Tag Archives: United Kingdom

Videos for the Classroom: Prince Charles and Lady Diana’s Wedding; The 2010 Opening of Parliament

C-SPAN link to the State Opening of the UK Parliament 2010

As Wills and Kate get ready to take the big step this Friday, the Neighborhood would like to delve into both fantasy and reality.

Back in 1981, the world gaped in awe as another prince married a young Briton who took the nation by storm.  Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer, parents of Prince William, were wed in a “fairy-tale” ceremony in St. Paul’s Cathedral.  Attached is the ABC News coverage of the event.  We all saw how well that turned out.

The second video (both the snippet and the entire video which is linked on C-SPAN) is one of my favorite ceremonies, the State Opening of Parliament in May of 2010.  Since William is angling for the throne in the future, this will be one of his most important state functions.  Most of the ritual involves the monarch officially opening Parliament from the upper house, the House of Lords, an unelected body dating from feudal times.  Yet the most intriguing part of the ceremony is the summoning of the elected House of Commons, or “lower house.”

Watch the ritual closely, as the message is not lost on anyone: you may reign as monarch, but you do not rule this kingdom.  The Commons makes the laws for the realm, no matter what ritual abides.

As for William and Kate Middleton, I understand choosing a different church from your parents.  But Westminster Abbey is like having the wedding near both your birthplace and your tombstone–in this case literally.  The Abbey is traditionally where monarchs are crowned as well as buried: maybe Will and Kate wanted to pick a good spot next to Oscar Wilde (at least then Will can rest easy–I doubt Oscar would make a move).

In any case, the Neighborhood wishes the newlyweds the best of luck in marriage, in producing an heir (hopefully with a minimum of that famous Windsor inbreeding–thanks Kate!), and in hopefully weening the royals off the teat of the welfare checks they get from the British nation.

Let’s see how that last one pans out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mosques, Churches, Temples: History’s Most Used (and Abused) Religious Real Estate

Cathedral of Seville, early 16th Century. The Giralda, or bell tower was once a minaret for the mosque that was there previously.

Whenever the neighbors have their friends move nearby, you know the neighborhood is changing.

In most urban (and suburban) areas, this has been a pattern for the last half century: people move in, other people move out, for various reasons.  Then another group displaces the last group.

Religion has also played such a real estate game over the past few millennia.

The recent controversy over the proposed mosque near the Ground Zero site had us at the Neighborhood thinking about how religion played a role in the use of real estate.  I, for one, am not convinced that the proposed mosque in that location is a good idea.  There are better, less confrontational areas to erect a mosque and promote understanding (isn’t the whole project about avoiding confrontation, anyway?). 

Yet this is not the first time buildings and religion has collided in controversy. 

Here is a sampling of other sites around the world that have changed religious hands, sometimes multiple times.  Some resorted to violence, while others simply entered a space vacated by someone else.  There were many others to choose from, but these are my favorites:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Parthenon, Athens, Greece (447-431 BCE)

Like a Times Square callgirl, this old broad has had a rough life.  The Parthenon was designed as a temple to the goddess Athena, the protector of the city of Athens.  It replaced an earlier Parthenon that was destroyed by the Persians, and also served as the city treasury.  Later, under the Byzantines, the Parthenon became a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary, while the Ottoman Turks converted it into a mosque in the early 1460s.  After a Venetian bomb exploded the powder stores inside it in 1687, and Lord Elgin made off with the choice goods in 1806, the Parthenon was better used as a backdrop for every Greek diner from Astoria to Chicago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Temple Mount [Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Western Wall], Jerusalem, Israel (957 BCE-692 CE)

Sure, people fought over the Parthenon, but never was the fight as fierce as for the Temple Mount.  According to Biblical scholarship (since archaeological digs are forbidden on the mount), the first Temple of Solomon rose at that sight around the mid 900s BCE.  It was subsequently destroyed by the Babylonians, and then rebuilt by the Persians in the early 500s BCE.  Herod the Great expanded the Temple Mount in 19 BCE, only to have it destroyed by the Romans after the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 CE.  A temple to Jupiter arose from the site in the 130s BCE, starting another Jewish revolt and banning Jews from the city (are you getting all this?).  In 325 CE a Catholic church arose on the mount, followed by more churches, and culminating in the building of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque by the Umayyad caliphs in the late 600s-early 700s.  Three religions considered the place sacred, and the true ownership and usage rights are still in dispute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey (532-537 CE)

You got to give Kemal Ataturk credit here.  The first president of the secular Republic of Turkey needed to do something with a building that charged emotions among Christians and Muslims.  The building was created by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I and served as the eastern headquarters of Christendom, later the headquarters of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Following the Ottoman conquest of 1453, Mehmed II had Hagia Sophia converted to a mosque, adding minarets, a mihrab, a minbar and also covering up or removing the more Christian aspects of the place.  In 1935, Ataturk decided everybody can use it—and nobody can use it, either.  He had the place restored and converted to a museum, and no religious group can use it as a place of worship.  Since Ataturk controlled the voting bloc that had machine guns, his edict settled the matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Great Mosque of Cordoba [Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption] Cordoba, Spain (784-987)

I had the pleasure of visiting the Great Mosque, or Mezquita as its known in Spanish, and it is truly a wonder—even if the Spanish managed to shoe-horn a Renaissance chapel smack-dab in the middle of the thing.  Originally a Visigothic church stood on the site where Emir Abd al-Rahman I decided to build a grand mosque.  Using the original church as a template, the mosque was enlarged and decorated over the centuries.  It became the cultural, political, social and economic center of Muslim Spain, known as Al-Andalus (today’s Andalusia).  When the Christian kings of Castile took it back in the mid 1200’s, the Mosque became a church again.  It’s amazing how much of the original Islamic structure was relatively untouched; that is, until you find the gleaming golden Catholic interior chapel.  Even I find it a little garish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Synagogues of Spain: El Transito, Toledo and Old Main Synagogue, Segovia (1300s-1492)

The Catholic Reconquest of Spain (1200s-1492) ended the thriving Muslim culture in Al-Andalus.  It also shattered the other thriving minority culture in Spain: Jews.  There had been Jews in Spain since the Roman period, and they had risen to high places in politics and business.  Yet with the Reconquista, and the subsequent Spanish Inquisition meant to homogenize Spanish society under one church, the Jews were now a pariah and a threat.  Both the Synagogue of El Transito and the Old Maine Synagogue in Segovia defied Christian laws meant to keep Jewish houses of worship small and unadorned.  In fact, both were grand and highly ornate: in the style of the people that tolerated them the most, the Muslim Moors.  After the Edict of Expulsion in 1492, both became churches or parts of Catholic institutions, although now El Transito is a museum documenting the history of Toledo’s Jewish community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Babri Mosque, Ayodhya, India  (1527-1992)

In 1992, a mob of 150,000 rioters, mostly Hindus, settled a centuries-old debate by destroying a mosque that was built over 400 years earlier.  In 1527, Babur I, first Mughal emperor of India, built this mosque on the site of an earlier Hindu temple.  According to Hindu mythology, the area around the Babri Mosque was the birthplace of the god Rama—even Babur acknowledged this in naming the mosque Masjid-i Janmasthan, or Mosque of the Birthplace.  By the 1980s, a new militant Hindu nationalist movement had agitated to purge the area of Muslim influences, culminating in the 1992 riot.  A commission released a report in 2009 that blames Hindu nationalists and members of the Indian government for the demolition of the mosque.  It didn’t settle matters:  the debate over the mosque’s history and significance, known as the Ayodhya debate, rages today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brick Lane Mosque, London, England, UK (1743)

All those other stories were so morbid, so let’s end on a good note.  In London, particularly in the working-class East End, communities have come and gone over centuries, and 59 Brick Lane in the Spitalfields neighborhood of east London has seen them all.  It began as a Protestant chapel for French Huguenots, and it serviced this French exile community for over 60 years.  In 1809, it became a Wesleyan chapel for a group ministering to London’s Jewish community.  This didn’t last long, as it became a regular Methodist church in 1819.  Russian and Eastern European Jews, funny enough, did take over the building in the late 19th century, becoming the “”Machzike Adass” or “Spitalfields Great Synagogue.”  As these Jews migrated to north London, the building was eventually abandoned in the mid 20th century.  In the 1970s, an influx of immigrants from Bangladesh settled in Spitalfields to find work in factories or textile mills.  The now-empty 59 Brick Lane then became the Brick Lane Mosque in 1976, which stills serves the Bangladeshi community of east London today.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mr. D’s History Bookshelf # 6: Can’t You Make Them Behave, King George?

A persistent problem in history instruction is the demonization of the “losers” of history.

The British were bloodthirsty savages bent on wanton destruction.

The Germans were bloodthirsty savages bent on wanton destruction.

The 1974-1976 Philadelphia Flyers were bloodthirsty savages bent on wanton destruction. (That last one may be true.)

It’s a common trap for educators.  Because of our emphasis on literacy, especially elements of fiction, we tend to view historical events through the prism of the fiction story: plot, setting, protagonists and especially antagonists.  Kids might not grasp the nuance of British soldiers assisting native tribes from encroachment by American colonists.  They do get, however, a pack of British redcoats unloading their muskets on a group of 70 minutemen “peaceably” gathering on Lexington common. 

Good guys and bad guys make a natural narrative that’s clear, convenient and memorable.  It also makes for bad history.

This has been especially true of the American Revolution, one of my favorite subjects.  I’ll be studying the revolution at UCLA at a Gilder Lehrman Summer Seminar in July, and the old “bad British” mentality does not fly in academia.  Scholars of late have attempted to rectify the prevailing narrative with research on the Iroquois campaigns of 1778-1779, the gruesome guerrilla wars between Patriot and Tory gangs in the Carolinas, and the fate of Loyalists after the war was over.

In classrooms, we are slowly coming into contact with such material.  For example, George Vs. George attempts to give a balanced account of the revolution from the two most famous “Georges”, George Washington and King George III. 

Yet my favorite of these works is an old warhorse by Jean Fritz, a master of historical narrative for children.  Can’t You Make Them Behave, King George? is an entertaining, balanced account of the trials of the British monarch from boyhood through the end of the revolution.

As in other books about Franklin, Columbus, Sam Adams, etc., Fritz uses historical facts and the events of the period to provide a very human, and surprising linear, portrait of complicated people.  George III is shown as an awkward, troublesome boy who accidentally ends up heir to the British throne.  Once in power, George endeavors to be a good king: in manners, in style, in government, and especially with his rambunctious subjects in America.

The conflict in the colonies is shown as a distant affair, a master stroke by Fritz to add realism.  Remember that the revolution was occurring 3,000 miles across the ocean.  Unless your family had someone in the army serving in America, most British subjects had the revolution in the distant background.  Fritz shows how George fit the American war in the context of his numerous duties: very important, yet not always at the forefront of his mind.  

Although a disservice to true aficionados of the period, George’s “madness” is rarely mentioned.  The audience of Fritz’ work would probably not understand George’s porphyria, his well-documented mental illness.  Thus, George is shown becoming more eccentric as the revolution progresses, when in reality those nervous tics were always part of his persona.

Older students should definitely couple this book with Alan Bennett’s play The Madness of George III, as well as its excellent screen adaptation, The Madness of King George.

Finally, the book debunks the myth created by our Founding Fathers that George III was a hardhearted monster.  On the contrary, George was in fact an incredibly involved monarch who was careful to look after the needs of his people.  Yet for any government, let alone a king, ruling a vast overseas empire is incredibly hard work, and involves leaving decisions to subordinates that may not be in the best interests of everyone.  And boy, did George have some doozies of subalterns: Lord North, Charles Townshend, Lord Grenville, William Pitt the Elder (and Younger), Lord Rockingham, Lord Bute, Charles Edward Fox, and so on.

Fritz goes a long way in showing just how difficult it is to lead the British Empire. Challenge your students to see what they would do if they were in King George’s shoes.  You may be surprised at the answers.

As for me, I’ll cut George III some slack. 

Bobby Clarke, on the other hand, has a special place in hell reserved for him.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized