her but simply requested that they spoke in the Commissioner's office. When it was revealed to her that they meant to arrest her, Anthony demanded that she be arrested in the same way men were, since such gentle treatment would not have been granted to men. She even held out her hands, expecting to be handcuffed, but the officer thought it unnecessary. The other women who voted with Anthony were also arrested, along with the election inspectors who allowed them to vote. When bail was set at $500, everyone except Anthony posted bail, and subsequently, the Commissioner authorised the U.S. Marshal to place Anthony in the county hail - something that never ended up happening.

These arrests sparked conversations all over the country. Before the trial, Anthony was able to give speeches in 29 towns and villages in the county where her trial would be held. She cited the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment, which granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including former slaves, as her justification to vote. She argued that if the 14th Amendment could not be used as legal justification for her ability to vote, the nature of personhood for women was thus challenged: "Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no State has a right to make any new law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities." In one particular speech, she pointed out that New York's tax laws were gendered, referring to "he" or "him," yet taxes were still collected from women at this time. She concluded, "I insist if government officials may thus manipulate the pronouns to tax, fine, imprison and hang women, women may take the same liberty with them to secure themselves their right to a voice in the government." When the trial finally occurred, it was decided that Anthony would have to pay a fine of $100 (the equivalent of over $2000 today), which she refused and never paid. A deputy federal marshal attempted to collect the fine in the form of seizing any property she owned, but they could not find anything of worth. The court eventually dropped the matter. In the matter of the election inspectors, the women who voted with Anthony believed that the inspectors should not have been arrested or jailed, and thus visited them and bringing food for them.

The entire case brought the women's suffrage issue to the forefront of national news. A number of further trials took place later on, but ultimately, sympathy for the suffrage moment was on the rise. The speeches Anthony made sparked doubt in the minds of those who believed only men ought to be able to vote, as well as hope for women that they could one day achieve an equal ability to vote. Unfortunately, Anthony would die 14 years before an amendment would be passed and ratified that would prohibit states and the federal government from denying any citizen of the United States from voting on the basis of sex. Nonetheless, the efforts of Anthony and her colleagues within the women's suffrage movement laid the foundation for the rights we now have today.

Hidden Figures - A Review

I remember watching this film a couple years ago. I knew very little about the space program, simply because all I learnt in History classes were that the United States and the Soviet Union were in another battle throughout the Cold War: the space race. What I didn't know was that instrumental to the American successes were the works of very specific women in the space program, all of whom were African-American. In a time of segregation, the success of Black women was often ignored, sometimes even claimed by White workers. The film was based on a non-fiction biography about these three women: Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson. Theodore Melfi adapted the biography into a dramatisation. These three women present different stories and experiences, and depiction of which allows the audience to get a glimpse of what racial and gender discrimination in the early 1960s was like.

Katherine Johnson

Katherine Johnson, played by Taraji P. Henson, was a mathematician and a computer who was involved in calculating trajectories and launch windows for various space programs with NASA. Her work was instrumental in planning paths for Alan Shepard, John Glenn, and the Apollo 11 flight to the moon. The film depicts Katherine as a soft-spoken mathematician, but with a sharp tongue. Easily she was the most compelling character out of the three women. She kept her head down and did what she needed to do, but when push came to shove, she didn't hold back. In one particular scene, she finally lashes out at her new boss because she is required to run several miles to a different campus just so that she can use the segregated bathrooms for ethnic minorities. This was probably the most iconic scene of the film, and an excellent soliloquy delivered by Henson: "There is no bathroom. There are no colored bathrooms in this building. Or any building outside the West Campus, which is half a mile away. Did you know that? I have to walk to Timbuktu just to relieve myself, and I can't use one of the handy bikes. Picture that, Mr. Harrison. My uniform. Skirt below my knees, my heels, and a simple string of pearls. Well, I don't own pearls. Lord knows you don't pay coloreds enough to afford pearls! And I work like a dog, day and night, living off of coffee from a pot none of you want to touch! So, excuse me if I have to go to the restroom a few times a day." Honestly, you could hear a pin drop with that monologue.

Throughout the film, Katherine does a series of calculations to either predict certain coordinates or to confirm the calculations others have done. When presenting these calculations, she faces the complication of whose name is published on the front. Even though several are her own work, her colleague, Paul Stafford, takes the credit for it as he supervises her work. When she attempts to put both their names down, he rebukes her, saying that "computers don't author reports." This relationship between Katherine and Paul is particularly significant in demonstrating the development of what kind of mentality exists at NASA. By the end of the film, not only does Paul accept her name on future reports, he happily provides her with coffee from the same pot, allowing equality and integration to take root.

Dorothy Vaughan

Dorothy's story is perhaps the weakest in the film, in my opinion. Her influence on the space programs nor her character development is not as pronounced as Katherine's or Mary's. However, there is much to learn from the way she is depicted. At the beginning of the film, she is seen as the leader of the West Area Computers, taking charge as a supervisor. However, her antagonist, Mrs. Mitchell, frequently reminds Dorothy that she is not a supervisor even if the group needs one and if she has ordered Dorothy take on the role. Unlike Katherine and Mary, she does attain any promotion until the end of the film, which she earns as a result of taking initiative to explore the new IBM electronic computer. Thanks to some research, she is able to resolve the issues the other engineers faced, allowing the machine to work properly. This earns the respect of Mrs. Mitchell, who begins to call her "Mrs. Vaughan" to acknowledge the authority Dorothy now holds, and ultimately works to promote Dorothy to the role of supervisor of the Programming Department. This department is also demonstrative of racial integration that starts to take place in the early 1960s, which made a for a nice ending. That all being said, unless I missed something, I just didn't see the point in Dorothy's story in relation to the space program. She was an excellent programmer and mathematician, but her story could easily have been in any industry that involved such skills. 

Mary Jackson

Mary's story probably has the most nuance to her personality, and she was probably my favourite character of the film. Assertive but compassionate, Mary had a certain drive that I admired. From what I read about the real Mary Jackson, the film did dramatise her story somewhat for plot purposes. For example, she started working with the engineering department as early as 1953, but the film suggests she only started with them in 1961; even one of the leading engineers of this group has a different character, switching from the real-life Kazimierz Czarnecki to the fictionalised Karl Zielinski. However, the changes she goes through while maintaining the same personality is to be admired. She learns that in order to take up a more senior engineering role, she is required to possess an engineering degree, which she cannot earn in Virginia as the only classes available to her are in a segregated school. Yet she manages to convince the local judge to accept her case, allowing her to attend the school. Being the wife of a civil rights activist, she is opinionated and outspoken, which Katherine and Dorothy frequently remind can cause her to get into trouble. Instead of backing down, she uses her tenacity to her advantage and challenges her peers to go up and beyond. The film states that she became NASA's and America's first female African-American aeronautical engineer. One thing I admired about her character was that she didn't believe in simply making her ethnic group advance further; the film does show that she is supporter of seeing people of all backgrounds as equal regardless of whether they are white or black.

For all my political views, which - if you know - are somewhat controversial in today's political climate, I love films about empowerment. It's not because of the feminist movement or moves to promote equality, I just love empowerment films. They're uplifting and inspire one to be bold. They push you to use what skills you have to improve yourself. The world can be against you, but with the right amount of ambition, one can see all that as noise and move on. 

Royal Assassinations (and attempts)

Source: History.com

Being a royal means one is always in public view. Privacy is a luxury rather than an entitlement. In a way, we the commoners are fortunate to never need worry about whether our next actions will result in a public scandal or not. While there are many privileges that come with being a royal, often to do with wealth, the one thing that frequently reminds me that I will never be envious of them is how their every move is constantly being watched, whether by the media or by the public. One might believe that it is only recently that privacy became a luxury, but it has been the case for many centuries, if not longer; up until perhaps the last couple centuries, it was a common practice for high-ranking nobility to be present in the bedroom when a royal couple consummates their marriage. The issue with not only being royalty but also high-profile is that many might take the opportunity to assassinate them. This doesn't apply to just monarchs; other members of the nobility have either been victim of an assassination attempt or have been killed. I decided to mention a few of such instances.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria

Source: The Guardian

Easily the most famous royal assassination. The heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on the 28th of June, 1914, several years after the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many Serbian nationalists lived in this region, and were angered by this move. When Ferdinand arrived in Sarajevo with his wife, Sophie, plans had been made for his assassination. On the morning of the day he was to be killed, a grenade was thrown at his motorcar, but only detonated behind it, injuring those in the car behind. The couple insisted that they wanted to visit those who had been injured by the grenade detonation. On the way to the hospital, Gavrilo Princip had been sitting across the street, taking the opportunity to shoot the couple. Both were dead before they reached the hospital. As a result of the assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war - with Germany's support - on Serbia, Russia's ally. Knowing that a war on two fronts was likely to happen, Germany declared war on France at the same time, as France would not neglect her alliance with Russia. Shortly, Britain declared war. World War I had begun.

The Romanovs

Source: Russia Beyond

Another famous royal assassination. It wasn't the conventional type of assassination in that it was a spur of the moment thing, but it was closer to an execution. World War I had a large influence on how one viewed social class, and when the common people began to realise that they were being used as pawns in warfare, many around Europe began to fight back. In Russia, the revolutions that took place deposed Tsar Nicholas II and his family. Alexander Kerensky and his new government moved the Romanovs to Siberia, claiming it was for their protection against the revolution. However, as the Bolsheviks gained power, the control over the Romanovs increased, to the point where they were kept in total isolation surviving on soldiers' rations; they were even forbidden from looking outside. Nuns from a nearby monastery occasionally brought food for them, but those in charge of the Romanovs took most of it for themselves. Eventually, they were taken in the middle of the night on the 17th of July to small room in a basement, where they were informed that they were all to be executed. While some were given some protection due to the diamonds they carried on their person, they were all dead by the end of it. The execution of Nicholas' wife and daughters were meant to be kept secret, knowing public reaction would be more mixed. However, their deaths would be deemed the most symbolic act that would transform Russia from a monarchy to a communist state.

Empress Elisabeth of Austria

I didn't know much about Empress Elisabeth beyond her popular portrait by Franz Xaver Winterhalter where she is painted as having star-like diamonds in her hair, but that was mostly down to a similar style being recreated in the 2004 film adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera. The empress generally attracted attention in her outings, known for her beauty. She despised her life at court, hating the protocols, as well as her marriage. She was known to escape from court life whenever possible. In one such instance, she had travelled to Geneva in Switzerland, and though she took care to travel anonymously, it wasn't long before people there knew of her arrival. When preparing to board a ship for Montreux, Elisabeth insisted that she board without an entourage. While walking, an anarchist, Luigi Lucheni, approached her and pretended to trip while making a motion with his hand in a supposed attempt to re-balance himself. What he actually did was stab Elisabeth with a sharpened needle file. Despite attempts to heal her, she died later that day.

Queen Victoria

Being a new queen whom very few had seen up until she turned 18, Victoria was of great interest to the public. In 1840, while on an outing with her husband, Prince Albert, a man by the name of Edward Oxford waited near Buckingham Palace for the Queen, then four months pregnant with her first child. Out in the open, Victoria was an easy target for him. However, despite firing two shots, both missed the Queen. Witnesses immediately moved to subdue him to prevent any further acts of violence. Victoria survived unscathed, but this would be the first of eight further assassination attempts throughout her reign. In one particular instance in 1842, Albert informed Victoria and her security forces that there was a gunman loose in London, but Victoria insisted on going on her outings anyway, believing the best way to draw him out would be to be the bait: she was right. Fortunately, she would rule until 1901, when she eventually died of natural causes.