"The madness of King George."
Absolute History
•Oct 11, 2019
In time of Brexit and ineffective government, when the indomitable monarch is in her 94th year, this video appears, clearly adopting the cliched theme to undermine the Prince of Wales as next in line to the throne. One wonders who is behind it? Wikipedia has this quote about TVF International - intriguingly a 'private company': "TVF was described by the Hereford Times as "the UK's leading distributor of documentaries" which seem like damning with faint praise. Because it is 'private' who commissioned, financed, produced and directed is not immediately transparent. Perhaps a journalist somewhere would like to enquire?
It seems that 'Little Dot Studios' is the creator. From its web site we have this: "Representing more TV shows on YouTube than any other company, Little Dot Studios attracts audiences of over 2.5 billion views every month to premium television and sports content." Also "Little Dot owns and operates numerous video channels across diverse genres. These channels broadcast across multiple digital platforms and include produced, licensed and commissioned content."
Also "We are the largest distributor of children’s television on YouTube managing more than 40 channels of dedicated kids TV content, including many of the world’s biggest kids brands."
"Little Dot Studios was launched in April 2013 by Andy Taylor and Selma Turajlic to help production companies, broadcasters and advertisers grow audiences and revenues through online video."
So nothing sinister about the Charles programme there.
More details regarding personnel can be found here: https://www.littledotstudios.com/en-GB/Team All appear very genuine and talented people whose only objective is the production of an ethical and commercial video product.
Also "We are the largest distributor of children’s television on YouTube managing more than 40 channels of dedicated kids TV content, including many of the world’s biggest kids brands."
"Little Dot Studios was launched in April 2013 by Andy Taylor and Selma Turajlic to help production companies, broadcasters and advertisers grow audiences and revenues through online video."
So nothing sinister about the Charles programme there.
More details regarding personnel can be found here: https://www.littledotstudios.com/en-GB/Team All appear very genuine and talented people whose only objective is the production of an ethical and commercial video product.
Some 'Absolute History' details can be found here : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5qeBG9g7b
GtMGyHG2GzbQ
It seems most unforthcoming about who is behind it. From its 'About' page all that is offered is this : "Welcome to Absolute History - the home of fun, shocking and curious tales from throughout history."
Why is everyone connected to this video so apparently coy?
Historical déjà vu?
With regard to the Brexit debate I'm struck by the parallels with the events in the 17th Century.
The arrival of William of Orange and the retreat of James II in 1688, plus wars on the European mainland, freed us from Roman Catholicism and the secret control by the all-powerful French monarchical state. By virtue of victory on the battlefield and astute diplomacy, a revolutionary independence was achieved, followed by two centuries of unprecedented growth and progress.
Perhaps we need to find another inspired Dutchman?
As regards to the video programme above, which seems to make out the case for skipping a generation in royal succession, it has echoes, though for different reasons, the 'Exclusion Crisis' of 1679.
This was the attempt by the essentially protestant 'Country Party, later renamed 'Whigs', led by Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, to exclude the Duke of York, King Charles II brother and later King James II, from the throne because of his Roman Catholicism and secret links to the French King Louis XIV.
Several Bills were introduced to this effect but all narrowly failed to become law and James was crowned King in 1685 on the death of his brother.
Today the issue seems to be whether Prince Charles could properly fulfil his oath as 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England, applied since 1534 and 'Defender of the Faith' conferred on Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 (Of course paradoxically that was the Roman Catholic faith from which Henry later established his independence) given his preference to be the defender of all faiths.
See: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1008027/Prince-Charles-news-abdication-king-charles-religion-later
Certainly in a multi-cultural, diverse-religion Britain, where adherence to mainstream Christianity is in precipitous decline, the issue is current and relevant. Would it lead to disestablishment of the Church of England or in the absence of a Royal Head, the primacy of the Pope?
Despite the failure of the attempt to block James II, his reign was a short one lasting only to 1688, when he was ousted by the Dutch Duke of Orange. It was marked by the vicious suppression of the Monmouth Uprising in the same year he came to the throne and general discontent with his attempt to turn Britain Catholic and subservient to France, both effectively prevented by William III.
Despite his exile in France, both James and his followers made attempts to return, including a failed assassination attempt of William in London in 1696 which reinforced his position and popularity with the majority. The Jacobite cause rumbled on, particularly in Scotland with rebellions in 1715 and 1745 which were brutally put down.
To the Stuart line which had been Kings of Scotland for many centuries we owe the union of Scotland and England, first of the Crowns with James I (and VI of Scotland) in 1603 and then when in the 1707 Act of Union the two parliaments united to form one at Westminster.
So in many respects - Royal Succession, subservience and a struggle to free ourselves from European power and tyranny, the relationship with Scotland - are all again being played out. Few I think would now argue that the 'Glorious Revolution' and the union with Scotland were not beneficial for the future progress of an empire building UK.
Whether present day political separation from mainland Europe, and possibly Scotland if the SNP has its way, would have similar benefits in a post empire and highly competitive world, or if Prince Charles is really as mad and unsuitable for the Crown as the 'Absolute History' video attempts to make out, remains to be seen.
GtMGyHG2GzbQ
It seems most unforthcoming about who is behind it. From its 'About' page all that is offered is this : "Welcome to Absolute History - the home of fun, shocking and curious tales from throughout history."
Why is everyone connected to this video so apparently coy?
Historical déjà vu?
With regard to the Brexit debate I'm struck by the parallels with the events in the 17th Century.
The arrival of William of Orange and the retreat of James II in 1688, plus wars on the European mainland, freed us from Roman Catholicism and the secret control by the all-powerful French monarchical state. By virtue of victory on the battlefield and astute diplomacy, a revolutionary independence was achieved, followed by two centuries of unprecedented growth and progress.
Perhaps we need to find another inspired Dutchman?
As regards to the video programme above, which seems to make out the case for skipping a generation in royal succession, it has echoes, though for different reasons, the 'Exclusion Crisis' of 1679.
This was the attempt by the essentially protestant 'Country Party, later renamed 'Whigs', led by Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, to exclude the Duke of York, King Charles II brother and later King James II, from the throne because of his Roman Catholicism and secret links to the French King Louis XIV.
Sir Henry Capel summarised the general feeling of the country when he said in a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on 27 April 1679:
Several Bills were introduced to this effect but all narrowly failed to become law and James was crowned King in 1685 on the death of his brother.
Today the issue seems to be whether Prince Charles could properly fulfil his oath as 'Supreme Governor' of the Church of England, applied since 1534 and 'Defender of the Faith' conferred on Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 (Of course paradoxically that was the Roman Catholic faith from which Henry later established his independence) given his preference to be the defender of all faiths.
See: https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1008027/Prince-Charles-news-abdication-king-charles-religion-later
Certainly in a multi-cultural, diverse-religion Britain, where adherence to mainstream Christianity is in precipitous decline, the issue is current and relevant. Would it lead to disestablishment of the Church of England or in the absence of a Royal Head, the primacy of the Pope?
Despite the failure of the attempt to block James II, his reign was a short one lasting only to 1688, when he was ousted by the Dutch Duke of Orange. It was marked by the vicious suppression of the Monmouth Uprising in the same year he came to the throne and general discontent with his attempt to turn Britain Catholic and subservient to France, both effectively prevented by William III.
Despite his exile in France, both James and his followers made attempts to return, including a failed assassination attempt of William in London in 1696 which reinforced his position and popularity with the majority. The Jacobite cause rumbled on, particularly in Scotland with rebellions in 1715 and 1745 which were brutally put down.
To the Stuart line which had been Kings of Scotland for many centuries we owe the union of Scotland and England, first of the Crowns with James I (and VI of Scotland) in 1603 and then when in the 1707 Act of Union the two parliaments united to form one at Westminster.
So in many respects - Royal Succession, subservience and a struggle to free ourselves from European power and tyranny, the relationship with Scotland - are all again being played out. Few I think would now argue that the 'Glorious Revolution' and the union with Scotland were not beneficial for the future progress of an empire building UK.
Whether present day political separation from mainland Europe, and possibly Scotland if the SNP has its way, would have similar benefits in a post empire and highly competitive world, or if Prince Charles is really as mad and unsuitable for the Crown as the 'Absolute History' video attempts to make out, remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.