Latest news with #GloriousRevolution
Spectator
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Why Britain should celebrate the Battle of the Boyne
British schoolchildren spend more time learning about the American civil rights movement than the English Civil War. An entire generation has been taught, by omission as much as intent, to believe that our past and shared inheritance has little value, and that Britain has been a force for ill in the world. The Twelfth is a celebration of the freedoms secured for all British subjects This is a serious problem for the country. Only a self-confident people, unashamed of their past, can hope to build something of value today. We need a historical vision that stretches beyond the HMS Windrush's arrival in 1948. Could the Battle of the Boyne, which celebrates its 355th anniversary today, fill that void? The battle, 30 miles north of Dublin, was the last stand of James II in his quest to regain the British throne, and his defeat cemented the legacy of the Glorious Revolution. Yet despite its significance, most of the country will ignore this anniversary, leaving Ulster alone to celebrate with a Bank Holiday on Monday. This is a mistake – this historical triumph should be proclaimed across the entire nation. The Glorious Revolution was remarkable because, prior to James II's attempt to regain his throne in Ireland, it was bloodless and had mass support. King James II had attempted to overturn the promise of the post-Civil war restoration and pursue dictatorial rule, bypassing parliament and packing institutions with Catholic loyalists. Rightly enraged, English nobles invited William of Orange – or as we call him, Good King Billy – to claim the British throne and restore parliament. When he landed in Torbay in 1688, King Billy explained that he was here for liberation, not conquest. He vowed to restore the liberties of the English people, to return power to Parliament and to the people. Recognising the public mood, James II fled and parliament offered the throne to William. Within a year of his coronation, a Bill of Rights was introduced delivering basic freedoms for all subjects of the English throne. It guaranteed free and regular elections, the right of subjects to dissent, and the principle of justice exercised by a jury of one's peers. A slew of reforms followed, enabled by King Billy ceding ultimate authority to the people through parliament. The Toleration Act protected religious minorities, the abolition of the Censorship Act empowered the free press, and the Mutiny Act handed military authority from King to parliament. Within a century of the Boyne, the newly formed American Republic would enshrine the principles of the Glorious Revolution in their Constitution. The 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reasserted many of the same ideals for a global audience. To celebrate the Battle of the Boyne, this weekend I am in Kilkeel, a County Down fishing town and a stronghold of the Orange Order. The celebrations begin on the evening of the eleventh with towering bonfires, reminiscent of those lit by Irishmen to welcome King Billy to Ireland and to guide his men on their way. The Twelfth itself has marching bands, fairs and speeches. The streets throng with spectators and nearly 3,000 people attend. The Belfast festivities normally attract well over 100,000 people. Some would argue that the Battle of the Boyne is too Protestant to become a national holiday. Yet whilst the Orange Order is a Protestant fraternity, it is an oversimplification to characterise the Boyne, and the Glorious Revolution, as victories for Protestantism alone. Whilst many of William's supporters were driven by their faith, one should not forget that his side quietly had the Pope's blessing. The Twelfth is a celebration of the freedoms secured for all British subjects. With many of those freedoms now under threat, not least the right to jury trial, the need to reassert and celebrate this inheritance has rarely been more needed. The craving for the civic pride embodied by the Twelfth is tangible. Anecdotally, I know of multiple Englishmen, with no connection to loyalism, who have travelled to Ulster for the Twelfth, and more who are planning to do so next year. There is a huge appetite to feel pride in being part of a history that changed the world for the good. As England seeks to rediscover its past, the Glorious Revolution would be a good place to start. We are a people with a past to celebrate. Let Ulster be the inspiration.
Belfast Telegraph
08-07-2025
- Business
- Belfast Telegraph
GB News to air documentary on Ulster-Scots influence in America after Twelfth coverage
The documentary by GB News correspondent Dougie Beattie will follow live coverage of the Twelfth, which will be led by Dame Arlene Foster. Coleraine has been chosen as the location for the broadcaster's live coverage this year. It was chosen for its historic link to the first organised migration from Ulster to America in the early 1700s. Mrs Foster has been a regular part of GB News' Twelfth coverage. The channel stepped in three years ago after the BBC stopped its live coverage. Last year, former Coronation Street actor Charlie Lawson teamed up with Mrs Foster for coverage from Carrickfergus. He will be joining Chief Executive of the Ulster-Scots Agency, Ian Crozier, and former military historian Dr Gavin Hughes as part of the coverage this year. The new documentary, Architects of America: Foundations of Freedom, is funded by Northern Ireland Screen's Ulster-Scots Broadcast Fund and will air at midnight on Saturday 12 July. The broadcaster said the documentary uncovers the deep economic, cultural and spiritual legacy carried by Ulster-Scots migrants who helped lay the foundations for American independence. They added: 'Filmed across key locations in Ireland and the United States, this special news programme builds on previous coverage of the Glorious Revolution and The Great Migration, charting the rise of the Great Awakening in 18th-century America - a new era of ideals fuelled by the desire for economic, cultural, and religious freedom. "The documentary explores Colonial Ulster-Scots life and how ordinary men and women from Ulster arrived in a new world and built their future: from spinning wheels in the linen trade, to flax farming and land cultivation, to the rise of ironworks and maritime commerce - including the shadow world of covert trade. These industries and individuals laid the groundwork for revolution. 'With expert interviews, rich location footage, and the thoughtful use of modern digital techniques, the programme brings history to life with clarity and depth. 'A specially arranged soundtrack, developed under the creative direction of Féinics Productions, blends traditional instrumentation with contemporary compositional tools to reflect the emotional arc of the story - from sorrow to hope and resilience to triumph - allowing each piece to resonate with the journey on screen.'
The Hill
22-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.
Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.
Times
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Times
First past the post electoral system has surely had its day
Forget the local election fallout for a moment. It's the four-way by-election bunfight unfolding in Runcorn & Helsby that should be turning heads — not so much for who gets elected but because of how low the bar has fallen to secure election victory. With turnout expected to slump below 50 per cent, it is plausible that Britain's newest MP could take office with as few as 10,000 votes, just 14 per cent of their constituents. How did the 'mother of parliaments' end up here? Let's first recall how we earned that accolade, with centuries of reform that shifted power from the monarch to the people: from Magna Carta, Simon de Montfort's parliament, an early civil war, the Glorious Revolution and a Bill of Rights
The Guardian
09-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
The Met reveals feminist take on porcelain that ‘has always elicited a strong reaction'
Chinoiserie – the European practice of imitating Chinese aesthetics – flourished throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, touching areas ranging from home decor to gardens, architecture and even the literary arts. The Met's fascinating new exhibit, Monstrous Beauty, takes an innovative look at the practice by showing the significant role it played in shaping modern womanhood, and offering compelling arguments about how it can revise our ideas of women and femininity. According to Iris Moon, who curated Monstrous Beauty, chinoiserie was first a part of the male domain, as 'princely' collectors would fill up neat cabinets with artifacts designed within the aesthetic. But as chinoiserie became more popular and moved more into the realm of everyday commerce, it was women who began to most spectacularly partake in it. Moon identifies Mary II, who ruled England alongside her husband William from 1689 to 1694, as a key player in the transition of chinoiserie from male-led collections to the stuff of everyday women. 'Mary II really personalized the language of chinoiserie,' she told me. 'She makes this consumption of exotic luxury goods a part of her power and presence.' It was while living in Holland that Mary first came upon chinoiserie, developing an extensive collection of the ceramics. When Mary was installed as queen following the Glorious Revolution, she brought this collection back with her, shepherding an entirely new aesthetic to England. 'She goes to Holland as a teenager with William, discovers this treasure trove of luxury objects that are being acquired through the Dutch East India Company, and develops her own taste,' said Moon. 'By the time she comes back to England to become queen, she makes sure to bring back all of her stuff. She makes this consumption of exotic luxury goods a part of her power and presence.' Monstrous Beauty advances the interesting argument that Mary, who had a series of miscarriages but did not give birth to an heir before her death from smallpox at age 32, birthed something quite different: namely, a style that women throughout England were profoundly influenced by. 'I wondered what would it mean to shift that narrative of giving birth, from giving birth biologically to giving birth to a style,' Moon said. 'We think of her as giving birth to chinoiserie as a way that women can shift their space by occupying it with all these porcelain vases and lacquers and things.' Through the popularization of the porcelain figures that were a mainstay of chinoiserie, the aesthetic filled women's lives with images of fantastic beings – goddesses, monsters, sirens and even cyborgs. This contributed to the way that womanhood was constructed in Europe, with consequences down to the present-day. 'The ability to acquire luxuries positioned women as consumers and gave them a kind of power,' Moon said. 'It was thought of as this unruly desire for foreign goods that didn't conform to a set standard.' Beyond figurines, one of the ways that chinoiserie was brought to the homes of middle class women was through elaborate tea sets – Monstrous Beauty features numerous beautiful and elaborate teapots, plates, cups with saucers, tumblers, caddies and more. As the exhibition's catalogue explains, this was in fact a primary way in which tea became synonymous with the British way of life. 'Consumption and taste naturalized this foreign commodity into a fully English habit, a process of domestication that took place in parallel with the transformation of porcelain from a coveted luxury good to a part of daily life,' Moon said. But not everyone was happy about what women were doing to English consumerism. Daniel Defoe denounced the newfound economic energy of women. 'Defoe complains about the fact that Mary created this trend for buying porcelain,' Moon explained. 'He called it a fatal excess, and said that these women were going to drive their families to financial ruin. He had a whole patriotic discourse about how you should be buying British products, not foreign goods.' Women's pursuit of porcelain impacted more than just the British taste for tea or home decor. Moon makes the interesting point that prior to the era of consumerist chinoiserie, the standard of artistic beauty was the nude female body. Against this dominant aesthetic, chinoiserie brought all sorts of fanciful forms – middle-class dining tables could suddenly be home to elaborate porcelain figurines striking dramatic poses, as well as monstrous creatures, like dragons, chimeras, manticores and others. Moon argues that these pieces shifted the aesthetics of the fine arts and opened up newfound creative potential. 'You could get away with saying more uncomfortable and weird things right at this miniature scale,' she said. 'What kinds of associations did people make in seeing these figurines while they were eating? I want to reclaim the historical language that had been applied to chinoiserie around the monstrous as a form of artistic empowerment.' Bringing these aesthetic debates to the present, Monstrous Beauty also showcases contemporary works that Moon sees as springing out of the legacy of chinoiserie. One such piece is Jennifer Ling Datchuk's take on how hair plays into beauty standards, Pretty Sister, Ugly Sister, which shows two porcelain plates sprouting black Chinese hair that has been bleached blond and dyed blue. The hair on one plate is copiously long, the other cropped short. Another standout piece is Lee Bul's remarkable sculpture Monster: Black. 'It's precisely because these works are not chinoiserie that they can illuminate these historical styles,' said Moon. 'They're meant to be a critical lens on to the past, in dialogue visually with the historical works of art.' While Moon is an expert in chinoiserie and has curated a wide-ranging and complex show into its history and contemporary importance, she is not necessarily a fan. 'I don't actually like chinoiserie,' she told me with a smile. 'I've always gravitated to the neoclassical.' Yet, she felt that, as an Asian American woman, it was something she had to examine. 'I knew I was going to have to confront it on some level and ask why I felt such discomfort around this style. Curating this show, I asked, how do I negotiate my own self in relation to this history of the exotic. And I'm not alone. Chinoiserie has always elicited a strong reaction, from its very inception. There's very few people who feel neutral about chinoiserie.' Monstrous Beauty: A Feminist Revision of Chinoiserie is on show at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York until 17 August
