In a comment to David Carr’s post, Alan K. Henderson asks whether Elizabeth the First would have delivered a speech like the one we got to hear yesterday by Elizabeth the Second. A pertinent reminder as the famous speech of her ancestor (in throne, not blood) attests not only to more balls but timelessness of (some of) the sentiments expressed:
My loving people, we have been persuaded by some, that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear; I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects. And therefore I am come amongst you at this time, not as for my recreation or sport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live or die amongst you all; to lay down, for my God, and for my kingdom, and for my people, my honor and my blood, even the dust. I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too; and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realms: to which, rather than any dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, by your forwardness, that you have deserved rewards and crowns; and we do assure you, on the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble and worthy subject; not doubting by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and by your valor in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.
Elizabeth I of England – 1588
…and the Spanish Armada was indeed nothing more than flotsam washing gently on the shores of England less than six months later…
I live in hope that a similarly steely British leader could one day lift our spirits so and that we will see the flotsam of the EU washing on the shores of its own arrogance, corruption and uselessness.
Those were the days when the English government didn’t hesitate to support unilateral pre-emptive strikes.
I have little interest in what a war-mongering aristocrat of ages past had to say. Oh, she had so much courage in fighting the Spanish, blah blah blah. This was a decisive battle in deciding which oppressive colonialist power would be the strongest. That’s about it. I might be writing this en español had the British lost, but about the same number of people would have been oppressed and killed by colonial armies.
The English monarchy was and is an anachronism, which should be expelled from your government.
Perhaps the English monarchy may be an anachronism but it survived for as long as it did because it managed to inspire many genuine sentiments in the people who defended it and died for it. The officers in the British army still swear allegiance to the Queen and by God, they mean it. There is no way, they would put up with the shit that Blair’s government is giving them without something to inspire their patriotism.
I understand that you may hate the institution, but please do not insult all those individuals who made a decision to fight for what they believed. And I do have interest in what the ‘war-mongering aristocrats of ages past’ had to say, as history tends to repeat itself and I don’t see why I should ignore a very good source of knowledge about it. Context is important and in this one, Elizabeth I is a ruler who want to defend her country. The point is that she did it with courage and success on unexpected scale. We only wish that someone like that stood up to the EU who poses a threat to Britain.
Lucas,
The ignorant, ill-informed rubbish you have just posted is illustrative of how many libertarians have internalised the twisted marxist version of history and have simply grafted free market ideology onto the top of it.
This was not a battle between bloated aristocrats. Independent, capitalist England was under direct threat from an oppressive, centralising Spanish empire and her fight against it was the very defintion of a good fight.
The fact that the English prevailed is something for which you and every other American should give thanks because it was the USA which inherited the English political DNA and prospered as a result.
Compare that to South America which got lumbered with Spanish corruption and centralism which left it with a legacy of caudillos and banana republics.
A leader must be judged by all of their actions, not by a snippet of a speech, whatever its content.
Elizabeth I had a lot of success fighting her enemies, both abroad and domestically. However, don’t forget that the largest force she ever deployed was sent to conquer and subdue the Irish.
Additionally, I doubt she ever made a public speech to inspire her “subjects” to rush out and fill her “plantations.” I rather think those directives were issued in hushed tones behind closed doors.
Terry,
Well, Ireland was the enemy in those days. I don’t think that Elizabeth I was either a libertarian or a humanitarian by today’s standards. That does nothing to detract from the points I have made above.
“This was not a battle between bloated aristocrats. Independent, capitalist England was under direct threat from an oppressive, centralising Spanish empire and her fight against it was the very defintion of a good fight.”
Spain was certainly more interested in centralization than Britain, but at this point Britain was far from capitalist. Britain was only starting to come out of the dark days of feudalism at this point, and it’s history over the next several hundred years was one of an empire designed around making certain Britons wealthy at the expense of imperial subjects (which was what the American revolution was fought over). Calling that capitalist is a joke.
You’re probably right about aspects of British political thought having a substantially positive effect on former colonies (Canada, the U.S., Australia, and Hong Kong, for example). The idea of a strong court system based around common law as a check on the legislative and executive branch is one of the main reasons that the U.S. has maintained freedom since it’s inception.
However, just because there were positive aspects of Elizabeth I’s actions doesn’t mean she wasn’t an oppressive aristocrat.
As for my internalized Marxian views, well I couldn’t really say. I’m certainly not fond of monarchy, oppressive powerful governance, the inter-mingling of religion and politics, and the linking of wealthy interests and the government (Elizabeth I was involved in all of these). If that makes me a Marxist, then OK, I’m a Marxist.
Lucas: It is generally accepted that terms like ‘feudalism’ or ‘the peasantry’ tend to obscure rather than illuminate the history of the Middle Ages.
The first error is to state that Spain was more interested in centralization than England. It is, in fact, the reverse. Spain tended to leave the institutions and structures of its various principalities intact and this was the primary cause of its fiscal problems: no central structure organising taxation. England, on the other hand, was a strong centralised state and this was a hallmark of the country back to the Anglo-Saxon period.
Taking a moral stance in history is often fraught with difficulty if it dictates a unicausal narrative that prevents a full analysis of the many factors that underlie such phenomena as the growth and decline of the Empires. This applies to your assertion that the British Empire came into being to oppress the colonies in order to enrich the aristocracy. This is not borne out by the historical evidence.
Motivations for Empire included strategic advantage, proselytisation, penal emigration and communities wishing to achieve religious freedom (Catholics in Maryland) and seizing territory displacing the native populations.
On capitalism: I suggest works on gentlemanly capitalism that show the linkage between capital accumulation and English society.