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.

Catherine of Aragon: The Infanta of Spain

A portrait by Juan de Flandes believed to be young Catherine.

Many know Catherine of Aragon's tragedy as the famous first wife of Henry VIII of England. She is regarded as one of the key figures of the Tudor dynasty, remembered for her tenacity and devotion. Yet her youth up until her marriage to Henry is, in my view, equally as interesting, and should not be ignored in understanding the very character Catherine exuded upon becoming Queen of England.

Born the youngest child to Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, both rulers in their own right, Catherine's birthright implied a certain magnificence she to expect. Having royal blood from Spain, Portugal, and England, there was little reason young Catherine could not hope for a royal upbringing. She enjoyed a thorough education, studying a wide range of subjects from theology to canon and civil law to languages. As it was common among royal children in this time, she was taught a multitude of languages to prepare her for any diplomatic encounters; this would prove particularly useful when she moved to England. Catherine did not lack in the feminine arts either; she was instructed in the domestic life, skills she would come to use heavily in her marriage, such as embroidery. The young Infanta could hardly be accused of being lacking in skill.

Being a descendant of English nobility, it was thought early on that Catherine could become the wife of Arthur Tudor, the Prince of Wales. By this point, the Tudor claim to the throne, which had been won by warfare, was still under scrutiny. With Catherine's parents being famous rulers among European nobility, such a marriage would acknowledge the Tudors as monarchs of England, and would not be challenged by other European rulers. Catherine and Arthur were married by proxy in 1499, a preparation for their actual marriage in 1501 when Arthur had reached the age of 15. Interestingly, the two corresponded frequently in Latin, their common tongue. Both were willing to come together in marriage, most likely with a desire to please their families and advance their kingdoms. When the two finally met, they discovered that they could not converse with each other, despite their letters, as their pronunciation of Latin differed. Nonetheless, they were married in 1501, and sent to Ludlow Castle in Wales shortly after, where Arthur was to rule as Prince of Wales. However, within several months, they both fell sick with the sweating sickness, a common plague of this time, which resulted in Arthur's death, leaving Catherine a teenage widow.

It is unknown what went on between the two in the short time that they were married. However, due to certain complications, his death would complicate the rest of Catherine's life. The day after Arthur and Catherine's wedding night, Arthur was reputed to have boasted to his friends, "Willoughby, bring me a cup of ale, for I have been this night in the midst of Spain. Masters, it is good pastime to have a wife." It was suggested from this that the marriage had been consummated, but there were reports of the contrary. Many of Catherine's entourage from Spain noted that Arthur was a sickly youth, perhaps even smaller than Catherine, who sported a small figure. Later, when her marriage to Henry would come into question, Catherine swore on oath that she had never consummated her marriage to Arthur. I read in a biography that she had even spoken to Cardinal Campeggio in the confessional that she was "untouched and unviolated" as when she came from her mother's womb. She made these confessions public, and even gave Campeggio permission to break the seal of the confessional, something that could incur immediate excommunication. Given Catherine's piety and devotion to her religion, it is more than likely she did not consummate her marriage to Arthur. Yet Arthur's death brought about the question of whether Catherine could instead become a suitable mate for Arthur's younger brother, Henry. However, the Church, being aware of Leviticus 20:21, which stated that if a man took his brother's wife, the two will be childless, had to assess the matter, and based on Catherine's declaration, Pope Julius II issued a dispensation in 1503, declaring that the lack of a consummated marriage would allow Catherine to marry Henry.

Yet there were political complications that meant Catherine would not marry Henry until 1509. The death of King Henry VII's wife, Elizabeth of York, prompted him to consider marrying Catherine, but this idea was quickly dismissed following opposition. Furthermore, Queen Isabella's death resulted in Catherine's loss of status, as her elder sister, Joanna, would inherit Isabella's title. For 7 years, Catherine was stuck in a state of limbo in England. Returning to Spain would mean she would likely feel a sense of disgrace and exile. Having been brought up with the necessary skills of a future queen, she remained in England, even though she was forced to pawn her possessions for survival. Fortunately for Catherine, young Henry Tudor began to develop an affection for her. Initially he had not been keen on the marriage, but perhaps as he grew older, he knew that marrying Catherine would grant him enough power to hold influence in Europe, especially given that his younger sister would marry the King of France not long after.

Catherine, tenacious and devout, was only strengthened by what she had endured up until her marriage to Henry. It would be the reason she did not give into any weaknesses that tempted her in her trials. The Great Matter 20 years later would be her greatest test, one that she had the skill and strength to face up until her last defiant act of signing her last will and testament as Queen of England.

Beatrice

Beata Beatrix by Dante Gabriel Rosetti

I personally find it very difficult when people ask me what my favourite book is simply because it is more of an anthology than an actual book: the Divine Comedy. It doesn't help that this can be sold in separate parts, like how Collins Classics sells separate copies of Dante's Inferno. Nonetheless, this has been my favourite story since I was 17, and I've not found a more compelling story that has managed to cover a wide range of genres at one go. Romance. History. Horror. Fantasy. Religion. Politics. I have one of my A Level English Literature teachers to thank for making my love for this story even more profound when she played the BBC Radio 4 podcast of Inferno, which prompted me to buy the entire podcast on the Apple store. For a story this great, it comes down to one focus: Beatrice. 

In spite of his great dedication to her, Dante only ever met young Beatrice Portinari twice, once as a child and once as a teenager. Each time was a fleeting moment. Yet Dante was absolutely taken by her. Strangely, he wasn't drawn by her appearance. In the Divine Comedy, he doesn't speak of Beatrice's appearance much. He doesn't even talk much about her personality beyond his imagination. There was simply something about her that inspired him to pursue a moral path. In between the two instances where they met, Dante liked to admire her from a distance, keeping his personal thoughts about her private. I won't lie though, it's a bit creepy, and bizarre that he had this obsession with her. Yet it was safe, and this distant admiration made him aspire to become better.

The Beatrice of the Divine Comedy and La Vita Nuova is very different to the Beatrice that Dante knew in person. Immortalised in literature, she is given a character and a purpose. It was very much clear that Dante was in love with her, even though he married and had children, and even though Beatrice was married. Her death prompted him to bring her back to life through poetry; this collection of poems became La Vita Nuova. He describes his encounters with Beatrice, as well as his thoughts from afar in such detail that he thought himself soon to be in the presence of God. La Vita Nuova demonstrates the moral influence Beatrice had on Dante, even though he barely spoke to her in her lifetime. He writes about how his second meeting with Beatrice, where she was dressed in white, inspired a dream where he saw Beatrice asleep in the arms of God. Beatrice is written almost in a state of perfection, described frequently as "blessed." He brings this influence out in more detail in the Divine Comedy, where he finds himself lost in a wood, to be found by the poet Virgil, sent by Beatrice to take him on a journey towards Heaven.

However, the Beatrice of the Divine Comedy, which was written after her death, while more detailed in kindness and described as being the blessed lady who helps Dante attain Heaven, is also perhaps more harsh. Dante cannot even look bring himself to look at her properly until much later. She is even seen rebuking him upon their meeting in Heaven at the end of Purgatorio. I think Dante knew that his reconciliation with Beatrice through the Divine Comedy was not necessarily supposed to be perfect, but that as a result of his own sinfulness, he had to face his own vices, especially after his journey in Inferno where we see his perspective of who he considered the damned.

There's just something about Dante's depiction of Beatrice that is so beautiful. It is a bit strange that he wrote so much about her despite the two already being married to others, but I think that his love letters to Beatrice in the form of La Vita Nuova and the Divine Comedy offer theological and moral lessons. Beatrice's desire to see Dante descend into Hell and up to Heaven through Purgatory allows readers the opportunity to learn much about what there is to fear when God is in the picture. He writes heavily against clericalism, demonstrating that no one is safe from Hell if they are corrupt in person. Beatrice is the personified fear that is struck in one's heart, but also the hope for what is to come. 

The Great Gatsby (2013) - A Review

It's going to take a lot for this to not sound like my A Level English essays, but I'll do what I can. The last thing I want to do is trigger flashbacks to 6th Form days. I'm not going to do a full plot analysis for this one. It's not even because the story is popular. It's just because the story itself is irrelevant to the points I want to make about the film. Yeah I know, a historical film but you don't want to talk about the plot? Insanity. I'm going to focus on the other elements of the film instead. Characters. Costume design. Music. Laws. That sort of thing. The last thing people need is a done-to-death plot overview with this popular tale.

When I studied the novel, one key aspect I had to research was the context it was set in: the Roaring 20s. A new era of decadence, rebellion, and style. Stepping away from the Edwardian fashions, thanks in part to the Great War, there was a desire to break with traditions and form new ones. With the new musical styles of jazz becoming popularised, people started to do away with restrictions that they found in their fashions. Corsets were done away with, and dresses had shorter cuts. Women's hairstyles took the form of the famous bob cut. Where the film was concerned, this detail was excellent. While there was the infamous flapper appearance, the film's costume designers, Catherine Martin and Miuccia Prada, gave the style a bit more of a unique touch, while keeping with Baz Luhrmann's typical modernist yet colourful style. The party Nick is invited to is a perfect example of this: we see all sorts of fashions that both men and women wear, with different colours, fabrics and sets. When I watched the film, I remember thinking how bright the entire montage was. No doubt it was modernised some to appeal to a 21st century audience, yet there was no denying that the costume design remained authentic. I actually enjoyed the modernist influence on the film. It made it easier to understand how seductive this kind of lifestyle was when we see much of it now. The allure of rebellious behaviour in a crowd is rather similar to today: instead of alcohol, it's drugs. 

I do think the styles in a way reflect the characters of the film. For example, Daisy is almost always seen wearing light colours, perhaps a reflection of her supposed innocence; the only time she wears black is when she restarts her affair with Gatsby. Meanwhile, Jordan's most iconic look is a black dress to match her dark hair and makeup - no doubt an indication of her corrupting influence. Costume designers very rarely have coincidental inferences with their work. I'm sure there was something important about trying to reflect differences between social groups - the aristocratic styles of Tom Buchanan, the simple tweed suits of Nick Carraway, and the "new money" custom-made cuts of Jay Gatsby.

The music of the film was definitely put together in a way that would appeal to the modern person. Upbeat jazz wasn't enough to keep our attention. From what information I could find about the musical styles, Jay-Z worked with Luhrmann for two years to blend the music of the Jazz Age theme of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel with hip-hop and pop. It was not a decision made lightly. Luhrmann stated, "The question for me in approaching Gatsby was how to elicit from our audience the same level of excitement and pop cultural immediacy toward the world that Fitzgerald did for his audience? And in our age, the energy of jazz is caught in the energy of hip-hop." Working with Graig Armstrong, the three managed to provide a soundtrack that incorporated the electronica that gained prominence in this time with the jazz of the 1920s, as well as not-so-subtle hint to classical music in the form of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. However, I won't lie - I didn't like the combinations. I have a love-hate relationship with jazz, and aside from a few exceptions, I don't like hip-hop that much. It was clever, but I really didn't like it.

The characters themselves were done very interestingly. Gatsby's entrance was far more satisfying than in Fitzgerald's novel, where it was almost anti-climactic that the man Nick spoke to at the party was Gatsby. Instead, there's the infamous scene of Leonardo DiCaprio raising a glass of champagne as fireworks explode in the background - far more satisfying. Roger Ebert made an interesting point about DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire's performances in the film, arguing that the two humanised their characters as Gatsby and Nick respectively, especially the latter: "It helps that he's played so many wry blank-slate types, but there's something else going on in his performance besides familiar notes — something deeper and sadder." Luhrmann's adaptation gives more substance to the characters so that we as the audience can feel more sorry for them, even if they were all horrible people in a way. Carey Mulligan and Elizabeth Debicki as Daisy and Jordan respectively were cast perfectly. I have to give props to the hair and make-up team for this one because the way they brought the 1920s out of these two actresses really felt like we had a proper glimpse of the styles of the time. The actresses themselves were able to portray a dichotomy of innocence and corruption, maintaining an aura of deception.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. There were a few hiccups, but the aesthetics of the film won me over. It transported me to the 1920s where there was an underlying knowledge of misconduct, disguised with liberty and amusement. As Nick says in the film, it was a kaleidoscopic carnival.

1989: Tiananmen Square

Source: Time Magazine

For many years, the Communist Party in China had produced a number of plans that would shape the country's economic policy. With the intent to make China a successful superpower without falling to capitalism, the government's policies backfired. Famines took hold of the people. Poverty was the common consequence for the majority of families. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a new desire for personal expression and liberty. While it would be impossible for the government to change their socio-political mindset, there was no denying that the policies implemented by Mao Zedong up until his death in 1976 had been disastrous. The aftermath sparked social and economic reform to change that.

The new governments realised that state interference in the economy was causing more damage than good, and began allowing for more privatisation, which was partly good, but led to nepotism and further corruption. In the attempt to improve the economy, there was a new generation of "intellectuals," that would help guide the shaping of new policies. While this allowed for more ideas to be heard, it caused mass confusion within the government, sparking competitions between the more conservative left, who believed reforms should be kept to a minimal, and the liberal "right," led by Hu Yaobang, the Communist Party's general secretary. Interestingly, the government was closer to wanting to avoid reforms, while it became increasingly obvious that the people wanted more reforms. In 1986, a number of students organised protests in several cities in support of political and economic liberalisation, led by Fang Lizhi, Wang Ruowang and Liu Binyan. The then-premier, Deng Xiaoping, did not like either of them, ordering Hu to silence the leaders - Hu refused. As a result, leading political and military officials called for his resignation, believing him to be too radical against the Communist Party. In a surprising twist, his resignation led to increased support for Hu, and a damaged reputation for the Communist Party, even though Hu became less active in Chinese politics. Within a couple years, he had suffered a heart attack and passed away.

Theoretically, Hu's death should have resulted a decrease of revolutionary sentiment among the masses. However, students believed that his death was a long-term consequence of his forced resignation. This caused a number of university campuses to put up posters eulogising Hu. It wasn't long before these students began making posters calling for freedom of the press, democracy, and the destruction of corruption. Gatherings began to form at the Monument to the People's Heroes at Tiananmen Square. On April 17th, students prepared a draft to submit to the government, effectively requesting for increased freedom of press and expression. On the 22nd of April, Hu's state funeral took place, where 100,000 students marched on Tiananmen Square, despite warnings from the state authorities that it would be closed off to the public. As the months proceeded, demands for liberty began to rise even more, resulting in a hunger strike by the students on the 13th of Mary, just two days before the Mikhail Gorbachev's - the Soviet leader - arrival to China. The students aimed to use the hunger strike in a highly-publicised event of Gorbachev's welcoming ceremony to draw more attention to their demands and gain further sympathy from the people. To prevent any sense of victory for the students, negotiations were held with the students, and that the welcoming ceremony would be cancelled regardless of whether they agreed to the negotiations or not.

As time went on, student rallies became more and more radical. Gorbachev's arrival to China still resulted in increased media attention of the demonstrations. Even after his departure, foreign media journalists stayed in Beijing to cover the rallies, now putting the the protests into the international spotlight, garnering support from the Western governments. The Chinese government had finally lost patience, and declared martial law on May 20th, claiming that the student rally movements were tools of "bourgeois liberalism" with the intent to push personal ambitions over patriotism. In a way, this partly backfired as many soldiers were won over by the demonstrators, who offered them food, water, and shelter, in exchange for support. On June 2nd, Premier Deng Xiaoping and other party members met to discuss further action on the matter. By this point, riots had started taking place, and chaos ran through the streets of Beijing. The military took a more aggressive stance against the demonstrators, sending in armed troops, prepared to kill the students unless they left, even if they were peaceful. By the early hours of June 4th, hundreds of protestors were dead. The rough estimate goes up to about 1000 dead, but it is possible it could have been more. To this day, discussion about the protests remains a banned topic in China, most ironically.

In modern history, this was one of the bloodiest massacres of the 20th century outside of warfare. The fate of those who led the movement is a mystery, due a certain number of random disappearances; even family members do not know what happened. However, in spite of the losses, it marked a significant step towards liberty in expression, as well as a lesson to not suppress peaceful attempts of demonstrations. In today's world, where differing points of view are frequently silenced, we need to remember that another person's view may be considered radical, but that we may have something to learn from them no matter how much we disagree.

Elizabeth II Regina

Source: The New York Times

On the 2nd of June, 1953, Queen Elizabeth II sat on the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey awaiting the Archbishop of Canterbury to place the royal sceptres into her hands, anoint her with holy oil, and place the St. Edward's crown on her head. By this point, the Queen had been the United Kingdom's monarch for over a year, having taken on the role on the 6th of February, 1952.

When her father, King George VI, died, the then-Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, commemorated the late king, while inspiring hope in the new queen: "Now that we have the second Queen Elizabeth, also ascending the Throne in her twenty-sixth year, our thoughts are carried back nearly four hundred years to the magnificent figure who presided over and, in many ways, embodied and inspired the grandeur and genius of the Elizabethan age." There was no doubt that the new queen's reign would be memorable, but she would have the heavy burden of not only carrying out her duty as the United Kingdom's sovereign, but as one of the very few queens to hold her title in her own right. Those who have had such a privilege have shaped the country in significant ways, and now this was almost an expectation. The people were glad to see a new Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but they had high hopes.

Unfortunately for the young queen, she had a tumultuous task ahead of her. The British Empire was crumbling. The working classes were gaining more prominence. While the idea of a female monarch in a new world was enticing to the masses, the Queen could only maintain that popularity for so long before people would lose interest. On the other hand, she still had her coronation to look forward to. In the advent of new media, it was almost to be expected that the coronation would be televised. King George's coronation only allowed for the BBC to be present outside of Westminster Abbey; this was the first time the BBC would be allowed to set the coronation for public viewing. The people would finally have a proper glimpse of the mystery of the monarchy.

No expense was spared for the coronation. It was a once-in-a-lifetime event, and the public would get to see almost everything. This meant the Queen's gown needed to be stunning. She had to look the part. Norman Hartnell was commissioned for the task. Having designed a number of royal outfits, including the Queen's wedding dress, he was trusted by the Royal Family to do the job well. The Queen appeared in a white silk gown, with the floral emblems of the countries of the Commonwealth embedded onto it. When the anointing ceremony was to be conducted, a plain, white linen dress - also designed by Hartnell - was worn to cover her coronation gown as a sign of humility. Hartnell didn't just design her gowns; he designed the outfits for all members of the royal family, and for all major royal ladies in attendance.

The ceremony itself was grand, but the most iconic moment is the anointing. Interestingly, this was the only moment that was not televised, at the Queen's request. This is the most sacred moment of the coronation, one that only those who had a full view of would be able to witness. I remember this scene so clearly in Netflix's The Crown, and Alex Jenkins' character, the Duke of Windsor, describes so poignantly: "Oils and oaths. Orbs and sceptres. Symbol upon symbol. An unfathomable web of arcane mystery and liturgy, blurring so many lines no clergyman or historian or lawyer could ever untangle any of it...It's perfectly sane. Who wants transparency when you can have magic? Who wants prose when you can have poetry? Pull away the veil and what are you left with? An ordinary young woman of modest ability and little imagination. But wrap her up like this, anoint her with oil, and hey presto! What do you have? A goddess." Many will no doubt question why such a key moment in the coronation would be shielded from view. However, it is because it has been kept from the public that the coronation ceremony as a whole manages to maintain a certain level of mystery. If the public got to see everything, then there wouldn't be as much intrigue with the Royal Family. Why else do we get excited with the slightest bit of gossip with the Royal Family? Because we are separate from them. If we knew everything about their life, from the moment they woke to the moment they slept, we wouldn't care after a while.

Will we hear the booming voices of Zadok the Priest anytime soon? I doubt it. Just a few days ago, the beloved Queen rode on her horse with as much capability as a young adult despite her being 94 years old. Is that a woman who has given into social conventions of the ageing population? Absolutely not. For all we know, she's decided to be immortal. One thing's for certain, the great woman will go down in history as one of the world's most celebrated women.

The Help - A Review

Left to right: Skeeter Phelan, Minny Jackson, Aibileen Clark

Layers. That is the first thing I think of with this film. There are just so many layers to this film that I don't even know where to start with it. It's one of those films that you can't really forget because of how thought-provoking and spectacular it is. There are so many memorable scenes. The original book by Kathryn Stockett is just as poignant. I just hope I can do this film justice with my analysis.

Aibileen and Mae Mobley

One of the most iconic lines in this film is a lesson Aibileen, played by Viola Davis, imparts onto the child she looks after: "You is kind, you is smart, you is important." These words are repeated throughout the film, and she makes sure to say it with Mae Mobley. Given that this film is set in the early 1960s, the values of the 1950s are still running high among the women of this film. Aibileen tries to subvert these values by teaching Mae Mobley that her worth doesn't come from her appearance, but from the way she treats people and her own merits. Today, this is considered the norm; 60 years ago, it was considered progressive and possibly even dangerous. Women were still taught that their worth came from how they looked, and how soon they got married and had children. Intelligence and inherent dignity wasn't enough. Heck, intelligence wasn't even that important.

One of the main characters, Skeeter, goes through this particular issue. Out of her friends within her social circle, she is the most compassionate to others, regardless of skin colour. This is probably because she was extremely close to her own maid, Constantine. I think there was supposed to be a parallel here between Skeeter and Mae Mobley. Considering Constantine attended the same church as Aibileen, and their work likely meant they would have met up occasionally, it is likely they used the same techniques on those they looked after. Constantine is seen in a flashback talking to a teenaged Skeeter about how beauty isn't an outward thing: "I wish you would quit feeling sorry for your self. Now, that's ugly. Ugly is something that grows up inside you. It's mean and hurtful, like them boys." Because Skeeter wasn't a stereotypical beauty, she stands out compared to the women of her social group, who sport the latest hair styles and fashions. Constantine's words echo Aibileen's, and it's quite heart-warming to watch.

Left to right: Hilly Holbrook, Mrs Walters, Minny Jackson

Social status is everything to women of this time. The film makes that very clear. Just the image above makes it obvious. Hilly Holbrook, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, is shown as the leader. Her ailing mother with mental health deterioration is behind her, and apparently not even worth properly looking after besides taking her in (probably for appearances' sake). Right behind is Minny, Mrs Walters' maid, the bottom of the social ladder. I remember studying social rankings in GCSE English when I read John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. Our class classified the various characters according to where they would rank on a social ladder. This scene made me think of that: the white able-bodied person would be at the top, while the black person - regardless of gender and ability - would be at the bottom. Quite the impressive line-up, really.

Minny with Celia Foote

Social status doesn't necessarily mean "poor vs rich." In Celia's case, she lives a glamorous life in a grand house on a plantation. However, she is shunned from Hilly's social group for two reasons: she doesn't have the same mentality as the group, and Hilly believed Celia stole her now-husband, Johnny, from Hilly. The latter allowed Hilly to spread gossip about Celia so that Hilly's social group wouldn't want to associate themselves with her, thus losing a social reputation. The former means that she will always be out of step even if she were allowed to socialise with them. This is quite similar to Skeeter, who shares similar views, but was kept in the group since she grew up with the rest of the women; we see her being slowly losing her status with the group because of her compassionate views. However, Celia only hires Minny because she needs help cleaning and cooking, not because it's social convention; she treats Minny as an equal, rather than beneath her. Minny even finds it bizarre that Celia would even try to sit at the same table as her. One of my favourite scenes with Celia is towards the end when Johnny discovers Minny had been working there for a while in secret. Celia prepares a whole dinner with everything Minny taught her as a means of thanking her for everything she did, something Hilly would never "condescend" to do. Johnny tells Minny that she "has a job there for the rest of [her] life, if [she] wants it." That little addition at the end makes a huge difference. Not only does Minny get job security for her whole life, she has the choice to decide whether she wants to continue working there or not at every point.

Minny exposes her chocolate pie to Hilly

I saved this one for last. The most iconic scene in the film. It doesn't even have a concrete historical element in it, but I just love it so much and it's so well-known that I can't not write about this film and not mention it. For a bit of context, Hilly has managed to pass an initiative in her town so that African-American people have to use different bathrooms to their employers, and it must be the new one that is set up specifically for them. However, there came a point where a hurricane went through Mississippi, and Minny was forced to decide between using the indoor toilet or her own outside the house. While Mrs Walters tells her to use the one inside, Hilly fires her for using her toilet. Minny gets her revenge by baking her signature chocolate pie, and serves it to Hilly, subtly hinting to her after that she put her own excrement into it. One might wonder whether she really did put it into the pie because if she did, wouldn't Hilly have noticed? I suspect she actually didn't do it, but made it seem as though she did. This wasn't just a simple prank either. Minny was particularly clever about this. She knew that she wouldn't get into trouble with the law over it because Hilly valued her social reputation above everything else. If Hilly told the police what happened, she would risk this information being known to those who know her, and she would forever be a source of ridicule. Of course, Minny uses this to her advantage. While Skeeter writes a compilation of stories from African-American maids, Minny insists the story be added to the book. As it would be completely anonymous, and the names would be changed, they would not be at any risk. Furthermore, Hilly would have to constantly deny the story was about their town because to give it any credibility would endanger her reputation. This was extremely clever, and I just loved how well-manipulated it was.

There are so many elements to this film that I could go on and on about it, but the post would be so long. I love the nuances behind each character, behind the key scenes. There's always a lesson to be learnt with the characters. Everything was just thought out so well.

The Boleyn Inheritance - Book Review

In light of my film review of The Other Boleyn Girl, I decided to do a book review of its sequel, since both were written by Philippa Gregory, thanks to a friend. If I recall correctly, this was the first historical fiction novel I read. I can't remember if there was anything else, but I remember thinking that I didn't want to degrade myself by reading the original novel of The Other Boleyn Girl, so I opted for this instead. The novel focuses on three different perspectives: Jane Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, and Katherine Howard. These give a different insight into the events that go on in the English court between 1539 and 1542. Honestly, this wasn't as bad as its precursor. At least this one made a bit more sense.

I'll start with Jane Boleyn's perspective. For those who don't know who she was, she was Anne Boleyn's sister-in-law through George Boleyn. In this novel, she is depicted as a rather vindictive woman with a guilty conscience. Historically, we know very little about Lady Rochford, except her close relationship with the Queens of England. She was known for having been a lady-in-waiting since the days of Catherine of Aragon, and served her faithfully until Anne Boleyn succeeded her. Although we don't know much about her, it has been traditionally accepted that Jane did not have a close relationship with George, and it is known that she did give evidence that led to his and Anne's conviction. Historian Retha Warnicke suggests that the reason behind this was because George was a homosexual. This line of thinking has been a common perspective to take regarding George's character, but Alison Weir argues that it was because of his promiscuity. As there was little evidence to prove his sodomite behaviour, she believes there was more evidence to indicate that he had been a bit of a playboy. However, Philippa Gregory takes an interesting approach to Jane's unhappiness: Jane contributed to the downfall of both her husband and Anne because of her strong jealousy of their relationship. Despite Gregory's love for historical inaccuracies, I have to admit this was a far more likely reason Jane hated her husband and sister-in-law than his sexual conquests. Anne and George shared an intimate relationship that Jane could not compete with, and thus her jealousy increased.

The novel suggests a certain guilt about Jane's actions. She goes on about her hatred for George and Anne, but frequently admits that she regrets what she did because she cannot do anything about it. However, her ambition is plain. When approached by the Duke of Norfolk (the uncle of Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard), she makes it clear that she desires to attain a new position, better than her current one. If such an agreement was made, I think very lowly of Jane for it - as there evidence that she did contribute to Anne and George's undeserved executions, it is rather disgraceful that she still maintained such a high level of ambition that she did not deserve. Fortunately, I don't think any agreement of the sort actually existed. In the novel, the Duke of Norfolk and Jane agree that she might marry a foreign noble; such a thing seems extremely impossible as foreign matches were generally between royalty. Jane was far from royal, and given her reputation as an ambitious courtier who pleaded guilt on Anne and George's part, she would not have been accepted as a future wife. Gregory definitely plays on this when Katherine's downfall comes along, and the Duke harshly tells Jane that there was never any match for her in the first place. Smart move, since Jane was conspiring with Katherine to let her commit adultery, working with Katherine's lover to arrange meetings between the two.

Katherine Howard has been known historically for being a very frivolous and childish teenager, and Gregory takes full advantage of this fact. Many of Katherine's chapters begin with "now let me say, what do I have?" I did like this about the novel; it showed Katherine's rise and downfall very well, showing what kind of possessions she gains and loses as the novel goes. I don't know if it was Gregory's intent, but Katherine came across as extremely annoying. Perhaps that was meant to be the case, since we are talking about a fourteen-year old girl who only cared about jewels and dancing. There was something about the way she was depicted, however, that made me feel sorry for her in a way that the HBO series, The Tudors, did not. Katherine is shown to be very ambitious, but in a typical teenage way, easily led astray by shiny things. But Gregory shows a dark side of Katherine's role that betrays her true feelings: "Being the wife of a king is not all dancing and parties in the rose garden...Nobody must ever know that I am so disgusted that I could vomit; nobody must ever know that it almost breaks my heart that the things I learned to do for love are now done to excite a man who would be better off saying his prayers and going to sleep. Nobody knows how hard I earn my sables and my pearls." A vigorous young girl, she longs for true love, which she knows she can never find in her husband, especially since she did have an affair with Francis Dereham before she entered the English court. This was why I couldn't feel sorry for Katherine in The Tudors: Jonathan Rhys Meyers was depicted far too handsomely to be Henry VIII.

The most fascinating character of this novel is Anne of Cleves. In this novel, she is depicted as an innocent Lutheran, bent on being a devoted wife. She is the total antithesis of Jane and Katherine, lacking in ambition, and desiring the good of others rather than herself. The only thing she worries for herself is her safety, and does whatever she can to conform to the will of King Henry to protect herself. While she is sent by her brother in the hopes that she can convert England to a Lutheranism, she realises very early on that she will not be able to do this, and immediately begins following the religion of her husband, however confused she may be about it. Traditionally, it has been accepted that Anne was from a Lutheran family, since her father had been influenced by a moderate line of thinking within the Reformation, her sister married the head of the Protestant Confederation of Germany, and her brother was a leading member of the Protestants who sought to fight against the Catholic rulers of France and the Holy Roman Empire. At least on that front, Gregory stayed true to historical accuracy. Anne's upbringing in the novel is shown to have been very simple. She was taught common wifely skills of the time, such as needlework, but not much else. She is only able to converse in German, and when asked to dance by Henry, her party is forced to inform him that she doesn't know how to dance. Yet she is seen to be a quick learner; she adapts to the English lifestyle, picking up English with the help of her ladies-in-waiting, dressing more fashionably, and learning different habits of the English court.

However, she is shown to be in constant danger. Knowing the changeable nature of Henry, she fears for her life at every point of the novel. When she was introduced to the King, she feared that his disgust of her would either prompt him to send her back to Cleves, or that he might find a way to kill her. When the marriage was disintegrating, she feared he would find a way to convict her of treason, just as he did with Cromwell. Even after she had agreed to the annulment and lived quietly in her own estates, she frequently worried about Henry deciding to send for her arrest, even if she knew she did nothing wrong. It wouldn't be until his death that she would finally feel free.

Certainly, Gregory does explain the Boleyn inheritance well. The blurb of the novel is an excellent summary of the inheritance that is bestowed upon the three women. Anne's inheritance is accusations, Katherine's is execution, and Jane's is "a fortune and a title, in exchange for her soul." She explains all this very well in how she depicts the three women, and I have to say, she redeemed herself. Perhaps she knew that success with The Other Boleyn Girl meant more historical scrutiny, and thus she felt it necessary to follow history more closely rather than constantly go down the road of "what if?" At least self-reflection is possible with her, however much I still think she is sub-par compared to other historical fiction novelists.