Vanity Is Catching

Watching the new production of "Vanity Fair" and hoping the screening is enjoyable, so far so good. I am not too worried about how precisely it is taken from the book, this itself was something from Thackeray's imagination. Or was it?

The dating of the original is 1847 and 1848. We will have some idea of the history of the times and the society and politics. What is striking is that the book is apparently so detached from all this. But it was not a "popular" one in terms of our own times.

It is a book written to sell well, Thackeray needed the money as much as any scribbler of his times did. Also, it had to appeal to a readership. But this was an age when very many were not able to read and some of those who could might not afford the cost of buying much in print.

This limited him to the upper and middle classes and this was a book about those who were not at the top, but the many strivers and hopefuls among those who sought status and wanted to join them, or at least enjoy their same living standards.

They, the later generations and we could only guess at how far his characters are imaginary or if not, who might be the people that his takes for them, give or take changes of names, the reality or ensuring that they could not be identified too easily, up to a point.

This was a period when changes of surnames could and did happen to a greater extent than we could imagine. A practice that has become the dread and curse of family historians and genealogists of the present. It was either to get a step up in social recognition or required of a family settlement, or will, or marriage.

One feature of the book is that Rebecca Sharp, "Becky", who has fluent French is anxious to remind people that while she may be of lower class he mother had Montmorency forebears. The Dukes of such had been at the peak of society in royalist France. But trawling about the web I found the item below.

Major Hervey Randall Saville Pratt de Montmorency was born in September 1782. He was the son of Reverend Joseph Pratt and the Hon. Sarah Morres and died on 20 September 1859. He was born a Pratt but on 27 September 1831 added the de Montmorency by Royal License on succeeding to the estates of his mother's family. He held the office of Deputy Lieutenant and lived at Castle Morres, Aghaviller, County Kilkenny, Ireland.

Another of the surnames can be considered. There is the George Osborn son of the grasping financier John Osborn. In the late 1840's there was an M.P. in Parliament for Tipperary named Ralph Bernal Osborn, see Wikipedia, a Merchant Banker, who during the Irish Famine firmly believed it was right and proper to evict tenants.

The surnames of Dobbin, Crawley and others can be found among the lesser Irish Gentry who had a reputation for seeking moneyed marriage to preserve or improve their status. Sedley is difficult but there is a solicitors clerk in The City and Thackeray was a barrister.

This could become complicated as you wander into the forest of connections and who knew who etc. and try to find The One. All I can suggest is that Thackeray picked out names from here and there with no particular plot or meaning as so many writers would do.

For example from the world of Thackeray you might start with the Duke of Wellington, who was closely acquainted with Queen Victoria who held him in high respect. The daughter of an clergyman and sister to one of the old hands from his days in India was placed at Court and become one of the beauties of her time.

The clergyman had a large family from his two marriages the eldest of whom married a Liverpool merchant. Another married well and a daughter became Countess of Antrim, a McDonnell of McDonnell whose granddaughter married John Bowes Lyon who had a sister, Elizabeth, later Queen.

In the present day I wonder if some of the Liverpool McDonnell's are either related to or connected to people whose names appear in Vanity Fair?

Parliament Time For Real Change

Today, 10 September 2018, we have the news that the reports of the Boundary Commissions have been published. Long overdue, they are looking at a previous age in terms of politics, economics etc. and are only doing the job they were asked to do, more or less putting lipstick on a gorilla.

They proposed a marginal reduction in the total number of Members of Parliament, coupled with readjustments which changes the balance of seats in many places and seeks to, more or less, even out the number of the electorate instead of having some with very large numbers of electors and some small.

Predictably, there have been screams of anguish and of rage and cries of doom and destruction. Democracy is said to be put in mortal peril, as if the old system was democratic, which it wasn't. Special interests want their cut, if only to prevent others from having it and the endemic problems of representation in the UK, made worse by the system, will not be solved by this.

There are times when I wish for the services of a couple of armoured divisions with supporting infantry to isolate Westminster and do something about it. But the Army is too busy washing nappies and reading up about equality to do anything and do not have the numbers to control a back street in Soho, let alone anything else.

We have been here before and more than once. This from September 2016.

Below is in part a repeat of one of my first posts, back in 2009, on the subject of what to do with Parliament when the Palace of Westminster has to close for repairs etc. or preferably demolition, if my money is involved.

There are times when I think that King Charles First had the right idea, the trouble however was Charles and his advisers.  How history can repeat itself.  In 2009 I said that the problem with the UK is London, and it has always been London.  If there has been anything damaging, and destructive in the Atlantic Isles and the reach of its activities, too often it has had its roots in London one way or another.

Although London has now lost most of its industrial base, it has remained the central location (black hole?) for Government, Parliament, Finance both national and international, Media and Press, Sport, Arts, Culture, and a good many other things.

In recent years a number of commentators have warned about the creation of a class of professional politicians and associates too closely enmeshed a web of greed and deceit so easily created and sustained in a small geographical area that is also the centre of communications.

They have now given us a system of government where the legislative powers have been largely off shored to their remittance men in Brussels and the money has been off shored to tax havens. The executive does its strategic planning day by day with its eye on the headlines and the civil service is a revolving door to lobby's and major corporations.

As for the economy, London has been taking in its own financial washing for some decades now, and has comprehensively wrecked the basic structure to the cost of every man, woman and child in future generations.

The quickest and best way to administer a radical cure would be to move Parliament and Government out as soon as possible.  Some time in the 1960’s a journal, was it “The Economist”, did a think piece about moving it all up to a new town to be built on the North York Moors called Elizabetha.  Perhaps, but it would be a pity to disturb the insect life there with a lesser form of species.

Before London, there had been other capitals in England.  One was Winchester, where King Alfred the Great held court, probably the option that would most appeal to the inhabitants of the Westminster Village.  To the north there might be York, the old Viking City, which has excellent communications.  Further north, there is Bamburgh, now a small village, once the seat of the Kings of Northumbria.

My favourite would be Tamworth however, the seat of the Kings of Mercia, now a modest late industrial Midlands town.  It is famous for its two stations one on top of the other, Low Level on the old LNWR West Coast Main Line, the High Level on the old Midland Railway main line from Bristol to York through Birmingham, Sheffield. Also, it was one of the seats of the Stanley family whose decision to ride for King Henry VII at the Battle of Bosworth helped to put the Tudors on the throne.

As for the present row about updating the electoral boundaries and total membership of the House of Commons, if you keep delaying difficult decisions, they do not become easier, they become much harder as more boundaries are more affected and more members threatened with loss of seats.

In 2012 the Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition asserted their vision of democracy by preventing the government from amending the constituency boundaries to meet population changes.  It was a spectacular lack of foresight culminating in their debacle in the 2015 Elections.

In the meantime the House of Lords, as undemocratic an institution as it is possible to get has become stuffed with redundant and surplus Lib Dem's among its thousand and more expenses claimers who do little and understand less.

When the roof falls in at the Palace of Westminster, either in structural or political terms, it should be off to Tamworth, 500 members of the House of Commons at most, preferably fewer and a second chamber of no more than 300 elected on a basis of strict proportional representation. In our new digital age many fewer could do much more work, as elsewhere in the economy.

It may be that to force a decision something drastic has to happen.  Say around the beginning of November a big bang of one kind or another?

Give Us A Grin

Why do Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell remind me of these statues from Easter Island; all that remain of a long forgotten people?

Is it their form of Antique Socialism is also from a past that can now be only imagined?

Listen To The Smell

Air pollution has been of interest for a long while now, not only the mists of less than mellow fruitfulness of the '40's and the stink of December 1952 but ever since I clambered behind the wheel of a car. It was an old one with little or no exhaust and didn't half smell.

This article in FE News reminds us of how much has changed recently. But it comes with a cost. It refers to the major works that will be needed for classrooms and education facilities. It will also apply elsewhere.

One concern is that the bigger and more work that machines have to do is that they often are noisier. The noise in turn is another health issue. So do you turn off the air con' in which case the lungs get it. Or do you turn it up and give the brain a big bang?

Decisions, decisions..........

Bad Days At The Offices Of State

The headlines and the media tell us that issues of Anti-Semitism have returned to be a part in our politics of the present. They have been with us a long time. Whether they were here when the Romans ruled is a question. What is certain is that in 1290 the King banished Jews from England.

In the years following very few came and went depending on the monetary needs of the Kings and Queens and The City, but it was Cromwell in 1657 who allowed their return, subject to terms and conditions.

Our modern problems arose in the 19th Century when the theories of politics, race and religions of the time triggered mass expulsions of Jews who arrived in the West and America in numbers. The 1930's and later added more. In the 21st Century we are back not where we started but into the kind of political mess that can occur.

On 31 July 2014, I posted the below, quote:

In the Embankment Gardens in London, below the gaze of the statue of Robert Burns, is a small First World War memorial to the officers and men of The Camel Corps.  Inscribed on it are the familiar names of current locations of war and conflict in parts of the Middle East.

In all the attention given to WW1 it is likely that little or less will be given to the triumphs and disasters of the British Army there and how or why this followed the collapse of the ancient Ottoman Empire. Our perspective is largely derived from the film Lawrence of Arabia; colourful, if inaccurate near fiction.

Britain and France had been in contention in this part of the world for a long time before 1914, almost coming to war in 1898 with The Fashoda Incident.  But then Germany arrived on the scene making an ally of Turkey and seeking to drive a railway from Berlin to Baghdad and to establish itself as a major power in the region.

In the later part of the 19th Century Russia had sought to drive out its Jewish population leading to mass migrations to western Europe and beyond.  This in turn provoked Anti-Semitism there on the one part and Zionism on the other, the belief that the Jews should return to Palestine as a warrior race.

A result of this was the Anglo-French Sykes Picot agreement during the War with the object of assisting Jews to migrate to Palestine.  In the Versailles Peace Treaty, Lloyd George to please the Bible readers in Wales and others, was proud to emerge with the British Mandate for Palestine.

But the Empire had bitten off more than it could chew.  There was no necessary agreement in Britain to all this in that there was a strong pro-Arab school of thought and it was not long before the influx of Jews, the new Israelites began to cause first tensions and then serious problems.  Not least for Britain for whom the traditional balancing and compromise was never going to work.

It took a major military presence in Palestine and some firm and unpopular government to keep any kind of peace and there was always one problem after another.  While for the officers it might be one thing but for the other ranks it was a grim posting.  It is not too much to say that a good deal of certain ethnic prejudices among the ordinary British was learned by conscripts cooped in sweaty barracks engaged on risky policing duties.

At the end of WW2 the situation became dire and a costly impossible one to resolve so the British simply decamped and left them to it in the late 1940's.  As a result of WW2 the flow of Jewish refugees became a flood and the British authorities had to contend with active terrorism when they tried to curtail it.

In 1956 in a mad bid to reassert British authority in the area and especially over the Suez Canal, Anthony Eden provoked a conflict which added to the damage and the collapse of this project is generally taken to be the point at which it came evident that Britain was no longer a major power.

We have being playing pretend games ever since this as the conflicts have rumbled on producing harsh dictatorships, various forms of terrorism, armed conflicts and all that we see now.  In the early 1970's one result was the oil price shock which happened when the Heath government had decided to spend its way out of financial difficulties.

Inflation, that had been building up for some time, took off and wreaked havoc with both the economy and politics after Wilson had replaced Heath in the 1974 election.  After two years Wilson was a spent man and replaced by Callaghan.  His government was wrecked by the inflation and in 1979 defeated by Mrs. Thatcher.

Now we are all back, more or less, where we started.  We have learned little not least because our politicians and associates do not do much history and because the media stick to stereotypes and simplicities in a highly complex part of the world.

A hundred years ago just after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the West tried to take over.  Now our power and influence has also collapsed there is no sign of any way that the problems can be resolved short of a series of bloodbaths and disasters.

The economic and political effects of this, the consequences of history will be felt by all and whether the fall out in our own urban areas with its varied populations from among the warring groups will become violent we do not know.  Nor will we know what to do or why.

Are we at the beginning of not just a new phase but a new and different Hundred Years War?

Unquote.

We have a General Election impending, if Anti-Semitism etc. becomes one of its features it will be absolute proof that we have politicians who learn nothing and know nothing.

Jeremy Gets The Noddy

The lessons of 1914-1918, the war to end wars and 1939 were that a nation or nations should not be caught out short of troops, equipment and above all general staffs with plans and intelligence.  For that reason the western powers created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, in 1949. In the event of war with the Soviet Union the West needed to be ready and able to operate from Day One.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, claims that NATO when founded was for war, aggression and attack on the East. In 1949 he was born to add to a family whose parents were posh Lefties of their time. Their pad, in one of the nicer and more traditional parts of England, had been bought from the Duke of Sutherland's estate. They were the Leveson-Gowers related to absolutely everybody who was anybody.

In the mid 1950's the government gave me a uniform and kit and sent me to do my bit for NATO.  Luck put me in an office with high security files which helped me pretend I had work to do in between NAAFI breaks and meal times. So I was very familiar with NATO.

In the USSR there had been a major change, Joseph Stalin in 1953 had gone to join Lenin in the great committee in the sky and there was a lot to worry about. Stalin had been a threat and meant to be, his tactic was to hold the West in a thrall of fear by means of troops stationed on the borders of its subject states ready to go.

We had to be out and off inside 24 hours. I knew the move orders, in fact for our formation I typed the things, and it had to be right in every detail and particular, especially all the map references and routeings. What I am crystal clear about was ours was a defensive strategy, up and run back faster than the Soviets could move forward for us to then assemble and dig in the defences.

We were one of the lead and first crack divisions who were to take on the Soviet Shock Army that would be our opponents. We spent a lot of time on exercises to see how and if it could work and in particular to stimulate Soviet radio clatter to help our intelligence.

What was happening in Europe in 1949? France was divided, the Communists and the Gaullists rivaling each other with a group of Republicans in the middle whose basic appeal that they were neither. Major strikes in France and other disruptions were common in this period. Germany was still an occupied territory and would be for a few years more.

Holland was losing its Empire with the creation of Indonesia and other changes. Belgium was divided between its parts and parties, resulting in the return of the monarchy. Spain was still in basic recovery from the Civil War and Italy was trying to come together again. Italy had lost its empire and had a large communist party.

The UK had a Labour government, ostensibly moderate Socialism but out there in the constituencies and certain major urban areas there was a hard Left, allied to communism, entity that were always a potential threat had they decided to try their luck. the UK was in full retreat from Empire and also strike prone in major industries.

In short there were a collection of governments, already hard pressed and uncertain in many areas. Had Soviet Russia decided to move forward or launch a full scale attack if the European nations were not prepared and without a command and organisation system they could not have done it in the time available, let alone finding the troops.

NATO was the answer and one based on the need for defence. After Stalin died in 1953 it was all the more important because there was then an era of uncertainties as to what the Soviet Union might do and who might really be in charge. What did altar military planning later was the creation of battlefield nuclear weapons in the 1960's.

It was between 1949 and 1963 that Enid Blyton published the Noddy books, so Jeremy might well be a Noddy man. His teenage years were those of the 60's, perhaps his mind was on other things at the time?

Got A Spare Sovereign?

It is the 1950's. There is a Soviet Bloc to the East, a new China in the Far East, a sub Continent coming to terms with the meaning of self rule, a Middle East beginning to realise that with oil they have a thumb on the throat of Europe and a new United Nations that is neither united nor a nationality.

The USA now a dominant world power has authority over a Europe which cannot make up its mind about what exactly it is after the Second World War and which has a US controlled NATO for defence purposes. A lot of politicians in Europe do not like this and want to be together for economic as well as defence purposes.

And at the LSE I am asked by my tutor to knock out piece of around 12,000 words on Sovereignty to test my understanding of the term, but I have a slight problem.

My understanding is coloured by having read Top Secret files on what happens next if the Soviet's turn ugly and what the military think Europe is for practical purposes, like World War Three.

They say as you get older and wiser you should learn when to leave things alone. But the trouble with being older is that you do not. Old dogs like their old bones.

The LSE politics blog has an article about sovereignty which is not long but close reading. It argues that while we use the word a lot probably most of us have a shaky understanding of it at best. I would add especially politicians.

And especially those politicians sitting in meetings dreaming up new international organisations for this and that.