This time it’s not about politics, but about a public debate, that is
conducted in all segments of society, especially the Woke movement.
This debate or discussion is related to politically inspired
subjects like history, [anti]racism, and other forms of inequality.
What I would like to raise here is the color blindness of the cast of the popular Netfflix series Bridgerton.
To be clear:
Color blindness i a film or TV series means that the actors are being cast
regardless ethnicity or color, eventhough that does not fit into historical
or cultural reality [like European fairy tales]
Bridgerton, based on the books of Julia Quinn, is a series centered about a noble
family in England during the Regency Era [1795-1837 or stricter 1811-1820]
and those series focuses on the lives of the eight Bridgerton children.
Where in the books they all are white [like the other characters], in the
Netflix series there is a ”black Nobility” next to the ”white nobility”
on equal level and a number Bridgerton Family members marry black
nobles.
So Simon Basset, the closest friend of
Anthony Bridgerton, is a ”black” Duke, the 2nd Duke of Hastings and marries Anthony Bridgerton’s sister Daphne.
Now from a historical perspective it doesn’t hold up at all.
Because although there lived rich black people in Regency Era England
-often children of plantation owners and their female slaves, who
were sent to England by their fathers and sometimes married into nobility
and there also was a limited black community in England, there was no
”Black Nobility” in Regency Era England.
And white and black people didn’t live together on base of equality
in a time that transatlantic slave trade and slavery flourished.
In thed Bridgerton series racism and discrimination were practically absent,
apart from a few incidents.
So one of the criticisms of color blindness is, that series as Bridgerton
don’t do justice to the historical reality and that the world is seen too
”overly optimistic” and ”rosy”[because of the absence of racism and discrimination]
But it wasn’t all sunshine and roses:
In Bridgerton you see painfully the inequality of the social classes [the impossibility of a mariage between a nobleman and a woman of ”lower” social rank] and the serious oppression of women.
However:
Why I am in favour of the ”color blind cast” is that an opportunity is shaped
to picture black people and people of color in their full dignity, instead of
”always” as ”slaves”, ”oppressed” and ”victims”
That is refreshing, relaxing and positive promoting!
Because the course of history could have been different
with indeed an equal ”Black Nobility” next to ”White Nobility”
That’s wh I think that series like Bridgerton must
be seen as a modern fairy tale and probably that’s the reason
people enjoy it that much.
Common human problems like impossible love affaires, mutual
relationships, strong family bonds, strong ”brotherly” friendships,
relations between parents and children, gossip, sensation, without
”color” and ”race” issues.
In these Times of political disturbance in the world, series as a Fairy Tale are so
refreshing!
Of course the battle against racism and inequality must be fought,
but let’s do that in the streets and the political arena and continue
to enjoy Fairy Tales like Bridgerton!
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Mail to the Guardian/Letter to the Editor/Color blind cast in Netflix series Bridgerton/Refreshing,Inspiring,Uplifting
Deze keer eens niet over politiek, maar over een aan politiek verwante maatschappelijke discussie, die onder andere speelt in de Woke Beweging
en is gerelateerd aan geschiedenis,[anti] racisme, discriminatie en
andere [on]gelijkheidsfactoren.
Wat ik aan de orde wil stellen is namelijk de kleurenblindheid van een TV serie cast, hier gerelateerd aan de populaire Netflix serie Bridgerton.
Voor de duidelijkheid: Kleurenblindheid in een film en/of TV serie betekent,
dat acteurs worden gecast ongeacht etniciteit of kleur, ook al zou dat niet
passen in de historische of algemeen sociaal geaccepteerde context [bijvoorbeeld ivm Europese Sprookjes]
Bridgerton, gebaseerd op de boeken van Julia Quinn, is een serie,
die draait om een belangrijke adellijke familie in Engeland, gedurende de Regency Tijd [ruim 1795-1837, stricter 1811-1820], waarin de geschiedenis van de acht Bridgerton kinderen centraal staat.
Zijn ze [en ook de andere personages] in de boeken allemaal wit, in
de serie bestaat er naast de bestaande ”witte” adel, op gelijk niveau ook
een ”zwarte adel” en diverse leden van de familie Bridgerton trouwen
met zwarte adellijke personages.
Ook de beste vriend van een van de Bridgerton hoofdpersonen, Anthony
Bridgerton, is een ”zwarte” Hertog, namelijk Simon Basset, 2e Hertog
van Hastings, die trouwt met Anthony’s zuster Daphne.
Nu klopt dat historisch gezien van geen kanten.
Want hoewel er wel rijke zwarten in Engeland woonden, vaak kinderen
van plantagehouders [en hun slavinnen], die door hun vaders naar
Engeland waren gestuurd en ook wel incidenteel binnen de aristocratie
trouwden en er reeds een beperkte zwarte gemeenschap in Engeland was,
bestond er geen autonome ”zwarte adel” in Engeland.
Ook leefden ”witte mensen” en ”zwarte mensen” [voor zover in Engeland aanwezig’] zeker niet samen op gelijke voet in een tijd,
dat slavenhandel en slavernij nog volop de boventoon voerden.
Ook was, trouwens, in de Bridgerton serie, van racisme en discriminatie,
op enkele incidenten na, nauwelijks sprake.
Kritiek op die ”kleurenblindheid” is dan ook, dat het geen recht doet
aan de echte historische realiteit in de Regency tijd en dat de zaken
veel te ”rooskleurig” worden voorgesteld [vanwege de praktische
afwezigheid van racime/discriminatie]
Overigens kwamen wel de ongelijkheid van de standen [de onmogelijkheid
van een huwelijk tussen een aristocraat en een vrouw van ”lagere” sociale status] en de ernstige onderdrukking van vrouwen in de serie aan de orde.
Wat volgens mij echter juist pleit voor die ”kleurenblinde cast”-en daarom
ben ik er ook een enthousiast voorstander van-is dat hierdoor een
gelegenheid wordt geboden, zwarte mensen en mensen van kleur
in hun volle waardigheid neer te zetten, zonder altijd als ”slaven” en”onderdrukten’
Dat is verfrissend, relaxend en positieve promoting.
Want de geschiedenis had ook anders kunnen lopen met inderdaad een
”gelijkwaardige” ”zwarte adel” naast de bestaande witte adel.
Daarom denk ik, dat series als ”Bridgerton” vooral als modern
sprookje moeten worden gezien en ik denk, dat daarom
ook zoveel mensen ervan genieten.
Gewoon menselijke problemen als onmogelijke liefdes, onderlinge
relaties, sensatie en geroddel, relaties tussen vrienden, ouders
en kinderen, zonder dat ”kleur” per definitie een rol speelt.
Juist in deze politiek bedreigende tijden is een serie als Sprookje,
heel gezond en verfrissend!
Natuurlijk moet de strijd tegen racisme, discriminatie en welke vorm van
ongelijkheid ook, gevoerd worden.
Maar laten we die strijd op straat en in de politieke arena
voeren en blijven genieten van ”racisme vrije” Sprookjes als
Bridgerton
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Ingezonden Stuk/”Kleurenblinde” cast in Netflix serie ”Bridgerton”/Inspirerend en verfrissend
Deze keer eens niet over politiek, maar over een aan politiek verwante maatschappelijke discussie, die onder andere speelt in de Woke Beweging
en is gerelateerd aan geschiedenis,[anti] racisme, discriminatie en
andere [on]gelijkheidsfactoren.
Wat ik aan de orde wil stellen is namelijk de kleurenblindheid van een TV serie cast, hier gerelateerd aan de populaire Netflix serie Bridgerton.
Voor de duidelijkheid: Kleurenblindheid in een film en/of TV serie betekent,
dat acteurs worden gecast ongeacht etniciteit of kleur, ook al zou dat niet
passen in de historische of algemeen sociaal geaccepteerde context [bijvoorbeeld ivm Europese Sprookjes]
Bridgerton, gebaseerd op de boeken van Julia Quinn, is een serie,
die draait om een belangrijke adellijke familie in Engeland, gedurende de Regency Tijd [ruim 1795-1837, stricter 1811-1820], waarin de geschiedenis van de acht Bridgerton kinderen centraal staat.
Zijn ze [en ook de andere personages] in de boeken allemaal wit, in
de serie bestaat er naast de bestaande ”witte” adel, op gelijk niveau ook
een ”zwarte adel” en diverse leden van de familie Bridgerton trouwen
met zwarte adellijke personages.
Ook de beste vriend van een van de Bridgerton hoofdpersonen, Anthony
Bridgerton, is een ”zwarte” Hertog, namelijk Simon Basset, 2e Hertog
van Hastings, die trouwt met Anthony’s zuster Daphne.
Nu klopt dat historisch gezien van geen kanten.
Want hoewel er wel rijke zwarten in Engeland woonden, vaak kinderen
van plantagehouders [en hun slavinnen], die door hun vaders naar
Engeland waren gestuurd en ook wel incidenteel binnen de aristocratie
trouwden en er reeds een beperkte zwarte gemeenschap in Engeland was,
bestond er geen autonome ”zwarte adel” in Engeland.
Ook leefden ”witte mensen” en ”zwarte mensen” [voor zover in Engeland aanwezig’] zeker niet samen op gelijke voet in een tijd,
dat slavenhandel en slavernij nog volop de boventoon voerden.
Ook was, trouwens, in de Bridgerton serie, van racisme en discriminatie,
op enkele incidenten na, nauwelijks sprake.
Kritiek op die ”kleurenblindheid” is dan ook, dat het geen recht doet
aan de echte historische realiteit in de Regency tijd en dat de zaken
veel te ”rooskleurig” worden voorgesteld [vanwege de praktische
afwezigheid van racime/discriminatie]
Overigens kwamen wel de ongelijkheid van de standen [de onmogelijkheid
van een huwelijk tussen een aristocraat en een vrouw van ”lagere” sociale status] en de ernstige onderdrukking van vrouwen in de serie aan de orde.
Wat volgens mij echter juist pleit voor die ”kleurenblinde cast”-en daarom
ben ik er ook een enthousiast voorstander van-is dat hierdoor een
gelegenheid wordt geboden, zwarte mensen en mensen van kleur
in hun volle waardigheid neer te zetten, zonder altijd als ”slaven” en”onderdrukten’
Dat is verfrissend, relaxend en positieve promoting.
Want de geschiedenis had ook anders kunnen lopen met inderdaad een
”gelijkwaardige” ”zwarte adel” naast de bestaande witte adel.
Daarom denk ik, dat series als ”Bridgerton” vooral als modern
sprookje moeten worden gezien en ik denk, dat daarom
ook zoveel mensen ervan genieten.
Gewoon menselijke problemen als onmogelijke liefdes, onderlinge
relaties, sensatie en geroddel, relaties tussen vrienden, ouders
en kinderen, zonder dat ”kleur” per definitie een rol speelt.
Juist in deze politiek bedreigende tijden is een serie als Sprookje,
heel gezond en verfrissend!
Natuurlijk moet de strijd tegen racisme, discriminatie en welke vorm van
ongelijkheid ook, gevoerd worden.
Maar laten we die strijd op straat en in de politieke arena
voeren en blijven genieten van ”racisme vrije” Sprookjes als
Bridgerton
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Mail Astrid Essed aan Volkskrant/INGEZONDEN STUK/”Kleurenblinde” cast in Netflix serie Bridgerton/Verfrissend en Inspirerend
THE NETFLIX SERIES BRIDGERTON/WHY ASTRID ESSED IS ALL
IN FAVOUR OF BRIDGERTON
Readers!
Here she is again!
Actually I would do this Post following week, but since I am
really excited over the Bridgerton series and I have much to say about it,
I start tonight with my second comment!
Perhaps you remember my first comment in which I revealed something about the
storyline itself, the loving, but complex relationship between one of the main characters, Lady Violet Bridgerton and her eldest son Anthony [1]
A very fascinating part of the series, that relationship which I will
come back to in subsequent comments.
But in this Post, which will be short, I like to share with you why
this Story, Bridgerton, fascinates me.
COSTUME DRAMA’S
I have seen a lot of costume drama’s, some were interesting, others good,
others boring.
And some [like Pride and Prejudice] [2] I saw so many times, that I was
tired of it, although interesting.
So I didn’t look anymore.
HISTORICAL REALITY
And I must confess, that when I first heard about Bridgerton I had my
doubts and I’ll explain why.
I learned that the series were about a noble Family in England in the Regency era [3] [so far, so good] and the cast was colorblind.
Which meant, that white and black nobles were part of the series on
equal stances.
I thought firstly:
What is that about?
In the Regency Time England, in which slavery and slavetrade flourished,
white and black aristocrats mingled and stood shoulder to shoulder?
That’s historically seen, nonsense.
And since I am historian, I could know.
Of course there were already black people in England since the 16th century,
[4] but eventually they either left or mingled with the white British population.
And ”black aristocrats” even when they were in England in the Regency Time, were rare.
What happened was that there were a minority of rich black people
in England that time, mostly children of plantation owners and a black slave mother, who were sent to England by their fathers for education. [5]
SO FAR, SO GOOD
FAIRY TALE
But then I decided to step away from historical reality and look at the
storylines an sich, forgetting that black-white thing.
Because, so I thought:
What would it be beautiful if the history had gone another
way and indeed black and white aristocrats mingled with each
other in England, without the curse of racism?
Why the world should not be a Fairy Tale, at least for the time
watching the series?
And when you look at it from that perspective, the world, for a while,
is much more relaxed and then the Story an sich is relevant, not
the colour of people.
Would that not be a Relief in the real world?
Then let’s assume, for a moment, that it IS the real
world and black people regain thed dignity again, which
was token from them by the nasty historical reality.
That was the moment, the Bridgerton Story began to interest and even
fascinate me.
CHARACTERS
And then beautiful characters came to live.
Like Lady Danbury, an impressive black noblewoman [6]
Simon Basset, Duke of Hastings, Anthony Bridgerton’s best
and closest friend [7], who would marry Daphne Bridgerton, sister
of Anthony [the same Anthony who had a warm, but complicated
relationship with his mother, Lady Violet Bridgerton] [8]
And so more important black aristocrats and others.
And not to forget the historical figure Queen Charlotte, grandmother
of Queen Victora [9], who was black in the Bridgerton series, andwho by the way is the subject of a discussion, whether she was of African descent. [10]
COLORBLIND CAST/IDEA
RELAXING AND MORE EXCITING
SHORTLY SAID:
That colorblind idea [in the Bridgrton books, all the personae are,
of course, white] [11], is relaxing and makes the series more
interesting and exciting
STORYLINES
Since the story is not ”hindred” by race and color issues, it is not
only more entertaining and relaxing, but there is more
room to focus on the Story Itself
And the storylines are fascinating:
Themes are forbidden love, unresolved trauma’s, warm, loving
motherhood, the Cinderella theme, strong family bonds, warm and intense
male friendships [like Anthony and Simon Basset], scandals, social
prejudice, great Family Stories and yet, the racism thing passes also,
but on a more relaxed way.
You see all aspects of human life pass the review.
Because you know?
Although racism and unequality do exist and the fight against it must
continue, it sometimes can overshadow human relations and certainly
in TV series, for entertainment, it can be boring and disturbing.
Let we fight the fight against racism in the streets, not in TV series!
FINAL
Bridgerton is a strong and fascinating Story, with many aspects of
human life, you see the main characters eat, drink, cry, be happy or
unhappy, love, hate etc, just as if they were real.
BRIDGERTON/MY FIRST COMMENT ON THE NETFLIX SERIES BRIDGERTON/ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF
LADY VIOLET BRIDGERTON AND HER ELDEST SON ANTHONY
[Readers, later I will explain more about this]
IN THE CLASHES WITH ANTHONY, LADY VIOLET BRIDGERTON DID NOT
SHOW HERSELF A WARM AND LOVING MOTHER, NOT EMOTIONALLY BEING PRESENT, WHEN HE NEEDED HER MOST
Lady Violet Bridgerton never realized, that Anthony was just a boy of 18 years,
when his father died, fresh from Eton and now having to carry all responsibilities
of a great noble Estate.
Instead of encouraging him, she constant scolded him, no friendly word and
comparing him with his father, which was unfair, since his father was the yearlong
Earl [Count?] of the Estate.
And….a good mother is tender to all her children, instead of seven and left the eldest
in the cold.
And take for example her different reaction regarding her daughter Daphne, marrying
Anthony’s best friend Simon, Duke of Hastings [apart from the duel drama from which
mother Violet, happily, was unaware], in comparison with her attitude regarding
Anthony”s love [otherwise a relationship, although on and off, doesn’t last at
least six years]for opera singer Siena Rosso.
And YES
I know and realize that in the Regency Time a marriage or openly relastionship
between a Viscount and an opera singer was not appropriate and was not accepted.
I realize Lady Violet couldn’t support that.
But at least she could have shown some compassion and comfort to her son,
who needed her as a mother too, instead of harsh disapproval and only
pointing out to his duties, for him to believe, that to his mother, only social
status weighted and that she didn’t see him as her son, but only as
the Head of the Household.
He was just a boy and needed his mother too.
Besides, it must have hurt her emotionally too, that she and her son always
clashed.
In some things she told him she was right, of course, but she didn’t criticize him
with love, always hateful and stern
VIOLET”S PERSPECTIVE
And don’t get me wrong.
I don”t say she did not love him, because watching the show I noticed that
she loved him deeply and warmly, also in Season 1.
But she didn’t show it.
Admitted:
She mourned her husband very much and thereafter she had a traumatic
childbirth, was so depressed [which she could help either] that she
couldn’t be there for Anthony and the other children, laying all the weight on
Anthony.
But she did not appreciate everything what he did, untill in Season 2
And I do understand the impossibility of their both positions.
Anthony now being the head of the Household [immediately after
her husband’s death she had to leave the marital bedroom, that now belonged
to Anthony as new Viscount and he had to make the medical decision at her
childbirth to ”choose” between the life of his mother and the unborn baby, which
was traumatic to her and also Anthony]
That shift of positions gave them both an unnatural relationship from mother and just the eldest son to the Head of the Family and
she as indulger of his decisions or critic.
But she remains his mother and, showing him his duties [in which
she was right], not granting him HER moral and emotional
duty to give him motherly support, although I understand that sometimes
she had to be stern.
CONCLUSION:
Lady Violet loved Anthony deeply.
I don’t doubt that at all.
But while criticizing him [which was sometimes of course necessary]
she showed no warmth, valued ”the ton” and ”Family honor” which he
indeed had to preserve, above her natural love for him and when aware of
the Siena Rosso affair, she didn’t give him any comfort or warmth
[like ”I know it’s hard for you to end the relationship, but given the apparent
social ostracism for you and the Family you have no choice darling” or something
like that]
She couldn’t just use the excuse of being ”mortified by the scandal” or
”damaging the Family honor or the marrying chances of her daughters, although true.
When your child is grieving [and she must know he was, since she herself had seen
him watching Siena], you comfort your child, not just ”sacrificing his apparent
happiness to the happiness of the other seven”
Poor boy
He must felt so abandoned, if the person, who is supposed to love
you most, leaves you into the cold.
I understand her point of view too. Yet it is unforgivable and he should
have stood up against her.
”Mother, I need you too, and I am not just ”the Head of the Family’, who must
do my duties”
I am also your son.”
APOLOGIES
Therefore I am pleased, that she apologized in Season 2 [although not
for her emotional neglect of Anthony in the Siena Rosso affair] for
the heavy burden she put on him and not seeing his emotional
pain and isolation [after all he mourned for his father too and as she, had
watched him die]
Her very words touched me:
“I am sorry for everything that happened in the days that followed. If I could go back and change it, you have no idea. I would go back and change everything”
It was deeply moving, especially spoken in a historic Time, that
parents seldom apologized to their children.
CONCLUSION
Although failing for a time in her emotional approach of
Anthony, Lady Violet was at heart a warm and loving
mother, also to him, flawed by the strict demands of the Regency Time on social aspects, the different role of sons and daughters,
especially the ”Head of the Family” and her own intense grief
after her husband’s sudden death.
She had the courage, finally to acknowledge the pain she
unwillingly caused to her son, so preventing that she lost him
emotionally
SEE FUTURE POSTS ON MY BLOG
ASTRID ESSED
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Bridgerton/My first Comment on the Netflix series Bridgerton/About the relationship of Lady Violet Bridgerton and her son Anthony
40i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
NEW TESTIMONYMATTHEW 25: 40 https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/25
READERS!
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
ASTRID ESSED’S VIEW ON THE CRUSADES/ASTRID ESSED VERSUS
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY”/NO EXCUSE FOR RICHARD COEUR DE
LION’S MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH”
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you can see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HProiNnmGwI And this very behaviour towards the Byzantine Emeror revealed their true intentions: The conquest of land, riches and….women, HAHAHA When Richard fought in the Holy Land, once Saladin proposed that the christians could come to Jerusalem as pilgrims, but that was not enough for Richard. He wanted to CONQUER Jerusalem. And so he revealed his true intentions. Glory in warfare and lust for riches and power. And of course he had some religious motives, but that was also a pretext for going on warfare! So the battle AGAINST the Crusaders was righteous, sending them where the belonged: To England, France, the Holy Roman Empire and whatsoever JERUSALEM Besides that, Jerusalem is not only Holy for Christians, but also for Jews AND for Muslims, since they believe, that the Prophet Muhammed had made a nocturnal journey to Heaven, descending from Jerusalem
Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY, THE CROWNING PLACE OF ENGLISH KINGS
CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III/”I COME NOT TO BE SERVED, BUT TO SERVE”
CORONATION OATH OF KING CHARLES III
The King stands and the Archbishop says:
”Our Majesty, the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is enshrined in law.
Are you willing to take the Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
The King places his hand on the Bible, and the Archbishop administers the Oath
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
The King replies
I solemnly promise so to do.
The Archbishop says
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
The King replies
I will.
The King kneels at the Chair of Estate. The Archbishop says
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The King replies
All this I promise to do.
The King places his hand on the Bible and says
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
The King kisses the Bible. The Archbishop says
Your Majesty, are you willing to make, subscribe, and declare to the statutory Accession Declaration Oath?
The King replies
I am willing.
I Charles do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
The King signs copies of the Oaths, presented by the Lord Chamberlain,whilst the choir sings
Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
God of compassion and mercy whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
On 6 May 2023, the Coronation of Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and
the Commonwealth Realms, took place. [1]
Actually, he acceded the throne on 8 september 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II [2]
At the age of 73, he became the oldest person to accede to the British throne, after having been the longest heir apparent and Prince of Wales in British history [3]
His coronation took place at Westminster Abbey, where traditionally
the English monarchs are crowned, [4]
Simultaneously, his wife, Queen Camilla, was also crowned [5],
as is usually the case [6]
ANCIENT MONARCHY/ANCIENT TRADITIONS
A QUICK WALK WITH ASTRID ESSED THROUGH HISTORY!
What I love about this Coronation [and those before] are
the old traditions, which is logically, since the English kings
stand in an impressive tradition of more than thousand years!
The eldest Royal House I can recall is the House of Wessex, in
899 to begin with, under king Alfred the Great! [7]
Before the House of Wessex under Alfred the Great, there was the
”old” House of Wessex, founded by Cerdic of the Gewisse [The West Saxon dynasty], but in those times England was not united, but
consisted of different kingdoms [8]’
[By the way, The House of Wessex was by times interrupted
by the House of Denmark, when England was under Danish control] [9]
It was under Alfred the Great, the first to call himself
”King of the Anglo Saxons [instead of just the West Saxons], that the first steps were
taken to unify England, which was completed by Alfred the Great’s
descendants. [10] The last king from the House of Wessex was king Edward the Confessor [11]I will refer to him later in this Coronation article, with respect to the St Edward’s Crown”…….You will see, o Readers.
And the present English monarchy descents from William the Conqueror,the Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in the Battleof Hastings in 1066, defeating king Harold II [brother in lawof Edward the Confessor], the last Anglo Saxon king [12]
FASCINATING, when you realize, that the Dutch Monarchy only
exists since 1813, being one of the youngest monarchies in
Europe! [13]
I
THE CORONATION CEREMONY
A SACRED CEREMONY
The Coronation Ceremony is firstly a spiritual and sacred one.
But also one of traditional symbols.
Sacred are of course the Oath and the Anointing with the Holy Oil:
THE OATH
ANOINTING THE OIL [Behind Curtains]
THE OATH
The Coronation Ceremony of King Charles III was, like those of
his predecessors, firstly a SACRED Ceremony, which is seen, not only as performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but in the Kings’ Oath:[The Archbishop]”
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?”
[The King]
”All this I promise to do”
[And the King, placing his hand on the Bible]
”The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.” [14]
Now this Holy Oath has everything to do with the fact, that
king Charles III is Head of the Anglican Church [the Church of England] [15], which is tradition since king Henry VIII, who broke with thePope and subsequently the old Catholic Church [called
”Holy Church” in Medieval England] [16]
Yet apart from that breach with the Holy Church, Coronation Ceremonies were always sacred:
See a part from the Oath that king Edward II, one of the forefathers
of king Charles III, took at his Coronation in 1308:[English translation from the original French text]”
Sire, will you in all your judgments, so far as in you lies, preserve to God and Holy Church, and to the people and clergy, entire peace and concord before God?
[Edward II]
I will preserve them.[17] HOWEVER:Oaths, based on the Church of England or on the Catholic Holy Church or not, those Sacred Customs were all based on the concept ofSacred Kingship, or in Western history: the concept of theDivine Right of Kings [18], which also has a pre Christian tradition [19] and is a universal concept from Old Historian Times. [20] Because in old Times [and perhaps the divine right of kingsis based upon that] there was that concept of a king, who wasalso high priest [21]
II ANOINTING THE OIL [SPIRITUAL] The English Coronation Ceremonies are ancient, very ancient,and main elements of
the coronation service and the earliest form of oath can be traced to the ceremony devised by Saint Dunstan for King Edgar’s coronation in 973 AD at Bath Abbey.
It drew on ceremonies used by the kings of the Franks and those used in the ordination of bishops.[22]
But that was then.
Through the centuries, there were different versions of coronation
services [23], but untill the Reformation, based on catholic traditions [24]
With the Reformation, there were changes [25], but some things,
especially regarding the Place of Coronation, the Holy Oil Anointing,
the Crown, the Chair and other traditions, remained largely unchanged.
I refer to those in a moment, a five minutes reading!
ANOINTING THE OILA MOST SACRED CEREMONY, STEMMING FROM THE BIBLE!
The anointing is the most sacred part of the coronation ceremony, and takes place before the crowning.
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head [26]
And this Anointing Tradition is based on
the Old Days, especially Biblical Ones!
I refer to the Old Testimony, Book ”Kings”
and quote about the Coronation of King Salomon:
”Then Zadok the priest took a horn of
oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon. And they blew the horn, and all the people said, “Long live King Solomon!”
[Book ”Kings” 1:39] [27]
Anointing was one of the medieval holy sacraments and it emphasised the spiritual status of the sovereign. Until the seventeenth century the sovereign was considered to be appointed directly by God and this was confirmed by the ceremony of anointing. Although the monarch is no longer considered divine in the same way, the ceremony of Coronation also confirms the monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. [28]
BEHIND CURTAINS
And since the anointing is considered as that holy
and sacred, it is NOT for others to see, but hidden for public view.
To hide the anointing for public, king Charles III’s
mother, Queen Elizabeth II, used a canopy, while
king Charles III kicked things up a notch with a full-blown screen [29]
Like I said before, the Coronation Ceremony
is firstly a sacred and religious One and emphasizing
the Divine Right of Kings [although that Divine Right Concept is ancient
and historical], the anointing has to be done in private!
See for important facts and events about the Coronation Ceremonies of English kings since the
Anglo Saxon king Edgar [Reign, 959-975] [30], under note 31!Exciting, isn’t it!
THE ANOINTING OILCHANGED TIMES….. Although the Anointing Ceremony of king Charles IIIwas largerly the same as his predecessors, there were some changes, especially in the use of the AnointingOil:
The holy oil that was traditionally used for coronations past contained civet oil, from the glands of the small mammals, and ambergris from whale intestines. The formula was used at Queen Elizabeth’s ceremony and is hundreds of years old. [32]
However, the holy oil that will be used at Charles’ coronation is vegan-friendly, in order to reflect modern anti-animal cruelty sentiments. It is made with olive oil, pressed just outside Bethlehem, and perfumed with essential oils such as sesame, rose, jasmine, cinnamon, neroli, benzoin and amber and orange blossom. [33]A 21st Century Monarch, Changed timesBut the Essentials of the Coronation are still maintained, despite different personal touchs ofkings throughout the centuries [and sometimes memorable things happened at Coronations] [34] and the change fromthe old Holy Church to the present, protestant Church of England. [35]
III WESTMINSTER ABBEY Interesting historical tradition is, that sincethe ancestor of all English kings [after his conquest ofEngland in 1066], William the Conqueror, allEnglish kings have been crowned at WestminsterAbbey [36] [although according to some sources, the lastAnglo Saxon king, Harold II, who was defeated byWilliam the Conqueror, was also crowned at Westminster Abbey [37]Although…[and forgive me Readers, that my historicalheart takes it over again….] there were apart crowning ceremonies….Because king Henry III, father of the more famous king Edward I and [I mean king Henry III] the son of king John I [alsomentioned ”Lackland”, a brother of kingRichard Coeur de Lion and a greatgreatgrandsonof William the Conqueror] [38], that king Henry III was crowned twice!Firstly at Gloucester Cathedral in 1216 and only in 122o at Westminster Abbey! [39]REASON?When Henry’s father, king John died [Henry was only nine years old], there was stilla rising of noblemen against his father’s government, ”the War with the Barons”, which by the way resulted in the Magna Charta [40]And to make things worse, there was a French invasionalso See for more information, note 41So Henry III was hastily crowned in Gloucester Cathedral in 1216, since at that moment the French occupied London and after more stable times, in 122oin Westminster Abbey! [42]And to make it more fascinating than it already was…..When king Henry had been crowned for the first time,THERE WAS NO ROYAL CROWN!Because during the Baron’s War the Crown had been lost, probably lost as king John crossed oneof the tidal estuaries which empties into the Walsh,being sucked in by quicksand and whirpools…[43]So at his first Coronation, Henry had no Crown andtherefore was crowned with a golden Corolla[headdress] [44], belonging to his mother Isabella ofAngouleme! [45]Interesting, isn’t it? IV ST EDWARD’S CROWN!We’ll stay in the king Henry III times awhile! Because when he was crowned at the second time,and now in Westminster Abbey [See above], he neededa real crown, since his father John’s crown was lost during the Baron’s War.And since king Henry III was a great admirer of Edward the Confessor, one of the last Anglo Saxon kings [the direct predecessor of King Harold, the king who was defeated by William the Conqueror in 1066], he calledthe crown, that was made for him ”St Edward’s Crown”[46]According to some sources it really WAS the crownof Edward the Confessor, but that is open todiscussion I think [47]HOWEVER, the crown with which king Charles III iscrowned, is called ”St Edward’s Crown, but not theoriginal, since a new Crown was made for king Charles II, since after the deposition and executionof his father King Charles I most of the British CrownJewels, the Crown included, were destroyed, broken upor sold off. [48]So the Crown, that is used by the Coronationof king Charles III is the crown of king Charles II from the 17th Century! [49] V CORONATION SPEECH IN ENGLISH! What I found really exciting to learn was this:KingHenry IV, who by the way usurped the thronefrom his cousin Richard II [50] which eventually would cause the Wars of the Roses [51], was the firstEnglish king, who at his Coronation made a speechin English! [52]
Before this, the official language of the court was French, ever since William I conquered England [53]
VI
MORE TRADITIONS AND SYMBOLS AT THE CORONATION
CEREMONY/THE SPOON, THE ANCIENT SPOON!
THE SPOON
What makes the Coronation so fascinating, are,
as I said before, the ancient traditions.
Like the use of the Coronation Spoon, dated from the 12th century and probably made for either king
Henry II or his son king Richard Coeur de Lion
[respectively the father and brother of king John, alsonamed ”Lackland”, from whom all present Englishkings descent] It is also the only
piece of royal goldsmiths’ work to survive from the 12th century! [54]
So unique!
The spoon is first recorded in 1349 as preserved among St Edward’s Regalia in Westminster Abbey. Already at this date it is described as a spoon of ‘antique forme’ [55]
About the role of the Coronation Spoon:
The Archbishop pours holy oil from the Ampulla (or vessel) [the ampulla was made for the
Coronation of king Charles II] into the spoon, and anoints the sovereign on the hands, breast and head. [56]
Interesting is, that the Spoon may originally have been used for mixing wine and water in a chalice, but it was certainly used for anointing the sovereign during the coronation of James I in 1603, son of the executed Mary, Queen of Scots, successor
of Queen Elizabeth I and the first Sovereign from the House of
Stuart and a unified England and Scotland, and at every subsequent coronation. [57]
VII
THE CHAIR/THE CORONATION CHAIR!
Also a very ancient and fascinating symbol
is the 700 years old Coronation Chair!
The Coronation Chair was made by order of Edward I [58] to enclose the famous Stone of Scone [59], which he brought [stole, remark bij Astrid Essed see note 60] from Scotland to the Abbey in 1296, where he placed it in the care of the Abbot of Westminster.
The Stone of Scone had been used by Scottish kings for centuries to sit upon when they were crowned! [61]
The Chair has been in use at the coronation ceremony since 1308 although opinion is divided as to when it was actually used for the crowning, but this was certainly the case from 1399 when
Henry IV was crowned in the Chair. [62]And after king Henry IV, nearly all English kings were crownedin that Chair [63] Just fascinating, when you think that the present king Charles III is crowned in a Chair, that his ancestor king Edward I has ordered to make at the beginning of the 14th century! [64]
VIII AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST:THE KING’S CHAMPION! I described some fascinating symbols and aspects ofthe Coronation, which is [see above] a Sacred CeremonySee about yet more details, note 65 However, the last fascinating aspect I want to share with you,o Readers, is ….”The King’s Champion!”……. which is atypically Medieval symbol! [66] As far as my investigation reaches, King’s Championtraditions stems from William the Conqueror, that Duke of Normandy, who conquered England in 1066 and laid the foundation of the present British Monarchy [all subsequent kingsare his descendants] [67] This is how it went and how the King’s Champion tradition took shape:
When William, the Conqueror seized the English throne in 1066, he asked his friend Robert Marmion to act as his Champion. Marmion’s role was to literally throw down the gauntlet, openly challenging anyone doubting the new king’s legitimacy, to prove their case through armed combat. [68]
This was not a formality or a mere ceremony in the Middle Ages, but,
given the violent times then, a real Danger……
To make a long story short, out of gratitude for risking his life, Marmion was given an estate at Scrivelsby, in
Lincolnshire.
The grant for this sets out that:
”The manor of Scrivelsby is holden … the service of finding on the day of Coronation, an armed knight who shall prove by his body, if need be, that the King is true and rightful heir to the kingdom.” [69]
Interesting is, that over the centuries, not only
the tradition of ”The King’s Champion” survived, but
that the role of King’s Champion remained with
Marmion’s descendants, who, since 1350, have been
the Dymoke Family [70]
Their family motto is the Latin phrase ”Pro Rege Dimico”
a play on their name, implying ”I contend for the King” [71]
See under note 72 the role of the Dymoke Family at theCoronation of King Edward IV [during the Wars of the Roses, with the Astrid Essed remark, that the PlantagenetBranch of the House of Edward IV, the House of York,had a superior claim to the English throne [73] THE KING’S CHAMPION IN ACTION! I already referred to the violent ancient times in whichthe role of the King’s Champion was notjust a ceremony.The last time however, the King’s Champion reallyperformed the ancient role of throwing down the gauntletwas at the coronation of King George IV! [74] THE KING’S CHAMPIONMODERN TIMES We are living in modern times now and F
rancis Dymoke won’t ride into King Charles III’s coronation on horseback and challenge any pretender to the throne to single combat as his ancestor did in 1066, but he will carry the Royal Standard into Westminster Abbey. [75]
Dymoke, a 67-year-old farmer from eastern England, will be the King’s Champion at the coronation, fulfilling a role performed by members of his family since William the Conqueror was crowned nearly 1,000 years ago……
An old tradition, anyway, although not so ”romantic” anymore
like in the ancient times……
Although I like Dymoke’s comment on his ceremonial
role as ”King’s Champion”
”“This is the one moment in my life that really matters,” ,
as he had told the Daily Telegraph [76]
Apart from the modern times we live in, one of
the reasons the King’s Champion doesn’t fullfill his
original role is this:
The King’s Champion originally rode into the coronation banquet on horseback, threw down a gauntlet and challenged anyone who doubted the king or queen’s right to rule.
BUT:
there hasn’t been a coronation banquet since 1821, so Champions now perform other roles, usually bearing a flag or standard, the palace said. [77]
MODERN TIMES…..END You and I, readers, have watched the Coronation ofthe new English king, Charles III [78], followedthe symbols and traditions.Travelled through the Ages in which the Coronationstook shape, with the fascinating history of the CrownJewels, the 12th century Coronation Spoon, the 700years old Coronation Chair, the St Edward’s Crown,the King’s Champion, all those ancient andmeaningful traditions, from the Middle Ages untillModern Times. Much is changed, yet the tradition and the Bond with History remains.I will end with the words, king Charles III uttered at his Coronation:”I come not to be served, but to serve” [79] Readers, it was nice to travel with you to history againand….end in those modern times! Hope you enjoyed it [I CERTAINLY DID!] See to my next article Then I travel with you to the Middle Ages againThe Time of the Wars of the Roses! My next article will be about Richard Neville, the 16th Earl of Warwick, the Kingmaker! [80] See you then ASTRID ESSED NOTES NOTES 1 AND 2
Added by 
IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA
Fig 3: The north-transept façade of the Abbey offered the most direct connection between the Palace and the Abbey. The reconstruction of the nave continued into the 15th century. Westminster Abbey photographed for Country Life magazine by Paul Highnam.