Category Archives: Patriots Corner

Still Summer But……

Posted on by

It’s been a great summer so far. We’ve actually had and are still having proper sunny summer weather. The national mood has been at an almost all-time high, we’ve had a Royal baby, a Wimbledon winner, an English winner of the US Open Golf, an emphatic Ashes cricket victory and economically, so we’re told, the dark clouds are beginning to clear.

Yes, things are going well at the moment. Such a shame that it’s all going to be tarnished by the return of the Sky TV – sorry, Premier – League football tomorrow. Overpaid prima-donnas behaving like spoilt children on and off the pitch whilst the tabloids greedily lap up and report every excess, as though we (or at least most of us) really give a damn. Oh well, at least there’s still some cricket left!

Come to Britain!

Posted on by

The United Nations Tourism Organisation recently published a league table of the world’s most visited countries in 2012. In top place was France with approx 80 million visitors followed by the USA with approx 67 million. The UK was back in 8th place with just over 29 million visitors. In terms of cities London was a very close second to Bangkok with both having close on 16 million visitors a year. That means that London has more than half of the visitors for the whole UK. Now London is, of course, a splendid city but there’s a lot more to our country than its capital.

I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that the English and other national tourist boards within the UK should be doing a better job than they are doing. This country has a history and heritage to rival any and we should be doing a lot more to tell the world about it, attract more tourists and boost our flagging economy.  We may no longer a world power and we no longer sit at the top table in terms of wealth or manufacturing output but we still have a lot to offer.

The English language is the most widely spoken language in the world and derivations of our legal and political systems exist in all four corners of the globe. Move 5 miles from any given point in this country and you will see some place of significance whether it be the remains of a medieval castle, Roman ruins or an Anglo-Saxon church dating back to the 9thth or 10th centuries. The whole of the British Isles is dotted with castles, stately homes, mansions, gardens and some of the most beautiful countryside in the world.

Many of our cities boast world class art galleries, museums and other attractions to whet the appetites of tourists from across the planet. The north of England is still littered with the mills constructed at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and let’s not forget that the modern world, to a large extent, owes its very existence and prosperity to that English-driven Revolution. We should be proclaiming this to all and sundry. Come to England, come to Britain and see where it all began!

Incredible?

Posted on by

 
It’s been quite a week for babies, although, of the 1.8 million or so born worldwide since the start of the week (an estimated 370,000 each day), one in particular has captured the world’s attention like no other. It seems that everybody wants to share in the happiness of Prince William and his wife Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, over the birth of their son, Prince George, the third in line to the throne. And why not? The birth of a child is always a very special event, whoever the parents may be.

 

What I find amusing about almost any child birth, Royal or otherwise, is the reaction the event evokes in many people. Comments witnessed on television this week such as “It’s a boy! Incredible!” or “They’ve had a boy? Amazing!” are standard, as though there were multiple choices and the lucky couple just happened to have hit upon the right one!

 

As virtually any parent or prospective parent will tell you, whether the baby is a boy or a girl is not important. The most important, and in fact the only, issue is the health and well being of mother and child. Thankfully, in this most high profile of births, that particular box was ticked with a positive and that, in truth, is all that matters. Wonderful, certainly but hardly incredible.

 

 

The Bard and St George

Posted on by

Though he died nearly 400 years ago, barely a day goes by without a politician or journalist quoting a line from the works of England’s most famous playwright, author and poet, William Shakespeare (the Bard, 1564-1616). Whether it be an uplifting speech from Henry V, a thought provoking snippet from Macbeth or a line from one of his sonnets, the works of Shakespeare have influenced literature like those of no other playwright before or since. I mention this because tomorrow, April 23rd, is his birthday and coincidentally, England’s national day, St George’s Day.

William Shakespeare wrote forty two plays and a vast collection of poems and sonnets which are still as magical and inspirational today as they were when he wrote them. Perhaps his greatest gift was the ability to understand, describe and portray the human condition. The characters he created embrace the whole spectrum of human behaviour. There are heroes and anti-heroes, warriors and lovers, beggars and thieves, honest men and cheats all dotted throughout his tragedies, comedies and historical dramas. 

He describes and analyses in great detail all the emotions and feelings known to man such as love, hatred, envy, jealousy, fear, greed, hunger and vanity. Many phrases that we today take for granted come from Shakespeare; phrases such as “neither a borrower nor a lender be”, “the world’s my oyster” and “ all that glistens is not gold” are all from his works. 

Four hundred years on the works of William Shakespeare are as relevant as ever and so, as we celebrate our national day tomorrow we should also drink a toast to one of England’s finest sons.

Maragaret Thatcher – An Appraisal

Posted on by

The funeral of Margaret Thatcher takes place on Wednesday and what should be a dignified and solemn occasion is threatening to be anything but. As the security forces brace themselves to counter the threats posed by protesters the rest of the world looks on, I’m sure, in a state of amazement. What is it about our late prime minister that elicits such strong emotions?

Clearly, even though the Conservatives won the 1979 election with a sizeable majority the appointment of Britain’s first female prime minister was not met with universal acclaim. I suspect that a fair number of women disliked her because, well, she was a woman and we all know how competitive the female sex can be amongst each other. Men with misogynistic tendencies no doubt  disliked her too because they would never take kindly to being lectured by a mere woman. The British generally hate being told what to do, it’s in our cussed nature and Mrs Thatcher’s, at times, domineering manner and headmistress-like demeanour were certainly not appreciated by all.
For many of us though, putting her mannerisms and policies aside for the moment, the fact that she, a grocer’s daughter, and far removed from the established ruling elite, defeated the system and all its considerable obstacles to become the first woman prime minister was nothing short of remarkable. Even now, the odds against a woman making it to the top of her profession or calling are still heavily stacked against her.
Irrespective of her character, it was Mrs Thatcher’s policies that effected the divide in society which clearly exists to this day. She stood for free enterprise, hard work and standing on your own two feet. She believed that the little person, given encouragement and free from restrictions, could make it big. Think of Lord Alan Sugar, from uneducated London barrow-boy to multi-millionaire in just over a decade. She was the opposite of the money for nothing-do nothing-the State will look after me section of our society who are naturally among her most fierce critics.
She believed that people should try to make their way in life free from the interference of the State. In short she was the complete antithesis of Socialism, Communism, Marxism and their various spin-offs. She posed a direct threat to the anti-democratic trades unions who had brought our country to the verge of bankruptcy during the strike infested winter of discontent in 1979.The fact that she defeated the unions and reformed their dictatorial ways by introducing a secret ballot is surely to her credit.
Her opponents constantly remind us of how she closed down mines and collieries and caused the collapse of various industries nationwide. Well, my recollection is that those particular industries were losing money and were no longer viable. If you are running a business at a loss economic common sense, if nothing else, is going to tell you to do something about it. Unemployment is always sad but is it the duty of the State to provide people with work? Further, if those industries were closed down unnecessarily and money was there to be made why didn’t Tony Blair’s Labour government reopen them when they came to power in 1997?
Margaret Thatcher didn’t get everything right, the poll tax was a glaring example of that and towards the end of her final term she seemed to become more out of touch and less tolerant of her government colleagues, believing always that she was right and they were wrong. In the end her political demise was as inevitable as it was necessary. So what then of her legacy?
I will remember Margaret Thatcher as an honest decent woman who spoke her mind, rare traits in a politician. A woman who defeated the mighty trades unions and got Britain back to work and competitive again. A woman who, ignoring all advice and displaying more cajones than most of her colleagues, decided to retake the Falkland Islands from a foreign aggressor and succeeded against all the odds. A woman who stood up to the injustices of a corrupt European Union and won us a rebate which we have to this day.
A woman who along with her close friend, the American President Ronald Reagan, did more than any other western politician in bringing about the collapse of the Soviet Union. A woman who, resisting the clamour for more sanctions against the cruel apartheid regime of South Africa, preferred negotiation which eventually led to reform and the release of Nelson Mandela, a fact that Mr Mandela himself has not been slow to acknowledge. 
Most of all, I will remember a woman, an extraordinary woman, who beat the system and won three general elections for her party, a woman who loved her country and made many of us feel proud to be British again.
Mourn her if you will, despise her if you must but whatever your stance, be assured that we will never see her like again. I just hope that enough decent true Britons line the streets of her funeral procession on Wednesday and that they, with dignified mourning, deny the anarchistic mob their moment in the lime light. The lady deserves nothing less. 

English Anthem

Posted on by

I watched the Wales v England rugby massacre (sorry, match!) on television  last weekend. It was a momentous occasion and the sound of the passionate Welsh crowd singing their hearts out to their national anthem brought tears to my eyes and I’m not even Welsh – although by the end of the ensuing eighty minutes I almost wished I had been!

The English by contrast, dutifully sang, as they always do, the British national anthem, God Save The Queen and there’s the rub. They sang the British national anthem, the anthem of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which, of course, comprises England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Now the non-English members of the Union (who for the purposes of simplicity I will henceforth refer to as the Celtic Nations) are members completely equal in every way to their English brothers in all but the physical size and population of their countries. As such they surely have a right, equal  to the English, to sing the British anthem, God Save The Queen, at sporting events in which they participate, but of course they do not.
However when the Celtic Nations join with England to represent the United Kingdom or just plain Great Britain (this must be so complicated for foreigners!) they all sing along heartily to God Save The Queen, the British national anthem. What therefore, I wish to know, gives the English the right to use the British national anthem as their own property?  In particular, how condescending and patronising  of the English to sing it when playing sport against the Celtic Nations. It is as though we English are saying, this is our anthem but we’ll gladly share it with you when we all represent the United Kingdom together. Is there any wonder so many Celts feel the way they do about us? Arrogant English? In this respect, probably so.
I am proud to be English and when I see an England team competing in any sporting event I want to hear the players and crowd sing an English anthem, an anthem peculiar to and exclusive to England. There are several candidates for an English anthem and any one of Land of Hope and Glory, I Vow to Thee My Country, Rule Britannia or Jerusalem would do. My own choice would be the former but whichever one we choose, it has to be ours and ours alone. Just think of the additional pride this would create and who knows, maybe it would even spur one of our sports teams to go on and actually win something!

St George of America?

Posted on by

It was St Patrick’s Day yesterday, that worldwide celebration of the Scotsman who became the patron saint of Ireland, although it’s probably best to keep quiet about the last bit. Having experienced, on several occasions, the celebrations across the pond I have no doubt that Irish Americans would be distraught at the thought that the saint was not born in the gently rolling mountains of the Emerald Isle.
St Patrick’s Day is a huge deal in the USA, probably ranking alongside Independence Day and even Thanksgiving celebrations for a sizeable proportion of the population, and why not, who could object to the enjoyment of a fun-filled  party?

On my recent US trip I walked into a bar (I always was clumsy!) one early evening, some nine days before the actual Day, to be greeted by the sound of two kilted pipers and a whole host of people all dressed in green T shirts, wearing green beads and hats, cavorting around to “Paddy McGinty’s Goat” and “MacNamara’s Band”. There was one guy wearing a huge green top hat and false brown beard and, frankly, the only things missing were a couple of leprechauns and the aforesaid goat!

Yes, there’s something about Ireland that causes the average Irish-American (defined in many cases as somebody whose grandmother once consumed a pint of Guinness!) to turn all misty-eyed with dreams of a green-draped land of fantasy. Fantasy it certainly is since the vast majority have never been to Ireland nor ever will. They still call themselves “Irish” however and many true Irish people to whom I’ve spoken on the subject declare that Irish-Americans are more “Irish” then the Irish themselves.

I have suggested to various American friends that since their history and heritage is predominantly English (and when they disagree I ask them the name of the language they speak – Irish?) that they should also celebrate St George’s Day. They look at me blank faced, in fact, the same expression that many English people put on when facing the same suggestion. That’s the sad part, we English don’t even celebrate our own national day. Some of us do though and I’m sending out the invitations to my annual St George’s Day lunch today.

St George’s Day is April 23rd, in case you didn’t know. You could at least buy a red rose!

Morally Bankrupt

Posted on by

Last week I read that the Royal Bank of Scotland, in spite of making further losses of £5.2 billion, still paid its clearly useless “top” executives annual bonuses amounting to £607 million.

In the same newspaper I also read that a 92 year old World War II hero, Wing Commander  Bransome Burbridge, who shot down 21 enemy aircraft in the defence of his country, is to sell his war medals to cover the cost of his care home fees. 
What is wrong with us?

It Was Fifty Years Ago Today……!

Posted on by

Today is the anniversary of an important and significant event in the history of music,  although I doubt it will be marked in the national press. Way back in 1963, fifty years ago to the  very day, on Monday February 11th, The Beatles completed the recording of their first ever album (or LP as it was called then), “Please Please Me” at the Abbey Road Studios in London. So what, you might say, plenty of musicians have made successful albums, why is this one so special?
Well, it’s special on a number of levels but first and foremost was the sheer speed of the recording, eleven songs performed and recorded in one day. Ten of those songs were included on the new album in addition to the four songs taken from their first two singles and the eleventh was kept back for their second album. The Beatles’ second single, also called “Please Please Me”, had recently become their first ever number one single in virtually every chart other than the Record Retailer chart (which was topped by the band’s next single, “From Me To You” a couple of months later) and the band’s producer, George Martin, naturally wanted to quickly capitalise on that success.
To record ten songs in a single day was a rarity then and is unheard of these days in spite of the enormous leaps in technology . The album went to the top of the album charts, as in fact did all bar one of their subsequent albums, and for the next seven years, until their 1970 demise, The Beatles led the way with their pioneering music. The Beatles instigated a musical and social revolution the like of which this country and indeed the world had never seen before.
Their music helped to shape and define the 1960s and the four members of the band became the unofficial spokesmen of their generation. People now well into middle age recount their memories with reference to Beatles songs. The Beatles were that important and that influential.
Music historians have often analysed their immense talent and critics have said, well so and so had a better voice than either Paul McCartney or John Lennon, so and so could play lead guitar better than George Harrison and so and so was a better drummer than Ringo Starr. All that may be true but the fact of the matter is that, aside from the obvious song writing genius of Lennon and McCartney, The Beatles were a band whose whole was greater than the sum of their individual parts. Together they were truly insuperable.
In truth, when trying to find the words to describe The Beatles one runs out of superlatives. Quite simply The Beatles were a phenomenon, totally unique and without peer, and those of us lucky enough to be around when they were can say without exaggeration that they wrote the soundtrack to our lives. That is some accolade.

A Wicked King?

Posted on by
This week’s news, that the skeleton discovered underneath a Leicester car park is almost certainly that of King Richard III is nothing short of remarkable. It is remarkable for two reasons. Firstly, that the body of the king, who died over 500 years ago and with no recorded grave, could have been found at all. Secondly, that modern science, in the form of DNA testing,  can prove virtually beyond reasonable doubt that the body is that of Richard III.

The story has resonated around the world and interest in one of England’s most infamous kings has been awakened once more (although the existence of the Richard III Society, dedicated to clearing his name would seem to indicate that, for some at least, no reawakening was necessary!). King Richard’s brief reign (just over two years in length) came to a bloody end at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August 1485 and with his death came the end of the thirty year long War of the Roses.

The victor of that battle, Henry Tudor (shortly to become King Henry VII) had less of a legal claim to the throne than the defeated Richard and so it was in his interests to paint his dead rival in as bad a light as possible to make his own position safer. The War of the Roses was a time of great treachery, betrayal, double-dealing  and brutality and the last battle, at Bosworth, illustrated that perfectly with one of Richard’s leading generals (Lord Stanley) defecting, with his small army, to Henry’s side once he saw which way the wind of battle was blowing and another general (the Earl of Northumberland) taking no part whatever.

Not only does the victor take the spoils, he writes the history books and, aided by William Shakespeare some one hundred years later, Henry and his advisors made Richard III appear one of the cruellest and most evil of kings ever to wear the crown of England. Most historians concede that he was indeed ruthless and devious but probably no more so than many of his contemporaries. In truth, a kind and gentle soul would hardly be capable of seizing and hanging on to the crown of 15th century England. In short, Richard was most likely a mere product of his times.

The discovery of his remains has provoked much debate both as to where Richard should now be interred (the cathedrals of Leicester, York and Westminster all lay claim) and also as to how fairly history has represented him. At least one myth has now been exploded since the skeleton shows that he did not have a withered arm and although his spine was deformed he was not the hunchback portrayed by Shakespeare. That makes sense at any rate, for nearly all the contemporary reports show him to have been a fierce warrior who distinguished himself time and again in battle and who met his death whilst attempting to engage his opponent, Henry Tudor, in single combat.

Whatever one’s take on the history of Richard and his bloody times this story has clearly demonstrated yet again that our country has a history and heritage second to none. Even 500 years after his death the tale of Richard III proves that the story of England still has the power to interest, enthral and capture the attention of the world.