The MCU and Norse Mythology

Source: Quora

Mythology was not an aspect of history I cared about when I was younger. Not that much, anyway. I had some interest in Greek mythology when the Percy Jackson novels were extremely popular. I knew a little about Egyptian mythology simply because it was something eight-year olds were taught in Primary School. Other than that, my knowledge was extremely limited. This would be challenged when I was introduced to Norse mythology, thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The MCU brought Norse mythology into popular culture through the characters of Thor, Loki, Odin, Sif, and many more, who all live on Asgard, home of the gods. It was interesting to see how other cultures understood their deities, and what said deities were like. It was only when I started writing my dissertation 2 years ago that I realised that Marvel's portrayal was far from what what the Scandinavians actually believed.

Let's start with Thor. He's probably the most famous one out of the Norse gods in the MCU. When one thinks of Thor these days, they picture Chris Hemsworth with flowing blond hair and a blond beard. The original understanding of Thor in Norse mythology was that he was a red-head. Apparently Stan Lee had the intention of originally having Thor be a red-head, but he changed his mind. The MCU also points out that only those who are worthy can wield the Mjölnir, Thor's trusty hammer. In the films, only four people have managed to lift it: Thor, Odin, Hela, Vision, and Captain America. The reality is very different. The legends suggest that actually anyone can hold the hammer, and that there is no magical presence about the hammer that mean that only certain people can hold it. However, the Prose Edda, a piece of Norse literature, suggests that while there is no requirement to be "worthy" to hold the hammer, using it requires the Járngreipr, a set of gloves that allow the wielder to be able to handle the hammer's power in the first place. Perhaps that is where the idea of "being worthy" originated. On another note, the MCU places scientist Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman, as Thor's love interest. Actually, he was married to Sif, a goddess who was known for her golden long hair. Interestingly, Sif fell into a deep depression when Loki, the god of mischief, cut her hair off, which prompted Thor to threaten Loki's life if he didn't fix it; this event brought about the construction of the Mjölnir, along with a new set of hair for Sif. The MCU depicts Sif as just an Asgardian warrior who works with Thor.

Something that struck me about Thor's character in the MCU was how light-hearted he was. He is depicted is a somewhat comedic warrior, one who after the events of Avengers: Infinity War turned into a obese couch potato obsessed with Fortnite. He is still the war-loving hero, but with an awkward comical twist. Norse literature suggests that Thor was actually far from comedic in anyway. He was known to be a benevolent god and a defender of the people, but also one that inspired fear so that none would think to cross him. His aggressive personality was not to be understated. At his brother's funeral, a dwarf happened to walk in front of him, and out of anger, he kicks the dwarf into the funeral pyre. We definitely wouldn't see something like this in an MCU film. He has threatened death before, but not in a way that the audience wouldn't see it as unjustified. Usually it's against a supernatural villain of some sort.

The God of Mischief, Loki, brings to mind Tom Hiddleston - yet bizarrely, he doesn't display much mischief in the MCU films. He does occasionally, but he is known as the villain of the first Avengers film, hell-bent on being a domineering tyrant. The Norse depiction couldn't be further from the truth. Loki is depicted in the MCU as being Thor's adoptive brother, but one of the oldest surviving texts, the Lokasenna, speaks of how Loki was actually a blood-brother of Odin, by virtue of blood mixing and bonding. Odin is also bound by a vow that he cannot drink at a table unless Loki is welcome. There even isn't a contest for the throne because they all know they are bound for death due to Ragnorok, so Loki doesn't even attempt to steal the throne. A true trickster, Loki causes chaos through all manner of pranks. They can be villainous occasionally, such as when Loki tricks Balder's blind brother to throw a spear made of mistletoe, the only material that can kill Balder, at him, but initially goes unpunished as the gods blame Balder's brother. When the gods do discover that Loki was to blame, he is bound to three stones as venom slowly drips onto him; his wife holds a bucket over him to protect him, but when she goes to empty the bucket, the venom falls onto him, which causes him to convulse in immeasurable pain, sparking earthquakes of great magnitude.

So, Thor: Ragnarok shows the villain in the form of Hela, the Goddess of Death, who is depicted as Odin's banished daughter. As the film goes, it results in a combined effort between Thor, Loki, Valkyrie, the Hulk, and the Executioner leading an attack with a group of aliens against Hela and her forces, until Thor and Loki win by releasing Surtur to wreak havoc on Asgard. Let me just point out first that this story was very much far from the Norse legends. For starters, Hela is actually one of Loki's children. Loki is a father to Hela, Fenrir (who is destined to kill Odin and devour the sun during Ragnarok), and the Midgard Serpent (who kills Thor during Ragnorok). Here's something a little more interesting: Loki is mother to Sleipnir, Odin's eight-legged horse. How did that happen? General gist, the gods challenged a man to build a very specific war within a certain time frame that was supposed to be impossible in exchange for Freya and the sun and the moon, but as he neared completion, thanks to his horse, Loki prevented his success by turning into a female horse to seduce his horse, leading to him falling pregnant.

Speaking of Ragnarok, the film is vastly different to how the actual events turn out. Ragnarok is foretold to begin in midst of a long winter, Fimbulwinter. The earth will shake, freeing the Midgard Serpent and Fenrir. The wolves that chase the sun and the moon will finally catch their prey. As the sky splits, Surtr rushes forward to burn the earth. Honestly, that's the only detail that is accurate in the film adaptation, but even then, the details are wrong. Surtr destroys Asgard, and kills Hela in the film; in the legends, Surtr destroys the bifrost, a specific bridge that links Asgard to Midgard (aka Earth), as well as burns a ton of stuff. In the actual Ragnarok event, the warriors take to their final battle. Thor and the Midgard Serpent kill each other; Heimdall and Loki will be each other's end; Fenrir swallows Odin, but is then killed by Odin's son, Vidar. Not that the details matter, almost everyone dies!

In the aftermath of Ragnarok, the film depicts Asgard exploding before the survivors' eyes. These survivors are Thor, Loki, Heimdall, Valkyrie, and a number of other aliens. As we've already seen, this didn't actually happen, and there was no Thanos to suddenly appear and steal the Space Stone. Instead, Neil Gaiman describes the following:

"The woman and the man, Life and Life's Yearning, will come out from the inside the ash tree that holds the worlds together. They will feed upon the dew on the green earth, and they will make love, and from their love will spring mankind.
"Asgard will be gone, but Idavoll will stand where Asgard stood, splendid and continual.
"Odin's sons Vidar and Vali will arrive in Idavoll. Next will come Thor's sons, Modi and Magni. They will bring Mjollnir between them, because now that Thor is gone it will take two of them to carry it. Balder and Hod will return from the underworld, and the six of them will sit in the light of the new sun and talk among themselves, remembering mysteries and discussing what could have been done differently and whether the outcome of the game was inevitable."

So, all in all, the MCU had a very different depiction of Norse mythology and its contents. It was all very entertaining as it happened, but one couldn't help but feel a slight annoyance that the details were off. In a way, it was like comparing a book to a film adaptation. Though, in a way, it makes sense that they couldn't keep true to the myths and legends. After all, it made for a very educational revelation.

V-E Day.

Source: BBC

On this day, 75 years ago, more than one million people took to the streets all over the United Kingdom to celebrate the end of a horrendous war, marking the defeat of Nazi Germany. A proclamation was made by the Prime Minister at 3pm, followed by a speech by the King at 9pm. Celebrations spread all over Europe to mark this tremendous victory by the Allies (Britain, America, and the Soviet Union) against the fascist regime. The bells of St. Peter's Basilica rang loud, inspiring other churches in Rome to follow suit. In Switzerland, the flags of the triumphant Allied nations were risen in victory. All of Europe celebrated this momentous occasion.

The war was not over in other parts of the world, specifically against Japan, but the long 6-year war had finally come to an end. German soldiers surrendered their arms all across Europe as they finally admitted defeat. Prisoners of war (PoWs) walked free for the first time in a long time, and were able to return to their home countries. Yet no one was prepared to celebrate this moment that had been a long time coming. Despite the many hopes and prayers that the end of the war would come, when the day finally came, no one knew how to celebrate. That didn't stop them from going out into the streets and celebrating with their friends and family.

The Second World War claimed millions of lives in Europe. Many who lived during this time have different experiences of the war. Some were children who were evacuated to the countryside, some were soldiers who lived to tell of their experiences in war, and some were survivors of the Holocaust. Each have different stories to tell. Museums were built all over Europe to not only mourn the victims of the war, but to celebrate those who survived arguably one of the worst wars in history.

I think many European countries had a lot of plans for today. 75 years marking the end of a horrendous war is something to celebrate, and it would have meant a greater celebration this year than any other year. I remember watching the 75th tribute of the D-Day landings - I pictured this year to be a much bigger event. Instead, the world is fighting another war against an enemy that we can't even see. Any plans that were made have been scrapped because we can't step outside without worrying that we will inhale a killer virus and spread it to those we love. I have my thoughts about the virus and the politics around it, but that's not the point of this post. This year, we spend the anniversary of the end of a great war at home, doing whatever we can to protect those we love, while the soldiers against this virus risk their lives on the front line in hospitals and clinics.

I was looking through the speeches made by Winston Churchill, and by King George VI, on this day 75 years ago. Something about what the King had said was particularly poignant:

"Let us remember those who will not come back: their constancy and courage in battle, their sacrifice and endurance in the face of a merciless enemy; let us remember the men in all the services, and the women in all the services, who have laid down their lives. We have come to the end of our tribulation and they are not with us at the moment of our rejoicing"

Fighting this virus isn't the same as soldiers going into battle at risk of getting shot down or blown to bits by bombs and tanks. Fighting this virus isn't the same as the millions of people who were thrown into concentration camps and treated like they were nothing. I'll admit that much. But lives are still being lost, and lives are being laid down to fight and protect everybody else. When this crisis against COVID-19 is over, no doubt there will be celebrations just as the people of Europe celebrated 75 years ago. I'm sure countries will come together to properly celebrate V-E Day out of reverence to those who gave up their lives in this war. If there was to be a message to spread at the end of the war, it was one of hope. Things seem so dull and hopeless right now, but like any crisis, this too shall pass.

Margaret and Antony: A Violent Affair

Something I enjoy doing every now and then is going on Wikipedia, and looking up what events took place on this day. I looked up May 6th and learnt that today would have been the wedding anniversary of the Earl and Countess of Snowdon, also known as Antony Armstrong-Jones and Princess Margaret. That was a bit of a happy coincidence, since my favourite royal wedding gown is Princess Margaret's. However, this marriage was a dark one, and I find it hard to believe it was built on true love; both will have had other motivations to marry each other, and they might have loved each other in their own special way, but I don't think they were meant to have a fairy-tale marriage.

Okay, let me get this part out of the way first, because I need to have my fangirl moment. JUST LOOK AT THAT BEAUTIFUL LOOK!!! Honestly, Princess Margaret looked more like a queen than her elder sister and Britain's sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. A lot of fans of the British Royal Family love Queen Elizabeth's wedding dress, but I honestly thought it made her seem...old. Dull. Boring. Then, along comes the rebellious Princess Margaret in a grand dress made of silk organza in a simple yet stylish fashion, topped off with a large veil under the Poltimore tiara. Yes, that huge thing on her head is just a tiara, apparently. Granted, Queen Elizabeth wore the famous Queen Mary Fringe Tiara for her wedding, which is reputably one of her favourites, and shows off her royal status very well. Yet I can't shake off the feeling that Margaret's wedding look made her appear more queenly than the Queen herself. Strange, given that both gowns were designed by Norman Hartnell. 

When Margaret first met Antony, it had been three years since she broke off her engagement with Peter Townsend. This relationship caused nation-wide scandal. Not only was Townsend about fifteen  years older than Margaret, he was a divorced man. However, he provided Margaret a certain comfort that she needed when her father, King George VI, had passed away. Perhaps it was his maturity and closeness to her father that might have appealed to her. They had intended to marry, however, the Church of England did not recognise divorces, thus in the eyes of the Church, Peter Townsend was still married. After several years of hardships, separations and false hope, the two decided not to marry. 

Margaret met Antony at a dinner party. In the Netflix series, The Crown, Margaret asks her lady-in-waiting to find a way for her to meet other people who don't "breed horses, own land, or know [her] mother." I don't think this was necessarily the same in reality, but given Antony's exotic background, there were definitely some...interesting people at the dinner party. According to reports, the two hit it off right away. Margaret was searching for her identity in a spell of depression, and Antony liked to meet different people. Their relationship was kept fairly secret and out of public view, but there was support from both the Royal Family and the public when the two announced their engagement in 1960. While the Royal Family might have preferred Margaret marry a nobleman with a title, they were happy for her; biographer Anne de Courcy writes, "They all liked him very much—Tony had great charm, very good manners and he knew exactly how to behave. He felt devotion to the royal family, to the Queen, who he admired immensely. He got on very well with Prince Charles and he adored the Queen Mother." When the Netflix series depicted this relationship, they failed to demonstrate the loyalty between Antony and the Royal Family. There was good feeling, but I didn't understand why the Royal Family were on Antony's side at the peak of the couple's problems. I still don't, but now I get the feeling that it might've been because Antony stuck to the traditions and rules more than Margaret, which is saying something.

I suspect the real reason Margaret married Antony was because she found his presence a breath of fresh air. He was not like the stuffy, aristocratic men that Margaret was forced to surround herself with by her mother. He was an artist and had a different view of the common man. At the same time, the pressures of finding a husband, and the depression she suffered after her relationship with Townsend, might have pushed her further into Antony's arms so that her family and the public would leave her alone. Furthermore, Townsend had just re-married, which might have opened up some old wounds for Margaret. As for Antony, de Courcy's biography suggests that he was a black sheep in society. He had come from a well-to-do family, but his interests laid outside of the aristocracy and upper middle class social groups. De Courcy also implies that he had also been very sexually liberal, citing a close friend of Antony, "If it moves, he'll have it." Marrying Margaret was more likely to tie him down, remove him from his own circle of friends, and make his private life more public if he wasn't careful, so I questioned why he would marry her at all. The Netflix series almost hints that the reasoning behind his decision was to do with a certain feeling of vindictiveness against his mother, and a desire to be above her. It's a plausible notion, but I think he married her for career ambition. Not only would marrying Margaret erase his promiscuous past by depicting him as a family man, he would have greater access to celebrities for his photographic work. True enough, he became a notable photographer with Vogue and Vanity Fair, working with high-profile celebrities like Dame Maggie Smith, Elizabeth Taylor and Laurence Olivier. Did the two love each other? Probably. Did they love each other enough? No.

The marriage began to deteriorate after a few years. De Courcy argues that the two were constantly competing for "centre-stage," as "they were both pretty strong-willed and accustomed to having their own way, so there were bound to be collisions." Margaret expected Antony to be attentive to her needs, namely intimacy; she was disappointed that Antony generally prioritised his photography over her. The two had different experiences of marriage. Margaret's parents were consistently loving and loyal to each other, while Antony's had divorced. It was a violent marriage, and not necessarily in the abusive way. One biographer noted that the marriage was accompanied by "drugs, alcohol and bizarre behaviour," like Antony leaving notes about why he hated Margaret lying around for her to see. Almost as soon as the cracks were formed, unfaithfulness began to seep through. This might have already been a problem to begin with, seeing as a recent DNA test in the last couple decades proved that Antony fathered an illegitimate child with a friend before marrying Margaret.

During Antony's trips, he began having casual flings, all while Margaret had an affair with his friend, Anthony Barton, and later (and more popularly) with Roddy Llewllyn. In 1969, Antony started a more serious affair with Lady Jacqueline Rufus-Isaacs, the idea of which angered Margaret even though she had her own sexual affairs. In Margaret's mind, there was a difference between the kind of affairs she had versus the ones Antony had; Antony's were out of pure lust, whereas Margaret craved the intimacy she lacked with Antony. Naturally, any decent person would agree they were both lecherous. The two eventually separated in 1976, and then became the first royal couple to divorce in 1978 since King Henry VIII. 

There was no way this relationship could have had a "happily ever after." The two had opposing personalities that clashed violently, to the point where they were more vindictive against each other than loving. At the same time, they were right for each other in special ways. Antony gave Margaret her adrenaline rush, and Margaret gave Antony the ability to climb the ranks. In the end, they were a doomed romance.

Victoria and Abdul - A Review

Source: Vanity Fair

I first watched this film in 2018 on a flight back to Dubai for my annual summer holiday trip. Okay, I'm not sure if I can actually say I watched it because it was while the plane was landing, I couldn't hear a single thing because the Emirates flight attendant had taken away the headsets, and I only caught maybe the first 10 minutes of the film. The first time I properly watched the film was on my flight back to Manchester from Dubai. The first ten minutes I caught was enough for me to attempt the film a second time, this time allowing for the whole film to be completed, and with a working pair of earphones. Truth be told, it gave me a new area of history to explore, one I never really saw as interesting enough to look further on Wikipedia. This is a bit strange to admit as a lover of the British Royal Family and its history. I enjoyed the film so much that I began looking for history texts to read, just so that I can learn more about Queen Victoria - so I found The Greedy Queen by Annie Grey, whose text was used for the film. I even found the original book the film was based on, written by Shrabani Basu, which was far more detailed.

The film begins in Agra, in British India, where we see a Muslim man, Abdul Karim, praying. This same man is seen walking to work; he works for a prison where he compiles a ledger of the prisoners' names. Abdul is later informed that he will be travelling with another Indian man, Mohammad Bakhsh, to Britain to present a ceremonial coin to Queen Victoria; along the way, Major Bigge explains to the Indian men the hierarchy of staff in the Queen's household. What I found rather amusing was their arrival in England; Major Bigge proclaims "Civilisation!" when they walk off the ship, to which Abdul and Mohammad look at each other while several beggars look at the gentlemen asking for money. I suppose this was an indication of how racial intolerance existed in the aristocracy: it was more civilised to be a poor white man than to be an Indian cleric. When Abdul and Mohammad are dressed in their new uniforms, Abdul points out to the tailor that a sash is not traditional, to which the tailor remarks that the paintings they copied from "didn't look very...Indian." I wouldn't be surprised if this was the actual mentality of many at the time, but it did feel rather infuriating anyway. I guess that was the intended effect.

The first scene featuring Queen Victoria, played by Dame Judi Dench, is probably my favourite scene in the film. As I've stated in previous posts, I love studying lifestyles and etiquette, so that was a check on my list watching this film. We see that as soon as the Queen begins her meal, the rest dining with her can begin; however, as soon as she finishes, the rest must stop as well. Unfortunately for Victoria's dining mates, she finishes her meals very quickly, and does not socialise while she eats, which the others do, meaning that by the time she has finished her meal, the rest are just barely beginning. I read once that because of how fast Queen Victoria ate, dining events often ended within half an hour. The kitchen staff and the footmen developed a system so that every time the Queen finished her food, the next course would be served promptly without fail. I wondered what was the reason behind this, so after doing a bit of digging, I understood that the Queen's gluttonous diet stemmed from the depression she suffered after the death of her husband, Prince Albert, and the speed at which her dinner events happened was a result of the Queen hating social events at that point. Makes sense. I'd probably do the same. At the end of the dinner, Abdul and Mohammad present the ceremonial coin to the Queen, who is taken by Abdul, remarking, "I thought the tall one was rather handsome."

Abdul and Mohammad are hired as the Queen's personal footmen for the entire of the Jubilee celebrations, but she becomes more enchanted by Abdul, who tells her stories of India's culture and history. He explains the origins of the Taj Mahal, built by a Mogul King for his beloved wife. He talks of the amazing Indian food that can be found: "Dal, rogan josh, biryani with mango chutney!" Poor Queen Victoria admits that she can never set foot on India because there is risk of her being assassinated, despite her curiosity. I read in the titular novel that Abdul had brought a number of spices, took over her royal kitchens, and prepared a variety of traditional Indian dishes for her, to the dismay of the rest of the household. Victoria's interest in Indian culture causes her to ask Abdul to teach her an Indian language, arguing that she should as Empress of India. Initially she asks him to teach her Hindi, but he tells her that it would be more fitting for her to learn Urdu: "You are the Empress of India. You should learn Urdu, language of the Mughals. There are a thousand languages in India, but Urdu is the most noble." I'm pretty sure many Indians might disagree on this point. With over a thousand languages in India, there's bound to be one who think a different language is superior to Urdu. Naturally, given that Abdul is Muslim, it's not too surprising why he would argue in favour of the language.

As Victoria's interest in Indian culture grows, so does her relationship with Abdul. Eventually she confides her struggles as Queen of England to him, and how lonely it is given that her husband is dead, her closest confidante (John Brown) is dead, and her children are all spoilt and ambitious. She questions what her purpose her life has anymore, to which Abdul explains from the Quran that people are on Earth to serve others. Learning that Abdul knows the Quran by heart, she removes his status of servitude in order for him to become her "Munshi." I found this rather controversial. As the head of the Church of England, one would question whether this status would come into question; however, Queen Victoria never showed any sign of converting to Islam, so her interest in the religion and Islamic culture remained simply an interest.

Throughout the film, a sense of uneasiness grows among the staff and with the Prince of Wales, Bertie. Shrabani Basu's novel writes about Victoria's lack of racial intolerance, and her hatred of such sentiments; yet she was the minority with this view. Her loyalty to Abdul might theoretically have inspired others to follow suit, yet Bertie, along with Victoria's private secretary and her personal physican, work to find any evidence that might incriminate Abdul in order to remove him from favour. When Victoria intends to bestow a knighthood upon Abdul in order for him to gain any level of respect at all, they threaten to declare her insane to remove her from power. Whether this actually happened in reality is a mystery to me, but given the racist sentiments of the time, I wouldn't be surprised if it did. However, when the new Prince of Wales, George, visited India between 1905-1906, he met with Abdul, who was wearing the medal of a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, one of the highest honours of the order. Yet the film shows that to even bestow a knighthood on an Indian was considered worthy of the household servants threatening to resign, as they believed it would tarnish the reputation of a knighthood. The idea of an Indian being given a title suggested that they would have to view him as an equal, which they did not believe.

Unfortunately, the only reason why Abdul did not have to worry about his newfound luxury of being so close to the Queen, and of being able to live in a nice house in England, was because he had Victoria's protection. In the film, Victoria warns Abdul that while she still has a few days left, he should go home because she would not be able to protect him when she dies, and there was no knowing what Bertie or the staff would do in her absence. True enough, when she does die, Bertie immediately sends staff to burn any evidence of correspondence between Victoria and Abdul to remove the idea that there was such a relationship at all. The reality was slightly different in that Bertie, or Edward VII as he would be at this point, had only called for correspondence between the Munshi and the Queen to be retrieved after he had been sent back to India, to which the Viceroy of India at the time had reacted negatively, insisting that the letters be returned. Thankfully, Abdul's diary and some of his correspondence with the Queen was hidden, and his family made the story public in 2010.

I love this movie. It's not amazing on a critical level, but it's at the very least a guilty pleasure film that I can enjoy lying in bed. It has a sad ending, but that was to be expected given the racialist sentiments of the time. Truth be told, I'm still going through Shrabani Basu's novel of the same name to learn more about Abdul's relationship with the Queen, which is far more detailed than the film can portray. Perhaps it is time to do some extra research on Indian history next ;)

Henry VIII: The Paranoid Tyrant

As I laid in bed at midnight, I wondered what topic to discuss next. By this point, I've already done a few reviews, and as a serious historian, I thought it necessary to discuss something more realistic and stray away from non-fiction for my next post. My specialisation for History has always been the Tudor dynasty, and it's been that way for as long as I can remember. I don't know why it began in the first place, but I remember the first time I studied Tudor History, which was in Year 4. 8-year old me had heard of Queen Elizabeth I, but at the time, I didn't know anything about her. When I learnt that she was the result of a scandalous union that tore England from papal authority, naturally I was curious - most romances do not involve such acts. Thus my love for the Tudor dynasty began. My fascination for all things Tudor has even led me to aspire to visit the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula within the Tower of London, where the bodies of many "traitors" were buried, such as St Thomas More, Anne Boleyn and Lady Jane Grey. What made me consider this topic was that we are living through a pandemic, and as I laid in bed wondering what to write about without delving into done-to-death topics, I considered Henry VIII's aversion to infection.

King Henry VIII of England was notorious for his marital life, and for his gluttonous lifestyle. When one thinks of this royal bully, it's hard not to think about how much he used to eat, or how he treated his wives as though they were like underwear. However, his paranoia for illness and maladies is not as well-known, yet it played a large role in how he conducted himself, or how he raised his children, especially Edward. Knowledge surrounding how illness was spread at the time was very limited, and generally incorrect. The common argument was "bad air" when one fell ill, which then spread to others as long as they were in the same room. However, in Henry's case, if someone were to fall sick within his own palace, that would be enough to consider himself damned, and he would immediately remove himself and close members of his family to a different location, usually the countryside far from London.

A notable moment when Henry had to deal with an outbreak was in 1528, during the outbreak of the Sweating Sickness. Even today, no one really knows exactly what the Sweating Sickness was. It was a well-known early-modern disease, described as a quick killer. Discover magazine writes, "Death usually came quickly. It killed some within three hours, wrote one Tudor chronicler. Some within two hours, some merry at dinner and dead at supper." This was one disease that Henry was particularly fearful of, considering it claimed the life of his older brother, Arthur, and his close friend, William Compton. The 1528 outbreak even nearly killed his then-lover, Anne Boleyn. At the beginning of the outbreak, Henry was tempted to go elsewhere, but as the illness had not affected anyone at court, there was little reason to leave. However, when several servants died, among them Anne's personal maid, Henry immediately took his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his daughter, Mary, to Ludlow, where they would be far away from London, safe from the disease's reach. As he had already begun his affair with Anne Boleyn, although it was not sexual, he wished her well and sent her to her home, Hever Castle for her protection. I read somewhere that when Anne disclosed to Henry that her maid had died from the Sweating Sickness, he recoiled from her, and did not wish to be anywhere near her physically. If this is a true account, it's not all too surprising. Henry was generally a selfish person, and his fear of infection would have meant that he would prioritise his health over others. Of course, the excuse would likely have been, "Who will succeed me if I'm dead? Not my daughter!!!"

Henry's obsession with health arguably jeopardised the health of his son, in a twisted way. The arrival of Edward Tudor was an assurance to the Royal Family not only that the Tudor dynasty would continue, but that the country would be safe from the threat of civil war. Up until this point, the succession was in question, as both the King's daughters had been declared illegitimate from invalid marital unions, thus they ideally would have no claim to the throne. Yet the religious turmoil that struck the country in the 1530s threw into question who would rule the country in the unfortunate event that the King died; traditionalists and the country folk supported Mary Tudor's claim, whereas reformers - which were found among the nobility - supported Elizabeth Tudor. Edward's birth settled once and for all who would inherit the crown.

However, as Edward was the son Henry had prayed so hard for, he did not take Edward's health lightly. Put in the care of his governess, Lady Margaret Bryan, Edward was immediately placed in Hampton Court Palace, which was at the time in the countryside away from plague-ridden London. Edward's household was under strict observance by both the King and Lady Margaret. Nobody below the rank of knight was allowed near Edward, and regardless of rank, no one was allowed to touch Edward without the King's permission. Edward's food was to be tested first in the event that someone tried to poison him. The rooms Edward would inhabit were to be scrubbed down three times a day. When this was depicted in the 2007 series, The Tudors, Lady Margaret's son, Francis, pointed out that Edward was probably the cleanest baby in England, to which Margaret noted that Edward was also the most precious baby in England. No doubt someone will have made the same remark in history, for Edward was indeed Henry's precious jewel. Yet it is because of Henry's paranoia surrounding Edward that Edward's health deteriorated frequently, thus resulting in his early death at age 15. Living in such sanitary surroundings meant that Edward would not have been able to develop a proper immune system to combat infection. I would argue that Henry was indirectly responsible for his son's death. There were other causes, but that's a blog post for another time.

So, moral of the story: wash your hands, don't overdo it. Kids need space to develop their immune system, but don't throw them into mud or something to do it.

Downton Abbey - Season 1 Review, Part 2

And so begins Part 2 of my review of Downton Abbey, Season 1! Honestly, even though the show has already explored a myriad of topics in the first three episodes, I think from this point onwards is where the show starts to get more interesting. The show begins to explore more socially-complex issues, which work well in conjunction with how the first three episodes have set up the story. The characters have already been introduced, the audience is aware of how the characters behave; all that's left is to develop them.

Tom Branson and Sybil Crawley

Episode 4

The episode begins with the introduction of Tom Branson, an Irishman hired as a new chauffeur with an interest in history and politics. This detail proves to become a major character point throughout the show, especially for the first three seasons. It is revealed later in the episode that Tom is a "socialist, not a revolutionary," which in itself could cause problems if he were outspoken about them, which he is. Unfortunately - or fortunately - this has an indirect influence on the youngest Crawley daughter, Sybil. I do wish he demonstrated his socialist views more in this episode, but given what we were about to see with Sybil, it would have caused the entire episode to be too politically-heavy.

As Sybil becomes more bold about her views about the women's suffrage movement, so to does she become more bold about female empowerment. In a previous episode, Sybil learns that that Gwen, a housemaid working at Downton Abbey, desires to leave service to become a secretary, she immediately begins looking for options for Gwen, believing that life for women could be more than just being a servant or a housewife. Perhaps meeting Tom gave her the push she needed to explore freedom for women in other senses, and to become more active in her political thoughts. I do wonder if she would have dared to dress in pantaloons by the end of the episode, which were seen as subversive and scandalous at the time. Maybe she might have, but I'm not convinced.

Lord and Lady Grantham, and the Dowager Countess of Grantham, observe Mr Molesley's roses.

Episode 5

In my opinion, this episode was the weakest in the entire season, but at the same time, there was a lot that happened in this episode for me to talk about, largely surrounding the idea of aristocratic influence.

The focal point of the episode is on Sybil and Gwen's secret. Knowing about Gwen's ambition, which was frowned upon by many from all classes, Sybil decides to help her anyway, believing that women should be able to do whatever made them happy. She writes letters to various businesses, praising Gwen's abilities and recommending her unto them. This proves successful for the two of them, and Gwen is invited for an interview. Although everything goes smoothly up until the end of the interview, their horse ends up lame, and they have to make excuses to explain their disappearance...while hiding Gwen's secret. Unfortunately, Gwen is not successful, which pushes Sybil to be more driven to help her where she can until she is successful. This, honestly, is one of the more interesting parts of the episode.

The other plot of this episode focuses on a flower show. This is perhaps where the influence of the aristocracy really comes to light in this era. Isobel finds it interesting that the Dowager Countess wins the contest every year, which Violet argues is merely the result of the judges deciding her flowers are the best. That year, roses are put on display by Molesley's father, which are admired strongly by Lady Grantham. Despite this, when the winner is announced, we see a shot where it shows that Violet has won once again that year, but she decides to announce that the winner is the senior Molesley, much to the surprise of all present. Even though Violet displays a gesture of goodwill, it does show that the aristocracy are treated very highly, and it is inferred that the general population of the area do not wish to disappoint them at risk of losing their tenancies or occupations.

Matthew Crawley, Sybil Crawley and Tom Branson at the results of the by-election.

 Episode 6

Other than the first episode, this is probably my favourite episode of the season. This is where we really see Sybil and Tom's political sides come out, and in full force. Tom's socialist views are more defined, and he expresses his discontent with the upper classes to Sybil: "If I do [go into politics], it's not all about women and the vote for me, nor even freedom for Ireland. It's the gap between the aristocracy and the poor, and...I'm sorry. I don't mean to speak against his lordship." He makes it clear that while he respects Lord Grantham as another human being and as an employer, he doesn't approve of him being a representative of "an oppressive class." While I am not a socialist, nor even a socialist sympathiser, it's just fascinating to watch Tom's character development from this point onwards. Even within this episode, he demonstrates that he doesn't support violence to pursue his goals when he defends Sybil against a group of thugs. In Sybil's case, she feels even more strongly about the cause for a woman's right to vote, believing that the Prime Minister of the time is "resisting the inevitable." She goes as far as to have an active role in politics by joining movements, admitting that she wants to get involved in canvassing. In her family's disapproval, she lies to her father and to Tom, telling them she's going for a charity meeting, when she actually goes for the results of the by-election, resulting her getting injured. Naturally, although unfairly, Lord Grantham blames Tom's influence.

Throughout the season, Mary's scandal with Mr Pamuk slowly becomes more of public knowledge. At one point, Lady Grantham points out that the upper classes have started gossiping about Mary, which pushes her to find ways to wed Mary to anyone in order to quell the rumours. One attempt is through Sir Anthony Strallan, whom Lord Grantham describes as "at least my age and as dull as paint." Although nothing comes from the attempt, Mary is more inclined towards Matthew. Her fondness for him is more pronounced in this episode; she spends some time alone with him following Sybil's ordeal, discussing politics and conformity to class expectations, which ultimately results in the two sharing their first kiss. She reveals to Lady Grantham that Matthew has proposed to her, which would theoretically be exciting news, but her wanton behaviour with Pamuk makes her feel obliged to tell him, leaving her conflicted as to whether she ought to accept the proposal or not, knowing that Matthew would not take so kindly to her if he knew the truth. Knowing that someone as liberal as Matthew would not accept a pre-marital scandal as such just goes to show the social consequences; it's a shame, though - Mary and Matthew were always the endgame for me.

Left to right: Lady Grantham, Mr Carson, Lord Grantham

Episode 7

This episode is the turning point for the characters. At the beginning of the episode, housekeeper Mrs Hughes notes to Lord and Lady Grantham that the main gossip around the area is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. It's clear from here on that while this has no direct impact on Britain yet, people are speculating what the influence it would have on Britain when a great war could begin on the continent.

At the same time, Mary's conflict as to whether she should accept Matthew's proposal is complicated further when Lady Grantham finds herself unexpectedly pregnant. Not knowing whether the baby will be a boy (which would displace Matthew's position as heir) or not, Mary hesitates even further, causing her relationship with Matthew to deteriorate all the more. I honestly think this was extremely shallow on her part; while there was benefit to be had by marrying Matthew if he remained the heir, Mary potentially deciding against marrying him over a title and estate worsened my view of her. Of course, the aristocracy of this time will disagree, considering they believed love was not as important in the marital conquest as class prospects. Heck, Mr Carson would disagree.

Throughout the season, the cook, Mrs Patmore, experiences some difficulty with her sight, blaming Daisy on all of her faults. It was not serious when it started, but Episode 5 brings to light the severity it has reached. She drops a tray containing roasted chickens, which results in the housemaids attempting and successfully covering up the mishap; later, she accidentally pours salt all over a raspberry meringue dessert, rather than sugar. It is at this point, that both the staff and the family decide it might be best to send Mrs Patmore for corrective surgery. Although it proves successful in the end, Mrs Patmore advised the scullery maid, Daisy, to sabotage Mrs Bird's cooking, who joins the staff temporarily, in order to ensure Mrs Patmore will have a job waiting for her. The staff find out, but Mrs Bird is sympathetic, telling Daisy that "there are worse crimes on earth than loyalty." I did enjoy Mrs Patmore's arc through the season; it made her and Daisy's personalities more fleshed out, and gave us an idea of what kind of relationship they had.

The episode/season ends well, and in a way I love: with a cliff hanger. One thing I noticed about this season, and potentially with the whole show, is that whenever a character receives a telegram, one can expect either very good news or very bad news that affects the story in some way. The first episode shows a telegram containing the news that Lord Grantham's heir and the heir's son have died. The last episode ends with a telegram containing news that Britain has declared war on Germany, while the camera view shifts between the characters wondering how this news will affect them. Those who studied World War One will have an idea of who will directly be affected, but there's only so much one can guess.

Downton Abbey - Season 1 Review, Part 1

In a time of a global pandemic, many have turned to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime or whatever streaming services are available. I decided to binge-watch Downton Abbey instead, partially out of boredom. Like many others, I suffered a depressive spell from being cooped up at home constantly with very little to do, and a sense of uselessness at not being able to be productive. However, when I got to Season 3 of the show, a conversation stood out to me. Edith complains to the Dowager Countess that in her depression following getting jilted at her own wedding that she doesn't know what to do; her grandmother is initially sympathetic, but admonishes her, "Edith, dear, you're a woman with a brain and reasonable ability. Stop whining and find something to do." No doubt many have already told me the same thing, but sometimes it takes that extra push to get me to do something about it. This gave me the idea to do reviews of the show itself. If the title didn't make it clear already, this will have spoilers, so read at your own risk ;)

Left to right: Mr Carson, Edith Crawley, Robert Crawley, Mary Crawley

Episode 1

The show begins following the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, where the heir to Downton Abbey died in the sinking. Honestly, given the premise, they couldn't have picked a better year for the show to begin. The entire show covers a large range of historical subjects between the years 1912 to 1925, from key events to controversial topics. Considering the main issue of Season 1 focuses on who will inherit Downton Abbey, the sinking of the Titanic makes for an excellent starting point. The introductory montage features the routines of various members of staff; the scullery maid, Daisy, is up before dawn and makes sure the fireplaces of all the family members are prepared quietly without waking them, all before waking the rest of the staff at 6am. Once the staff are dressed in their appropriate uniforms, the housemaids and the footmen prepare the ground floor rooms, opening the curtains, setting the dining table for breakfast, and clearing away any trace of mess; then, and only then, can they have their meagre breakfast, which point the bells of the rooms begin to go off, signalling that the aristocratic family are awake. This is one of my favourite scenes in the entire series; I love studying lifestyles of people throughout history, understanding what kind of routines they might've had. I even managed to find Downton Abbey: Rules for Household Staff in a bookstore in Dubai a few years ago, which was published officially by Julian Fellowes, outlining the tasks each of each staff member.

When considering the tasks of staff members, the episode featured a new member of staff, Mr Bates, who was hired as Lord Grantham's valet; however, he is seen with a walking stick, which he explains is due to a war injury he suffered during the Second Boer War. The rest of the staff, aside from housemaid Anna, are not optimistic in the slightest, viewing him as a hindrance and potentially extra work for them. I thought this to be reflective of the stigmas against those with disabilities, whether they be caused naturally or as a result of war. This stigma is used as a means of a prank when Lady Grantham's maid, Ms O'Brien, deliberately trips Mr Bates so that he would fall in front of a large group of people, thereby humiliating him. It almost results in him quitting his job before Lord Grantham insists that he stays and they work it out together. It was interesting that the aristocrat would have a much kinder view of him than his own colleagues, but I suspect it was down to loyal ties as Bates was Lord Grantham's batman during the war.

Matthew Crawley and Isobel Crawley's entrance to Downton Abbey

Episode 2

The second episode addresses the complication featured in the first regarding the running of Downton Abbey; the original heir and his son died on the sinking of the Titanic, which meant that the earldom and Downton Abbey would need to be passed on to someone else, as the current earl's daughters are not eligible on account of their sex. Women have the benefit today of being heiresses in their own right, if parents or guardians so wish to pass on their properties and wealth. The show attempts to work their way around this issue by explaining that the eldest daughter, Mary, was to marry the heir's son so that everything would be kept in the family. Instead, young Matthew Crawley, a middle-class lawyer from Manchester, comes into the picture, and this plan is thrown out the window, but already both Mary and Matthew are aware that there is a possibility that they will be pushed to each other to marry - to this, the two react very negatively. Interestingly, it is this initial hatred for each other that hints at a strong chemistry between the two characters.

Matthew's middle-class background becomes considered his vice in this season, definitely more prominently in this episode. His grievances with being provided with a butler/valet, Mr Molesley, demonstrates a certain character development within the episode. While initially very much against the thought of even having a butler or a valet, as he feels he can do everything without one, Lord Grantham convinces him that in spite of personal views, Matthew has a part to play as the future Lord Grantham: "Your mother derives satisfaction from her work at the hospital, I think. Some self-worth...Would you really deny the same to poor old Molesley? And when you are master here, is the butler to be dismissed, or the footmen? How many maids or kitchen staff will be allowed to stay? Or must everyone be driven out? We all have parts to play, Matthew, and we must all be allowed to play them." I somehow got the impression from this that Lord Grantham might've held the same opinion at one point, perhaps in the early days of his earldom, and someone else might have given him the same advice.

The side plot of this episode focuses on Matthew's mother, Isobel. Having been trained as a nurse, married to a doctor, and being the daughter and sister of a doctor, Isobel is no stranger to medical matters. Up until this point, I figured there would be very little hope for what a woman could aspire to in terms of careers. Even nurses were not held to high regard at this point, unless one was Florence Nightingale. However, Isobel subverts this expectation, not just for the audience but for the characters. The lead doctor, Dr Clarkson, remarks, "When you made your offer, I thought you might be a 'great lady nurse' and faint at the sight of blood." Instead, Isobel is tenacious and insists that Dr Clarkson attempt newer medical treatments for illnesses that would've normally been deemed impossible to treat.

Mary Crawley and Kamal Pamuk

Episode 3

If one thought the idea of having pre-marital sex today was scandalous, it was far worse in 1912, especially for members of the aristocracy. In this episode, Lady Mary is seduced by an attaché with the Turkish Embassy, Kamal Pamuk, despite her initial expectations that Mr Pamuk would be a "funny little foreigner with a wide, toothy grin and hair reeking of pomade." Instead, she finds herself deeply beguiled by his presence, since he is unlike the rest of the men of her social circle. Although she attempts to ward off Mr Pamuk's advances to maintain her virtue, she succumbs to her passions - but this results in Pamuk's sudden death due to unknown causes. The consequences are severe, even though Mary is able to hide her sin with the help of Anna and her mother, Cora, by bringing Pamuk's body back to his room. Cora even points out that her hiding Mary's secret is not even for Mary's sake, but for the family's reputation, hinting that the virtue of a young woman reflected heavily on how her family would be viewed. Unfortunately, such an ideal is still being upheld today, especially in countries like India, and amongst ultra-conservative families. Perhaps this issue might hit some closer to home than others.

The ability to reach Mary's room in the first place is thanks to footman, Thomas Barrow. Episode 1 reveals to us that Thomas is a closeted homosexual - I would have referenced that when I explored that episode, but I figured this would be a better opportunity. In Episode 1, we see that homosexuality can be used as a form of blackmail; Thomas uses it against the Duke of Crowborough in hopes of gaining a better position, although his threats prove to be empty when the Duke throws away any written proof into the fire. Episode 3 brings this issue back when Thomas wrongly thinks Mr Pamuk took an interest to him, and he even makes the move to kiss him. Pamuk, knowing this can be used as leverage, forces Thomas to lead him to Mary's room to keep him quiet. Fortunately for Thomas, he doesn't have to worry about his secret coming out.

Summary

I didn't want to explore the entire season in one post; I felt that to do so would make the post very tedious to read, and it would leave the reader on a bit of a cliffhanger if I did it halfway through the season. I debated whether to explore Episode 4 in this post, as Season 1 contains 7 episodes, but considering the themes later on, it made more sense to leave it here. Three episodes into this amazing series, and already there's much to consider. The show does not disappoint when it comes to engaging the audience, and throws in many controversial topics to keep it interesting. Some might have wondered whether the show would be able to keep up its momentum in ensuring that there was something to explore as the show went on, and there will be many who will disagree with me when I say that there was.