JFK 60: Walking Into Your Destiny II

https://shows.acast.com/between-the-stools/episodes/jfk60

Welcome to Between The Stools on 26th November 2023. This is part II of Walking Into Your Destiny. (Part I was last week). I felt the need to link the Tudor changeover of 17th (Mary to Elizabeth) with the 60 year anniversary of John F Kennedy’s death on 22nd – the only time in our History Year that we’ve left the continent of Europe and come into living memory. In January, on the cusp of the History Year (which runs until next January) we thought of Elvis; we also spent two services of 2022 with Diana and Lennon. I see these as connected with today’s focus.

I set up the theme of destiny in our September service, although it’s been tacitly there all along. With today’s subject, we might see destiny in two ways: his presidency and his violent end. In contrast, Elizabeth I of England took the baton from her ill sister to reign for 45 years that are known as glorious; she lived to 70, which was considered then a long life, and she died of natural causes – unlike nearly all Kennedys since the middle of the last century. Yet there is not such a leap from 1558 to 1958. In both, there is dynasty building, empire building, an attempts at world domination, establishing a new era, at vanquishing an equal but opposite rival, and a fearful rhetoric to gain support for its brutal suppression. I’d like to think there’s a 3rd way of destiny.

“Of course I’ve heard of JFK. When was he on the throne again?”

This is a true quote, apparently said in innocence (although I suspect razor sharp concealed wit) from a British co-worker a few years back. I actually think that, whether the joke was on her colleagues or accidental, there is insight here. America does have a throne – on a four year basis with a much publicized contest, a game of thrones. This particular throne holder was especially given the royal treatment, before and after his death. Did he want more thrones under his, to be a high king? As I’ve written this, my focus and opinion has changed. Jack Kennedy has been oft rendered a godlike status – he even has a mountain named for him! – but this will not be a hagiography. Nor will it be primarily a biography – analyses of rifle trajectories and head wounds will not form a part of this service: as ever, I’m seeking spiritual insight. To my US audience, I want to warn that I may critique things that you hold dear. Please know that I do so with love and respect for you as individuals, especially those I know personally as spiritual brothers and sisters. And I’ve been as willing to critique my own country and its tenets and golden geese.

So with those caveats, let us begin….
with a few moments of silence and a prayer

Part I

This sermon was read with a 1960s pillbox hat, such as Jackie Kennedy was wearing 60 years ago

It occurs to me that true facts are rare. Quiz answers are usually a single word or name, but they can reflect the quizmaster’s beliefs and understanding as much as any real, uncontested truth. That is so for the story of JFK.

Yes, F stags for Fitzgerald; John was born on 29th May 1917; he was the second of nine children; his father Joseph, who served as the American ambassador in Britain, was from an Irish immigrant Catholic family; they initially lived in Brookline, outside Boston; his mother Rosemary lived to 104; his four brothers all ran for president; John was enrolled at the London School of Economics… then ill health soon terminated John’s studies. After another brief enrolment, Jack eventually went to Harvard and into the navy in the war. It seems that Jack’s time in England was significant and he published his first book – or rather, his father did for him – called “Why England Slept” which was his honours thesis on WWII and appeasement. It naturally did well because of the promotion and standing of the author’s millionaire father.

Yes, his wife was Jacqueline Bouvier, who later married Aristotle Onassis. Jack and Jackie had two children, John and Caroline (more died at birth). JFK was elected president in 1960, serving from the next year. He did not live to see the end of his four year term. The phrase ‘Bay of Pigs’ will occur in a quiz, but what he was responsible for and what to call that Cuban military event (was it a fiasco?) is not without contention. Nor are his policies. I wonder how well known NMAS 263 is. I bet you wouldn’t be asked to name Executive Order 11110 (it’s not in Wikipedia). I discovered it on 11.11 this year. I will come back to these, as they may be key to what happened on 22.11.

Note that his day of death is twice that of the month of his death.

A general knowledge question might ask who killed JFK. The standard answer is LHO – Lee Harvey Oswald. I would substitute other initials.

As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that any death of a celebrity by a lone gunman is ever the truth. I state this of Jill Dando, John Lennon, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. I wonder if suicides and sudden accidents or fast track terminal illnesses really were the cause of the demise of many others, and in that I include Princess Diana, Michael Jackson and Marilyn Monroe. Whenever someone dies after speaking out – Ulrich Mühe, who had a career of acting in films that challenged political narratives, such as The Lives of Others; Stieg Larsson, author of the Millennium trilogy (The Girl Who/With…) – I felt, as others clearly state, including the partner of the latter, that this was assassination. Like the others I’ve just mentioned, there was a reason to kill not just one Kennedy, and I think it’s important to see such incidents as a group.

All the above were set to expose or transpose the establishment.

(Jill Dando was a British TV presenter about to reveal the abuse of BBC children’s presenter Jimmy Saville; Stieg had a similar reveal on Swedish authorities)

Note how fast JFK was buried: 3 days later. Bear in mind that he died on a Friday. (Hence the 60th anniversary was yesterday, 25th Nov)

Like Anne Boleyn, he’d been in office 1000 days (1036 to be precise)

How many Kennedys have died in violent or suspicious circs? Arguably up to 14, the last being in 2020, if you add the cruel psychiatric treatment of John’s eldest sister Rose Marie – put away by her father against her will and knowledge, and not found by her siblings for decades.

I believe(d) that the Kennedys had and have important work to do. It is why I chose them today.

Simone Simons begins her memoir of Diana with a scoop. It was a tawdry attempt at attention grabbing – the shocker with her late father in law and the threats she received was of far more interest and moment. But I believe(d) that Diana’s brief dalliance with JFK’s son connected those families and their analogous missions, just as she was likened to Marilyn Monroe (with whom she shared a eulogy in song by Elton John – Candle In the Wind) who was Jack’s longterm lover. John Jnr died in an aircraft incident two years after Diana.

I think – or hoped – that Jack Kennedy was to do in the US what Diana had begun in the UK. Both had the potential to reach far wider than their own countries.

I saw this mission as more than that explicitly stated in JFK’s inaugural speech, which closed: “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”

It was studying that speech that began to make me turn my opinion.

Note how often he speaks of pledges. Is this repeated ‘we’ the American people, ‘his’ administration, or is JFK using the royal we?! He rarely uses ‘I’.

That famed address of January 20th 1961 is not a treatise on how he John Kennedy will serve the American people, mindful of other nations, but it’s a statement of globalisation, headed by him. His ‘liberty’ is a cipher for the brand he pedalled – a system run by corporations that they package as ‘democracy’.

I didn’t like his ‘ask not what this country will do for you but ask what you can do for your country’ which makes responsibility not his and ‘his’ government’s, but pings it back onto the people. We might question – which he did not – the notion of nation and government, under which most of us are forced to live and to pay on pain of punishment. His 1347 words, crafted by himself and his speech writer Ted Sorensen, oft address other countries, and try to create America the police and leaders of world, and make all nations promise to him; like a global christening ceremony, all are godparents whether they chose and are willing to be. Like Old Testament Joseph, he dreams that all sheaves bow to his central gathered corn.

Compare this oration with Elizabeth’s address to the troops at Tilbury before the Armada. I first found Kennedy’s speech in the same book.

From there, I became angrier at the Kennedys and went on a snaking journey towards a very different treatment today, far from my original reason to choose him, which I’ll explain in part 2.

What brought back my hope and interest was one of Jack Kennedy’s last speeches, that of June 10th* in his final year. In two years, he had changed from haughty hawk to diplomatic dove. (Today’s sermon is the same length as that speech)

I’m going to lead you into a pause to and then I’ll give a second part of my address. I’m going to play you some solfeggio music which makes me think of walking into destiny, as we thought of with Elizabeth I last week. It’s very cosmic sounding and I want us to think what Jack Kennedy’s cosmic role might have been…and on our own.

Music from solfeggiotones.com Body Healing Tones 1565hz

---

Part II

As I’ve stated before, I’m very interested in how things are presented in the mainstream – my research degree focussed on this regarding the Tudors. Hence I turned my lens onto those pointed at JFK and his family. There are many books – yes even a British bookshop will probably carry a tome on the Kennedys – and films and documentaries are plentiful and easily found.

The depictions of JFK are especially important as they can lead on how Americans see themselves, and outsiders see America; the credibility of the media, law and enforcement, and those secret ‘services’…and the notion of nationhood and government. I watched many: I comment here on a selection.

I wasn’t sure what kind of account I’d get in the 1991 Oliver Stone movie JFK. At a swaggering 3½ hours, I was quickly disillusioned that it wasn’t going to feature Jack Kennedy…in fact no-one close to Kennedy is anything but a distant grainy face in a newsreel. The chief actors played the New Orleans District Attorney Garrison and his team, and suspects. So much about JFK seems to focus on his death and its apparent mystery but I wanted to know about his life and what he might have done that made him a threat and target. I was already sure in general terms of who.

The movie JFK does say that late on that people ask – including the film’s current audience – who and how but not why. And it’s the why that matters.

I was impressed by Oliver Stone’s bravery and that of all the cast and crew, and that a mainstream Hollywood studio – Warner Brothers – made this well known film. For it clearly calls out that official 3 bullet lone gunman theory, and posits that the establishment themselves – the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the system of law and order – all conspired to kill a serving president in a coup d’etat.

Oliver Stone has made several brave films (such as Snowden), and his commentary of JFK makes clear his deep research and commitment to this subject, which he twice returned to. He also personally interviewed Fidel Castro, who is essential for us to understand the other point of view and decisions facing Kennedy. (These are available as documentaries).

Ten years later, Kevin Costner again took a leading role in a film about JFK. Thirteen Days is about the Cuban Missile Crisis, which despite being Top Gun meets West Wing, did bring some nuance and complexity. I note its year: 2001, that of the Twin Towers. I also note that period was the run up to a new round of war, terrorism-seeking and a common enemy: now not communism, but Islam. The premise of weapons of mass destruction again underpinned military action in a watershed moment. America is shown – whether intentionally or not – to be an arrogant aggressor, demanding another sovereign nation to submit to it. I noted that whereas the USSR was demanded to remove its missiles from Cuba, it was unthinkable for the USA to remove theirs from Turkey (they were 6 months later). The film ceded that the peace found with Russia was “a victory for them as much as us.”

A documentary on Amazon Prime “JFK X – solving the crime of the century” (2023) says that was a staged death (with film special effect squibs to explode blood) and that he retired from public view. It was unclear as to why – to avoid the hand of the mob, or to be with a lover? It tried to undercut Oliver Stone’s film, but the years later commentary convinced me that the idea that Stone had realised this truth but felt he had to go ahead with his script had no basis.

A perspective on Marilyn (Mary – lin) Monroe, especially that offered in “The Mystery of Marilyn Munroe: the unheard tapes” (2022) shows both best known brothers to be serial adulterers and women users. I do not doubt that JFK had an affair with Marilyn, and it was clearly stated and offered proof that RFK did too – simultaneously. I no longer see the playboy epithet as unjust or even opinion – it is fact. I also see that Marilyn’s death was connected to the Kennedys: if they didn’t kill her, they lied about events to stop their duel relationship with her becoming public. The FBI was despatched to her deathbed suspiciously quickly and evidence disposed of.

I’m angry and shocked by the film Blonde (2022), which purports to be fiction but is based on real people. I found its intense unrelenting misery, missing Marilyn’s achievements, both unwatchable and unrepresentative. The scenes around ‘The President’ caused another writer to dub JFK a ‘monster’. But no evidence by the filmmaker or author of the book he adapted was offered to justify this. The gruelling marathon of surreal imagery could have worked in two negative ways: to denigrate the memory of Jack Kennedy, and remove suspicion in Marilyn’s death. Her alleged communism and knowledge of missile tests were removed. (Note what I quoted about her earthly role in my Diana service).

As I researched, I heard of ‘dirty’ campaigns and that money allowed pushy promotions and cheesy but popular jingles to push Jack to the American throne. I tired of being told that Jack was goodlooking – not in my view – he embodied all I associate and dislike regarding America.

I wasn’t sure if JFK and his family weren’t killed by the mob and the Illuminati or part of it; was the string of deaths a series of honour killings?

It did occur that Jack Kennedy was a Saul and Khal Drogo kind of leader. In the Old Testament, Israel asked for a king to be like other nations. God gave them one of worldly standard – tall and athletic and handsome. It’s generally considered that this leader was not a success.

Kahl Drogo of Game of Thrones, played in the TV series by Jason Mamoa, is a Saul-like leader, and in some ways, Kennedy-like. No, not in being 6’5 and well built – Jack was skinny and suffered secretly from Addison’s disease, giving him in pain and physical struggle. Like Khal, he seemed to fear letting his people know about physical weakness. JFK was different from leaders of yore who went into battle with their troops, not being the person with the best escape and protection. In Biblical times, and Tudor times, one faced your battle foe corporally – in Kennedy’s time as now, warfare is possible from a distance, on a screen, not experiencing the horror of those you strike. But Kennedy is popular because he was handsome, rich and charming with a nice wife, I’m repeatedly told. He could rally people, but that is not the same as delivering to them.

It was pointed out – and I’d seen it myself – that Kennedy is accused of many of the things that Trump is: sexual abuse, being rich; their speeches had some similarities – an arrogant belief in their country and their own place in it. During his presidential campaigns in 1960, Kennedy said that you are voting for the most important individual in the free world, ie. him. What is this freedom? Trump is a divisive figure – a broad range of people hate him, but Kennedy comes to us as a popular and good leader whose speeches are listed in special categories. Is that fair?
(Of course those opinions are also reversed).

I do see – or hoped to – a more positive link, as those who stand up to the establishment they were meant to head.

Whatever Jack Kennedy was and even became, I see his leadership style as OLD style – competition and hierarchy (being president and winning the space race), about greatness due to military power and material wealth. It’s about wheeling deals and managing how you’re seen and what is known. It’s a perpetual precarious game of cards.

I think the time is here for new leaders and a new political world.

I had seen that Jack Kennedy’s work was on a greater spiritual level, aided by the fact that channellings in his name have been published, and that these began during the coronavirus period, which was significant, encouraging readers in the ongoing fight against good and evil. Whether or not one accepts these channels by Losha as from Jack, it is interesting that this person was used during these trials. Kennedy explicitly likened and linked his mission with that of Diana.

I want to almost round off with mention of the Kennedy reign being called Camelot. I’d like to direct you to my thoughts on the film First Knight. Yes, Jackie and Jack were a golden couple, like Arthur and Guinevere, ruling over a mythical leading kingdom in fairness, enjoying the love of his people. But William Nicholson’s Arthur is called a tyrant. He’s flawed. I spoke of how the Disney style castle of the film may be a deliberate nod to the American dream, and how the values and ideals – and being built on an ideal – are true of both Authurian kingdom (as penned by Nicholson) and the administration of Kennedy, or let’s be honest: kingdom.

Lastly, I bring back that security memo and Executive Order. It’s speculated that along with the University speech of June ‘63, that these are what got Kennedy killed. The order stated that American money would be henceforth backed with silver and thus move away from the Federal Reserve. The NSAM stated that 1000 troops would be withdrawn from Vietnam, but it also clearly said that the new government there would be monitored and encouraged to develop along approved lines. I’m not sure if that university speech in Washington did call for total nuclear disarmament as some state, or if JFK did vow to ‘splinter’ and wind down the CIA (but he did plan to continue covert ops, according to the document I saw)…but here is what I do take from Jack Kennedy:

that we want him to have, and this is what impresses those who like him. We want an end to imperialist wars, of elites controlling our finances. We want people who negotiate for peace rather than bomb and shoot their demands. We want a flaming torch – like that on Kennedy’s grave – to be passed along the decades and across the lands that fights evil and brings in a new better world. Kennedy ceded that it wouldn’t be complete in his lifetime, but I would like to think that 60 years on, it is possible in ours…and not be forever passing the torch into a distant future. Nor do I think that torch is for conventionally recognised leaders alone. There have been dramatic shifts in recent decades, and indeed, very recent years. The time is coming and is now here when the world of Kennedy’s 6/6* speech is not swallowed by 666 but is coming into being. *(The University speech is dated 6th June but was delivered on 10th).

Our next meeting is on Christmas eve (8pm), with a medieval musical theme

Elspeth at betweenthestools@hotmail.co.uk

“This is the Lord’s doing and it is marvellous in our eyes”

Nov 19^th 2023

https://shows.acast.com/between-the-stools/episodes/this-is-the-lords-doing-and-it-is-marvellous-in-our-eyes

Between The Stools in latter November is a split service: this is part 1

Please watch this video (under 2 mins) https://www.brighteon.com/channels/elspethr

https://www.brighteon.com/cb23e254-d594-4894-9bce-8cce09b7c020

On Friday, 465 years ago, one Tudor queen gave way to another. And I think tht is literally what happened: that without speaking or being near each other, on a spiritual level, these often rival half sisters passed over the baton. In Elizabeth (1998), you see the baton – the royal ring – being taken off the dead old queen, Mary I, and (rather reluctantly in this telling) being instructed to give it to the new. Princess Elizabeth was on house arrest at Hatfield, and the man who comes with the ring – the Earl of Sussex – is the same one who arrested her and took her to the Tower at Mary’s behest. Last time, Elizabeth feared for her life; now she knows that what she was born to do begins.

Shekhar Kapur says in his director’s commentary that this moment, of being taken by her hand by her ladies to the great oak where the queen’s men await, is Elizabeth walking into her destiny. Destiny is a key theme for this Hindu filmmaker. Twice in this scene the screen turns white, the first as Elizabeth walks out of the door into brilliant sunshine that engulfs the woman that would be known as the sun. For Shekhar, that blanched brilliance symbolises the unknown of our future – which could be seen as a contradiction to his destiny concept. He shoots in almost silence – just the sound of birds as an appetiser antiphon, before the human choirs of Westminster abbey kick in. (I added the soundtrack of the same scene from the 2005 BBC miniseries to the video). Elizabeth is said to have said – and always does in films – “This is the Lord’s doing and it is marvellous in our eyes”. It is a part quote from Psalm 118. It begins “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cap (or corner) stone.” (v22-23). Elizabeth doesn’t say the first part, but it is denoted by the second sentence, almost as if the first part is tacit. These words were also quoted by Jesus in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10-11 and Luke 20:17 – note that three gospels thought it worth including. This unattributed psalm of past woes and thankful praise is thought to pertain to a ruler who was passed over to become the founding key stone that holds up something great. Elizabeth, the on/off bastard or heir to the throne, was perhaps the greatest of her House, but she was also the end of that dynasty and of rulers of England alone. Was she speaking of her own projected legacy, or that Britain would be united on her death and an empire would begin? (I am not impressed by the empire). Did she already feel that she would be Gloriana and the woman of the Rainbow portrait, that would hang at the site?

It is her first use of the royal we: “it is marvellous in our eyes”. Already she believes that God and her speak as one.

It doesn’t feel very modest to use that psalm, especially knowing that Jesus used it. The chapter in in gospels begins with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem – the holy city of temporal and spiritual power (just as Elizabeth as queen would be). The preceding section is headed “The authority of Jesus questioned” – does that suggest that Elizabeth nods to her own divine authority? The quote comes in a parable, that of the tenants. It seems to be saying that Gentiles will be included in the kingdom. I am concerned to describe the other part of that amulet as there is a heightened sensitivity around all things Israel, but it seems to be and is taken as a parable against his hearers, the priests and rulers. It actually doesn’t seem to apply to Jesus himself, and seems (with the ensuing comment) to be a threat against those who don’t believe in him. That and the violence of the smashing stones analogy is not something I’m comfortable with.

So what was Elizabeth thinking? And what was Jesus thinking?

I’m shortly going to let you think on that, but I’d like to point out another aspect of this story of Elizabeth – even if it is a fable. it is the presence of the tree. The tree was allegedly still standing in my lifetime, but when I last visited Hatfield, it had been replaced by a young tree planted by the late Elizabeth II. There is a baton handing in that, a continuity. I wish us to briefly think of trees, which, as I said of cathedrals in Sept, can be hundreds of years before us and endure hundred of years after us. I think that Shekhar makes that explicit when he uses long shots where the tree is the most prominent feature in the frame and Elizabeth is tiny beside it. There are many such trees at Hatfield still and we often gravitate towards special trees, especially oak, their size and longevity denoting wisdom and strength. Trees have been and still are worshipped as sacred and are healing and essential to life. I wonder why Jesus didn’t liken himself to a tree?

This must’ve felt like Joseph (of Genesis) moment. Still from Elizabeth (1998)

So I’m going to offer you to mediate on these themes and how might we appropriately appropriate them for ourselves? Do any of you feel like rejected stones, individually, collectively? Do you have a sense of destiny, perhaps that hasn’t started yet? I hope we can find hope, whatever our beliefs and feelings towards Mary, Elizabeth, the Tudors or monarchy.

I invite you to re-watch the video and hear the full song by by Martin Phipps and The Mediaeval Babes from The Virgin Queen, when Anne-Marie Duff as Elizabeth twirls in joy under that tree – it’s track 2 of the OST, ‘The Work of The Lord’. (How does she feel about the death of her sister?) A shortened version will play on the audio of this with a short silence.

This is the penultimate service on the Tudors in our History year. We leave the theme we picked up in our first service on endings and beginnings, ready to round off literally our thoughts in January.

Take as long as you’d like in silence or with the music and words of today’s film clips.

After the meditation, I’ll have some final words as a segue with next time

Today, 403 years ago, the Pilgrim Fathers sailed for America. They too were sailing into their destiny, as we might see our next subject as driving into it. It’s brought us forward a century, into the reign of Elizabeth’s successor, and like those pilgrims, we are boarding a ship from England to America. It’ll take us a week to get there, and we have a time lag, jumping in time forward four centuries.

See you on 26^th in 1963 at 8pm GMT

Blessings until next time…and do share constructive thoughts (and introduce yourselves) to betweenthestools@hotmail.com

[Our Christmas service is currently planned for 24^th Dec]

Margery of Lynn

https://shows.acast.com/between-the-stools/episodes/kings-lynn-you-know-you-want-to

Margery Kempe can feel like Adam’s rib: taken from the side of a greater person, she is the side dish to the true focus. In Adam’s case, that rib became his wife, his helpmeet, Eve; and oft portrayed as the sexualised bringer of calamity, we might further liken Margery to the first woman. The first woman with whom Margaret is often compared is Julian of Norwich, who is given the titles Lady and Mother and Dame. Julian wrote the spiritual classic and Margery, 30 years her junior, sought the older woman’s counsel before scribbling her own. I learned of Margery through Julian. I’ve seen a local play where a mature woman sits peacefully and a rap at the door brings a zany natterer to ask interminable questions of her. It’s how Margery has come to many of us: the hysteric, the failed business woman, the pilgrim that no-one wanted to travel with; the poor imitation, the lacrimonious circus side show to the wise woman of King Street from King’s Lynn, a secondary town to the regional capital of which Julian takes her name.

We spent some time with Julian in the spring, around her festival. Her special anniversary year – that of her visions – is still being celebrated in Norwich, but she’s not the only Norfolk medieval mystic having a 650^th this year. It’s Margery’s big birthday year – today is her feast day – and so I pilgrimaged to King’s Lynn to learn more of her as I’ve a sneaking suspicion that I’m going to connect, perhaps more than with Julian, and not just because we were born 600 years apart.

Henceforth, Julian comparisons will cease and Margery will be her own creature.

I’m wondering if that final phrase, borrowing from how she self-describes in her Book, is telling.

Firstly, let me tell you a little about her home town. Still a port and one of Norfolk’s top 3 towns, Lynn was leading due to its mercantile success. It retains many buildings which Margery might have known – two guildhalls, large churches, an anchorite’s cell at a third; timbered halls and courts and a polygonal chapel in gardens; a big town gate and remains of 4 monasteries. It has two large market places: I realised that the church’s control of these was a lucrative and strategic move. Often Norfolk is spoken of as almost coming into being with the first Norfolk bishop. Lynn, like its cousin Yarmouth in the east, bookends the county as ports which rose out of estuaries at this bishop’s bidding. Nothing was there before 1100, it’s implied…but this is spin. The bishop (whose name I refuse to give, but it means silver tongue) sent monks and set up a market; and then, another burgh. I noted how near the river was to both, and then, who owned the surrounding salt flats (essential for curing the fish). Yes, the church did. The church was in dispute with itself, as Margery records: the huge chapel of St Nicholas wasn’t allowed parochial status and thus even to get a font – which is a tool and privilege of the parish church. St Margaret’s, now the Minster of Lynn, did not want its sister to receive this accoutrement and become its rival.

I see Margery’s amusing turn of phrase here “try what they might, they will not get it…” as a hint to what I think this book really is. Its humour and irony regarding the church is key to its type and purpose. It’s assumed that her work is an autobiography, and it’s claimed that she is the first woman to write one in English, just as Ju…(I said no more comparisons). But I think that genre is wrong.

When I read that Lynn Staley posited that this tome is in fact fiction, my ring of truth went off. Yes!

It is a writer’s intuition. I knew that several have written novels that sound like autobiographies – including myself; Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit, Jane Eyre, I Claudius… Were I, we, following in her example?

The Book Of Margery Kempe reads like a bildungsroman, an adventure story where the protagonist moves geographically and meets different people in those places. It is a Tipping the Velvet, a Moll Flanders.

The latter I believe is another kind of genre: a Cathy Come Home. This 1960s Ken Loach film was a fictionalised version of real things that had befallen young women, all rolled into a single character’s story, meant to speak out against injustice. I’ve used that drama, which had an impact still remembered, to describe others meant to effect change and awareness, as Ken Loach has spent his career doing: Black Beauty is the Cathy Come Home of equine welfare – note the fellow Norfolk female author; the TV show Bad Girls is the Cathy Come Home of women’s prisons. The creator had been in prison herself and used a shocking incident she endured in the show’s opening.

I wonder if Margery Kempe’s book is about a protagonist who is perhaps autobiographically inspired, but could also be a conglomeration of observed stories. Its humour and exaggerated style allow it to say things that otherwise would not be acceptable, and it’s easier to if it sounds true.

I think that Margery’s work is not only this a kind of novel but a parody. It emulates up the popular religious works of the time and does a kind of Cold Comfort Farm to the genre.

I think that Margery’s taking the p*ss out of spiritual biography. Not that she is necessarily laughing at God, faith, or the genre per se; not that she doesn’t intend to edify her readers…but there are times when I think she’s lampooning, courageously, couched as instruction and life experience, and swiping at the Church.

Lynn Staley saw all of this (although I read about her ideas after having my own).

It seems strange to me that Margery’s Book isn’t more commonly read in that way, and it makes far more sense and is a stronger work – and a humorous one. I’ve always found Margery funny, such as trying to keep celibate and fast on a pilgrimage, but “with beer in my hand and cake in his belly, what could I do?” Read with a local accent. Yet we recognise the feeling of failing in our intentions and the more poignant struggle in her marriage, and I hope she is asking: why put such burdens on oneself? Is such denial ever from God? Can God’s will drive a marriage apart and cause hurt?

Something that’s made me angry is the oft repeated idea that Margery is mad. One, I’m not sure that ‘the creature’ – ie, created being – of her story is in fact herself. I question whether many-time-mayor John Brunham’s daughter who married John Kempe is our heroine, whose dates we don’t even know. But even if our Margery is describing herself, or another, I hate the secular modern eyes who have no sensibility of deep spiritual emotional experiences. Many current Christians don’t have space for miracles, revelation, visions and prophecy, nor divine healing. Science has been placed on the bishop’s throne, and the only magic being in the much guarded act of communion, or mass.

And we don’t seem to understand this affective devotion that is the best known feature of the book. (Other than the bear story, and the Untold Sin, but I’ll come to those).

I do wonder if Margery is lampooning a bit, for she mentions other real life criers. Is Margery saying that these go too far?

Or is this book written as if by Margery (or ‘this creature’) herself… Is the third person narrative in fact accurate? It is a question I will return to.

Margery does lecto divino, putting herself in Bible stories – as the star! Marys Mother and Magdalene and the Lord himself couldn’t have done it without her, although she has to play the parts of servitude. Has Margery a massive ego, or a special mission? Is she very favoured or is her quill in her cheek?

When is she speaking her truth, and when is she being critical? Does she really think that her born again virginity (cf Shekhar Kapur’s Elizabeth) gives her higher status and God more pleasure?

And what of the love scene between her and God the father, who becomes her bridegroom? I was surprised at it being the first person of the Trinity who marries her and wishes to be with her both as son and husband – quite different roles. Doesn’t that undermine her earthly chastity, or is Margery now for higher ecstasies than those previously enjoyed with John Kempe?

Like Miss Jean Brodie, her work has a biblical turn of phrase – at least in the translations I’ve read, and I’m familiar with several Bible translations. ‘Margery’ lived well before the King James version, or Tyndale’s; the only two versions she might know would be the Latin Bible reserved for priests and scholars alone, and which we assume (perhaps wrongly) that she can’t read, or John Wycliffe’s rendering into English. This was illegal without a license – which we presume that Margery would have been unable to obtain. Or…is someone else filling in those biblical references (such as her knowing about the woman who cried out to Jesus in Luke 11, saying: bless she who bore you). Has Margery learned them from the many clerics she knows?

I wish to again note the pastiche of spiritual literature – the Good Book – in this work, which I think is deliberate; the speed of story telling (tales are rapidly passed over, unlike modern novels), with a few key pieces of dialogue and a certain rhythm and repetition. I noted the use of the phrase ‘being well’, recalling Julian’s very tea-towellable quote. I wondered if that was a nod to the older anchoress, and also what to make of the creature’s visit to that woman over 3 days. Is the advice actually the author’s? Has she been generous enough to put her own spiritual guidance in the mouth of Mother Julian? Margery who meets bishops and mayors, saves the Minster from a fire, and even gives midwiferal assistance to our Lord, would surely put her creature with this famous local lady.

I realise that what I’m posturing has one very disappointing possibility: that the adventures of this woman are not real, and thus lose credence and their message. I came of age with liberals telling me that my favourite Bible stories didn’t happen, but being myths doesn’t make them less powerful or full of truth. I have never really accepted that argument, which is often bourne out of incredulity that miracles happen.

I believe very much in miracles and that Margery’s life is possible; her trials but also her visions and her rescues, and her own capabilities to forgive and save herself (with God’s help) and others. I and others take comfort in Margery’s story and can relate. She too was shunned, misunderstood, betrayed (in a very Christlike way), but also loved and provided for. She struggled, fell, and got up. She travelled Europe, even without her husband, and took her last feat of water crossing in her 60s, like Diana Nyad (whom I spoke of earlier this week). Her work took a long time to be penned and may not have really had an audience in her lifetime, and yet it is now read internationally and considered a classic.

One of the joys of this book is that it is written by a woman – male amanuenses aside. To imply that those scribes are in fact the author detracts from the generative power of the female pen and imagination. I want – and I’ll own my wishes – it to be authored by a medieval woman. I want at least some of that book to be about a real person from Lynn, born 600 years before me.

There are two matters to round up with – I realise that I’m writing with Margery-like structure – that I forementioned. A full analysis of this text would be very long and I would like to wait until Luke Penkett’s translation of Margery comes out and I also lay my hands on Lynn Staley’s version.

I had a further thought on the trouble she takes to speak of her scribes, who ask her questions to prove her prophetic gift (or ability to judge character). This might suggest that my theory is wrong: this is a real person, struggling to get copyists and dictatees. Why would such information be there if it were a novel? But More’s Utopia and McEwan’s Enduring Love have false bookends, as does Wuthering Heights. The first is to make it sound like this not very ideal place actually is a real island; the second gives psychiatric notes about imagined characters, and the third has a newcomer tell the story he heard from onlooker Nelly Dean. So although Margery was before all these, I’m showing that such a device has been used elsewhere. (She did Ignatius-style scripture reading long before he of Loyola).

My other piece of evidence for this being fiction is that Margery strings us along with a secret, right from the start: what’s the sin that she couldn’t confess? It keeps us wondering throughout the text, but this master story teller never reveals it.

That’s what I think she is – a master storyteller, creating a brave tale of social commentary and church critique in the guise of a mimicry, in both senses, of spiritual literature; a lively paced work like today’s thrillers, with constant tension, resolve, then immediately another problem. You might wonder why I’ve not spoken about her mysticism and womanhood, and especially the physical aspects of her description which are quite shocking in places. That’s because everyone else has.

I’d like to leave you with a little reading by me. I start with my King’s Lynn jingo; I shall soon post one of my Day Out with Elspeth guides. I think that town ought to be called not King’s or Bishop’s Lynn, but Margery’s Lynn.

And then I’ll read you – in a Norfolk accent Margery’s striking tale – which I think she invented or dreamt and interprets, but was divinely inspire. Note that it’s not only Julian who brings up our bodily functions.

I hope to spend more time with Margery – if that be her name – and this Book, and if I’ve any new insights, be sure that I’ll share them with you.

Happy Margery day!

Margery Kempe born 650 years ago today (perhaps) and lived until c1440 (we think)

My novel is Parallel Spirals ISBN: 978-0-9957525-0-4

https://shows.acast.com/between-the-stools/episodes/elspeth-reads-margery-kempe

Parallel inspiration – or propaganda in Autumn 2023 films

Here my thoughts on are those recently viewed films that I promised. At first, I thought I would be sharing my take on connected inspirational themes. Then I realised that there is a different theme and tone…

I thought that I was on a bit of a roll, picking good films and television series to watch. I’ve long maintained that good viewing (and reading) is a spiritual experience, which is why next year’s Between The Stools theme is a about the power of story…which is the theme of my first novel, Parallel Spirals.

The Miracle Club is about Irish women of the 1960s who make a pilgrimage to Lourdes. They all have their own hopes and things to heal, including, ultimately, things that can’t be recorded or verified as a miracle. I enjoyed it very much, finding that the trailer was misleadingly light – as with My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3. It was amusing, moving and satisfying. Then I travelled home – and it was a long solo journey. I was less sure that I liked the sort of healing promoted in the film. Wasn’t its real message that faith healing is fake, and even that faith is fake? I noted the outcome for Kathy Bates’ character with cancer: she has a companion to go to the hospital with her. The tone of Laura Linney is like that of her nurse wife in The Truman Show. It’s a little patronising and filtered through the earpiece of her master. How could Kathy’s Eileen think of not submitting to mainstream medicine with her problem? She has instead attempted to put herself in the hands of another worldwide institution – that of the Catholic church. Healing has not apparently occurred – although she has given it but days. Allopathic ‘cure’ takes a long time – why expect God to be instantaneous?

I do think that clearing the emotional issues for each woman now opens to their physical healing.

Although I welcome critique of the church, there’s the implication that God is being so too – or rather, those of us who are silly enough to put our faith in him. I read an interview with the filmmaker and he implied that faith was something we grow out of – Laura’s character Chrissie had. He didn’t quite say ‘should’ grow out of. As someone not raised around the tradition of Lourdes I felt sympathy, despite the trappings which perhaps were absurd and even manipulative. I believe that Mary‘s there, and that faith healing and healing waters are real.

What is lacking is a helpful clergy response when healing appears not to have happened. The film, in the voice of the priest, only offers that we need to learn to go on in the wake of a healing failure.

There is a darker medical implication regarding abortion. Did it imply that Ireland’s stance on the subject had caused issues? If the film was entirely pro abortion, didn’t that say that the mute son wouldn’t be here? (We might well understand why he is mute). And that perhaps the rift around Chrissie might not have happened if professional, acceptable abortion had been possible for her?

I hope that the film is less simplistic, opionated and didactic than I’ve delineated.

I was interested to learn that the film took 20 years to come to the screen, making it comparable to the next film I saw: Nyad. I saw this true life tale of marathon swimmer Diana Nyad as a parable. What drew me was that she’d abandoned the adventure 30 years ago and was re-attempting it in her 60s. I didn’t know that it would take her several aborted missions. It felt as if the tale embodied the hero’s journey, although I also feel that the standard script shape seemed overtly present here. You can guess that a key relationship will split up; there will be a denouement scene in the water which is life threatening.

I liked that this film affirmed following your passion: Nyad had a strong sense of destiny, even in her name (Greek for water nymph); that being told you can’t do this (it’s impossible, you’re too old) is an impetus, not a deterrent for Diana. I did wonder what this feat gave to the world, for it wasn’t exactly one of service, and it caused huge strain to others: was it the message of hope and success? I also saw the relationship between Nyad and her friend and coach Bonnie as that of soul family, even though they’d quickly tried on the ‘are we partners’ garb and decided no.

Might The Great Escaper be a companion, because it’s about a person a generous generation older doing something that he is told is impossible at his age? I had first dismissed this as a pro-patriot movie well timed for Poppy Day (in a year with at least two heavily focussed on world conflicts), but there’s glimmers in the trailer and its decription about a personal journey of – like The Miracle Club and Nyad – returning to a difficult past and making positive peace with it.

That description would also tie in Typist Artist Pirate King, a fictional female road movie based on the life of Audrey Amiss. Her condition of falsely recognising strangers seems to be her way of healing her first breakdown, and I wondered if it’s a process that many of us go through, although it’s presented here as a disorder. Whereas we might not we yell at them in a cafe, we may draw into our lives people who remind us of those in key traumatic events to help us re-engage and release.

I feel anger at the mental health industry and how even looking up the name of the above condition brought up so many didicatic and judgemental sites. This film seems to clearly state that institutions for mental health patients do greater harm. I sought out filmmaker Carol Morley’s view; she made up a story based on the vast archival material at the Wellcome Trust by deceased Audrey. Carol spoke to people in Audrey’s life, including a psychiatrist who she was heartened by, even though her piece ends with him saying that he has to section people. Why ‘has’?!

I’m aware of shamanic approaches to mental health who are appalled by Western treatment. They see breakdowns as breakthroughs on a spiritual level. I liken it to coaching someone in a cacoon – in the way tha Diana Nyad was alone in the water, but Bonnie was following in a boat, calling out to her, checking her path and health, but her team knew that Diana had to make that passage alone. When they called time on her, they had to understand that Diana had to go back and complete that crossing. So often we rip open the cacoon and don’t let the pupa inside make their metamorphasis. I often think that at some level, it’s deliberate. In Typist…, Audrey’s psychiatric home visitor (played by Kelly MacDonald) is doing Bonnie’s job. It’s when she goes off piste as a mental health professional and becomes Audrey’s friend that healing – for both women – becomes possible.

In other viewing recently, I came across groups who stand outside of medical traditions. Audrey Amiss (as least as played by Monica Doolan) refused pills, just as Eileen of Ireland had refused to visit the doctor. The Amish (note how close to Audrey’s surname) refuse mainstream medicine, but in Plus One At An Amish Wedding, our protagonists resocialise the community, and thus the audience.

Following last week’s service, I continued my reformation research, hunting out today’s descendants of the radical reformers. I wasn’t sure what this rom com was trying to say about the well recognised but often not understood alternative lifestyle. A pair of traditionally goodlooking New Yorkers spend some days in the sticks – how much of a trope that is – with his estranged Amish family. Both he and she have entered the allopathic medical profession. His mum is surly and says that her herbal remedies have served her and hers just fine. At their first meal, having just met, this tactless woman (in bare arms) blurts that she can get her potential mother in law something much better for her ailments. When her nemesis has an attack, an ambulance is called – without permission. The Amish might have especially been terrified of that intense experience, but they’re soon saying how wonderful Western medicine is. It seems that the film is really saying: for all of you disillusioned with the drugs and surgical intervention model of health, here’s a film about the ultimate rejectors of that world who are forced to come round to it.

I want to understand why the Amish don’t use hospitals and continued researching to find out more. Much of their reasoning is about rule keeping and I found their portrayal (admittedly by those who had left) very much like those old wine and wineskins I spoke of last Sunday. It is about pleasing God (actually, your sect) via random rules; only in keeping our laws might you have a hope (but not assurance) of heaven. You can’t read the Bible for yourselves and in your own tongue (the special form of German their scripture is in is apparently no longer being taught in their schools). They too have banishment (cf excommunication and Hell) as their chief punishment. It also seems that avoiding pride and individualism – also very Catholic values as I heard levelled at Reformers – is the impetus for their refusal to join the modern world. I wondered if they saw something insidious in petrol and electricity – note our dependency on these remotely controllable resources. I can certainly see their reasons for not being in the state education systems. I saw something Quakerish in their simplicity.

Because the Amish are private and don’t like pushing themselves into limelight, and many do not use contemporary devices (Amish vary between communities), much of what’s available about them comes from outside sources. This can be those who’ve left the community – and some are keen to speak out – or those who have visited. The tone of their media makes clear that it remains an outside, critical view and that the medical views are geared to sound negative and unwise. This movie didn’t mention the costs of medical help in the US or its many maltreatments or its big pharma driven policies.

Lastly, the epic (yes literally at 3 1/2 hours) Killers of the Flower Moon, the real life based crime Western about the abuse of the Osage people once they discovered oil. Once again are a people being portrayed by the West who live differently to the West. They are being exploited and murdered by the West who pretend to live among them as friends, learn their language and govern with their interests at heart. There is a key plot point about an ‘Indian’ woman with diabetes and how she is treated. Note who funds her and how her husband – sounding very much like his Revolutionary Road character – treats her regarding her reluctance to take new pharmaceutical drugs. He angrily denigrates her native culture and its practices, for the needleholder is the new shaman and the white coat the new priestly robe. A film that is widely playing and being promoted due to its actors and director, featuring the hot topic of First Nation abuse, could also be underpinning a message about medicine whilst it highlights their appalling murder.

Perhaps the fact that resources are being thrown at this at this time in these very different screen offerings tells us that the public are questioning allopathic medicine and are drawn to other possibilities and ways to live.