Jubilee

https://www.brighteon.com/channels/elspethr – unedited video straight from live call

https://www.brighteon.com/e6f3b229-be73-43d7-8620-1dd48faea9bc (exact link to video)

and on https://shows.acast.com/between-the-stools/episodes/jubilee (audio only)

Welcome to Between The Stools on 5^th June 2022, when we are considering Jubilee. It’s apt as this weekend in Britain, many of us are celebrating our Queen’s 70 year reign – our country’s longest. However, although we’ll be thinking about Elizabeth II, this service is not a patriotic, bunting strewn hagiographic remembrance. We’ll be asking questions about monarchs and monarchy, relevant to wherever you are in the world. And in the second half, I’ll explore with you a different meaning of the word jubilee, and a biblical one.

PRAYER

1: The Queen’s Speech: Elspeth R on Elizabeth R

I realise that some may be listening to this outside of Britain – do I want to call it great? Some international members of this community may also claim our Queen – or does she claim you? I was aghast to learn the long list of countries that we have claimed. When QEII was crowned – 69 years ago – her oath involved swearing to govern ‘my Possessions’ which is an appalling phrase about people.  It wasn’t the only galling part of her vow.

We may have differing views over whether we like having a queen or being part of the commonwealth, or if we’re glad that our country has a different style of leadership. However, I point out that even if you’re living in a republic with a president, that a single head is a form of monarchy, for monarchy doesn’t have to mean kings and queens, but etymologically, it means “the rule of the one.” And all those ones are very powerful.

As our Queen, born in 1926, becomes more mature – and we’ve wondered at the last two jubilees whether she’ll have another – it is pertinent to ask whether we would wish to continue having a royal family, especially as they have been functioning. Elizabeth Windsor’s long innings have perhaps helped prepare for a transition when she does. The official narrative is of course that her eldest son Charles will succeed her, and then his eldest, William… and there is a line of succession drawn up should anything happen to those.  Although France ceased to have royal rulers two centuries ago – and there were fears about that here – it’s within this Elizabeth’s reign that it has become more common to question whether we wish for a queen or king. It is also now safe to dissent, although this weekend, if you’re in Britain and Northern Ireland, or Canada, Australia and New Zealand…you may feel left out or uncomfortable if you’re unsure about, or definitely against, waving Union Jack flags and singing national songs in a certain senior lady’s honour. But the left has long been querying why this institution, the Firm, is still operating, and at what tune we’re paying for this showpiece. I’ve also heard detractors ask: what do the royal family actually do?

We’ve had national monarch in England since at least the 11^th century, as has Scotland, which was separate until 1603 – the end of the first Elizabeth’s reign (she’s likely to feature next year as it’s full of Tudor anniversaries). We’ve only had one break since – the 11 year ‘interregnum’ or ‘Commonwealth’ under Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, until 1660. He might be worth a service or blog post sometime, but all I’ll say now is that he is a controversial figure, admired and loathed, but I can see why a man who could have ended our long lineage might be presented to us in a particular way – ie, negatively. Since the late 17^th century, our monarch’s role changed: we now have a constitutional monarch, meaning that their role is checked. This came about following the 1640s Civil War where parliament killed the king for alleged treason against the people and taking too much power. With that century, the divine right of kings supposedly abated.

The queen or king is supposed to be politically neutral and a figurehead. Our country is led by the prime minister, whom the Queen meets with each week, but she is not supposed to give opinion, only advise. Her website says that her giving political opinions would ‘embarrass her ministers’. I wondered whom these shadowy ministers are that are so easily discomfited. Parliament, coming from the French to speak, is a debating place supposed to hold government to account. The prime minister, who is of a political party, is meant to be elected, and we had 4 year terms until 2010, when the length between general elections was changed to  5 years – done swiftly at the government’s own bidding. Many of us feel that our political choices aren’t counted, and we vote tactically because our voting system isn’t fair. Hence, it can not feel very different between a queen who reigns by birthright, and sham elected politicians who are also from a particular class, often going to particular schools and universities and assume that ruling is their birthright. They’re often incredibly rich, with resources beyond their public salaries. And we don’t feel that they’re really being held accountable.

A monarchy can be incredibly popular. I hear that the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain love theirs, as many round the world love ours. I have not come across queues to meet political figures; no travelling and sleeping rough for a glimpse of our prime minister or chancellor; but people will do so for a few moments with our royals. I would say that there is a love for the Windsors and Waleses, even if that may not come from you.

I am not sure at the moment whether it still comes from me.

One of my first posts in this blog (began in spring 2011) was about royal events; a year later I commented on the last jubilee with “On Being Liked – HM the Queen”. Inspired by an Elizabethan film and a seminal theology book, I wanted our Bess to know, as Clive Owen as Raleigh said to the first Bess, the simple pleasure of being liked for herself. Of course, I don’t know our Queen and even if I had regular dealings with her, I wonder if I would know her personally. I also wonder what impression I would get.

I’ve learned much in the intervening 11 years. In 2011, I went to the cinema and viewed the Queen’s grandchild’s wedding and stood at the national anthem voluntarily, as I did at the Queen Mother’s funeral; I don’t think I’d do so again. I’ve since read David Icke and many other alternative opinions, with whom I do not necessarily concur, but nor am I able to wholly dismiss at least some of the notions. I’ve read more about next month’s subject, and I wonder not only how I feel about having a queen or royal family, but whether they are good.

I note that the royal wedding I just alluded to – that of William and Kate – happened just after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. I realised then that the timing was chosen. And that it was at the start of a long stretch of government induced austerity, yet much money was made available for us to celebrate. Did the royals bring joy where the politicians had taken it away, as they do now? Or is it a terrible waste when so many are struggling and services cut? Is it just propaganda? How do I feel about the royal power to change a public holiday, for her own sake and tell us when to be off work, or not? And that over here, a public holiday is named after a day of rest for the banks? What is the Queen’s relationship to our financial machinations?

There are some other machinations that I don’t know if I wish to explicitly bring up, but her son is allegedly connected to what the Queen and her former consort have been accused of, and in an even more unthinkable way. Where is the wickedness – in the suggestion or the actions? Would we be holding this weekend if it were true? Being uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to be wrong.

I am aware of the gamut of opinions on the Queen – from being our needed rudder in times of huge transformation, bringing in great wealth…. I reject the notion that economic value is often posited first, in contrast to the argument that she and her family are costly. I’ve heard her called wise and gracious, many times during carefully curated tributes this weekend, but opposing attributes have been attributed. I will say that those with inside knowledge who critique the royal family have oft said that the Queen has behaved better than some others. What is the truth, and how can we know? Mainstream media will only give one side. If the truth is not the message emblazoned on her palace, is it time it is known?

It is factual that the Queen is legally unlike the rest of us: she needs no number plates or driving license, she is not compelled to pay tax (although she chose to); she is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act which requires other public bodies to give information when asked (although her accounts are online); and the one that galls especially is that she is above the law. Do you think of a 60s American president when you hear that…one who didn’t stay in the Whitehouse after claiming that it’s not illegal if he does it?! The Queen’s website claims that she is law abiding, but who is this person – even theoretically – who along with much of her family, cannot be subject to arrest and can do things which the rest of us can be arrested for?!

This is something to consider: should there be such a being in a land which puts such emphasis on the rule of law?

I know that the Queen has been named as defendant on legal cases including the 2013 one at the time of co-defendant Pope Benedict’s unprecedented resignation. I will leave you to do your own research, but I exhort not using Google or Wikipedia to get any real answers. And don’t be hasty to dismiss the court. Would one with HM in its name take on her majesty?

Lastly for this half are two related matters: the concept of duty and the Queen’s relationship to the Anglican church. The Queen isn’t voluntarily our sovereign, but she seems to take this role with gravity. The Queen isn’t known for displays of affection; she is, in public, measured and correct – all that we’ve been told is British. But is it still and do we want it to be? Is dutiful, self denying service the truest kind? Where is love and joy and freedom?

We’re thinking next month about a former member of the royals who shook up their image and exposed them. Although I’ll not tell you how to view the Queen, I will encourage some questioning, some awareness that the official narrative is curated, and that announcements are carefully timed. I did wonder if the Queen would see out last year as there seemed some coded hints – her not appearing at usual events coupled with articles about London Bridges falling (which is the name of the procedure, should she pass) that the Queen was preparing to leave us. Might she soon? What has her real legacy been?

I wish to turn briefly and finally for this half to the rest of her vow. She started by saying she will govern the nations under her sceptre ‘according to their respective laws and customs’ – which is perhaps somewhat more comforting and equitable. She wills that justice and law and mercy – all given capitals – will be executed in all her judgements.

Then comes the fat paragraph which alarms me. She has sworn, she has stated she will to her power cause… and now she ups what she promises and has power for: she will to the utmost of her power maintain the Laws of God – more capitals – and the true profession of the Gospel. What I think she was really saying, judging from what follows, is that she upholds the institution of the Anglican church, the anglican flavour of Christianity. She will ‘maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the church of England…’ its laws, its bishops and their lawful rights.

Which laws are you looking to for those, your graces? Not to scripture or God’s laws.

I think we need to have a conversation about whether our monarch is, as Charles so controversially asserted, is defender of the faith, or simply faith. We are a multicultural country and even the supposed official religion, Christianity, has many flavours. Can a monarch really continue to privilege only one? Can the doctrines and rites of the C of E really form an oath that sets them above? No wonder that they are so involved in this weekend and other national events.

Is such sentiment still appropriate in a very different world?

And what does it mean that the Queen’s image is projected on ancient, internationally known monument Stone Henge – a preChristian site?!

I’ll take a break for some music. I found it hard to know what to choose, especially as – thanks to last year’s homelessness – I can’t play my keyboard as I did. But what would I compose if I could? This weekend was filled with Elgars and Parrys and pomp and circumstance – do I want to add to that? Is that how we see our Queen, our country?

So I’m reusing something regal from a few months back, about the real Queen.

MUSIC – My composition based on the chords of Jo Boyce’s Magnificat (see BTS Nov 2021)

This is my painting “The Colours of Democracy” made for the last royal occasion – the English Lion attacks the Welsh ‘foreign’ Dragon; Wonder Woman’s satin tights and lasso; Tesco’s tagline; Superman; stars annd stripes, and crowns… and blood

2: (i) God & Kingship

One of my mother’s enduring teachings is that God did not intend his people to be led by a single person – not as a nation, and not as a church. God gave his people a king because they wanted to be like other nations, says the Book of Samuel. They got one like other nations too – Games of Thrones’ Kahl Drogo – tall, young, handsome, charismatic, authoritative, a great fighter who had prowess in battle. Note in the latter how their leader is forsaken as soon as he ails and fails. Such power is weakness, because it is fragile and capricious. Perhaps God’s idea of monarchy was really theocracy – that He rules, not any one human. There is a danger that a few people decide that God rules through them.

We’re so used to hierarchies that we may not think to question the single ruler mode, nor having a government, state, or nation, nor the many institutions and arms of those. I have been thinking deeply about this for at least 5 years. What we’ve had isn’t what should continue to be; a tradition is not a reason.

I don’t think that the Bible models good kings. I am also not sure about the notion of God being our King, with the worldly attributes of above. I think that the biblical writers’ notion of kingship – as it has been translated and curated – is not really the true message of God.

I am uncomfortable that Jesus is spoken of as being from David’s line, as if our Lord and Saviour, the Son of God, needs a pedigree to be meaningful. In fact, it rather clashes with the man who entered the world through a stable to a tradesman who wasn’t the father, who lived outside of the system, itinerantly, sleeping rough, and was killed as a criminal, whose teachings turned wealth and status topsy turvy. Paul’s understanding was that we are adopted and joint heirs in this heavenly Royal Family, and that it’s not about birth and bloodlines, nor earthly privilege.

(ii) Biblical jubilee

When I chose this subject, it was this point that I looked forward to preaching on. I had heard of jubilee in the approach to the year 2000, via a conference featuring CAFOD, the Catholic Agency For Overseas Development. CAFOD and others campaigned for the end of third world debt, on the principle of the biblical jubilee of debt forgiveness at special times.

There is still an organisation called Debt Justice, born out of that time and movement, but I quickly felt concerned about its real values.

It didn’t question debt per se or the system, its survey data harvested from the vulnerable and it perpetuated some statements that I believe are an agenda under the name of caring for the planet, which of course is worthy and important. (More in August’s service).

I also realised that the woke progressives were using biblical jubilee in a way that the Bible doesn’t; more conservative writers were keen to point out ‘myths’. Reading Leviticus 25, it was soon clear that the Bible, as it is presented, doesn’t support the equitable equity that left wing Christians are promoting. It’s about land staying with your family; it is about paying off debt, not writing it off; it still supports debt and slavery; and the benefits of jubilee are only for the Israelites, not the aliens and visitors among them.

I was disappointed; but I felt a) does the Bible teach us for all time? It is often said in response to anti gay sentiment that Leviticus is filled with specific laws which today’s Christians don’t follow (the same can be said for control of females in the New Testament); hence we are selective, and these laws are set out for the Jewish people of that time. I also wondered why the bubble bursting conservatives wished to deconstruct debt forgiveness rhetoric – do they not want equality and freedom?

I do note the motif of seven times seven, and how that Jesus used it about forgiveness of individuals, making seven times seventy. Was it this concept he was referring to?

I also note that fallow fields every seven years is used by some Christian farmers, which is healthy for the land although it means a loss of produce; and that it became an EU directive.

A jubilee follows the seventh cycle of these seven years with a greater year of rest and very fiddly rules.

My b) thoughts were: couldn’t we have the kind of jubilee that I hoped for anyway? Why should it be merciful and not mandatory to forgive debts? Why are they being created in the first place? I’m reminded that wealth and status has come via different means throughout history and geography – who is deciding what’s valuable, and that some of us can’t have enough of that, so we are owing others for it?

We looked at debt in January; the notion of debt, which is more than fiscal, needs to be questioned. I hope I can state with confidence that all forms of slavery are abhorrent to all of us, and yet we – Christians and Jewish people – have a holy book which does not condemn such a practice, but believes that you can own and sell other people, and implies it for our key theology.

I think that Jesus supported true jubilee, and I also believe that his message has been obscured. The prayer he left is really about ‘untangling knots’ if translated properly from the Aramaic, but it has been rendered as ‘cancelling accounts’. Yes, that could be on any level, including what is often called ‘sin’, although I do not see fiscal debt as a moral issue – only in the sense that it’s immoral to make someone beholden to you, especially for power and profit. I do not see people who allegedly owe fiscal debt as having a moral issue; I see them as victims, unless it is restitution for a wrong – such as all those who bullied people out of homes and livelihoods, especially in the last two years.

Jesus also gave an Old Testament reading which is about true jubilee, and the sort which I am advocating. From Isaiah 61, he said

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me

because the Lord has annointed me

to preach good news to the poor

to bind up the brokenhearted

to proclaim release of the captives

give sight to the blind

and set at liberty those that are oppressed

and proclaim the Year of the Lord’s Favour”

I think that such a year is here where we do restore that which was taken unjustly, for those dispossessed, especially during the covid period of homes and businesses, of children and animals wrongly confiscated; and anyone enslaved in any way, including through debt, and wrongful imprisonment, through medical intervention, through police and judicial bullying, through abusive work, through utility companies, banks and other lenders, governments at all levels… needs to be immediately released. That is for countries and individuals, anywhere.

The Queen has power to make cities – Colchester is at last – as well as confer titles and new letters on people. Why not use her powers? She can withhold royal assent – why didn’t she on the coronavirus act two years ago? Why doesn’t she end the poverty cycle and stop letting unjust laws be created? This might be her last jubilee – why not do something extraordinary with it?

Many have been waiting for an act with the acronym GESARA or NESARA to come into play. It was allegedly due to on September 11^th 2001 – but something dramatic happened to avert it. It is about economic restructuring; forgiveness of mortgages and all loans, restoring justice to its constitutional values, and ceasing income tax. NESARA is the US version; GESARA is the global one. I’ve concerns about an act that the public didn’t work on or know about being brought in, and the sleight of hand between pan-America and the other 200 countries of the world. But its precepts sound a lot like what we hoped biblical Jubilee is.

It is broke and it absolutely needs not fixing but re-imagining as something wholly different.

Whether these acts are part of the answer, or whatever your opinion of the royal family is, we need to do different. Let this year be the year that it begins.

Today is also Pentecost (hence my red as well as blue and white) – let that Spirit come on us that Jesus spoke of.

NEXT TIME: DIANA on Sun 24^th July for Magdalene Sunday, again at 8pm BST.

August’s service is on the 14^th

Do reach out to me, Elspeth, on betweenthestools@hotmail.co.uk

On Being Liked, HM the Queen

Much of my Royal/national thoughts from last year’s wedding still stand:

I’d like to add a sense of pride* reading a newspaper I do not normally buy who wooed me by claiming they are “5p cheaper than the Mail and 10 times better” and their letters page which showed warmth for this country and the remarkable lady that has remained our figurehead for 3 score.

Perhaps an icon of public restraint of emotion, it is easy to say we love the Queen in the same dutiful way she takes her role.

I have a book, by James Alison, called On Being Liked. It’s about God and I mentioned it in a recent post “Infinitely Beloved”. James says, God doesn’t like us in the dutiful way we may love a monarch – he likes us, for who we are. As much as the Queen’s true persona  is unknown I would like to say, for what I can tell of her, I like the Queen. And in a country of official free speech, I am not obliged to say so a la Orwell’s Big Brother. So I hope it means something that at the end of the 60th Jubilee weekend, I choose to say that. I add with a sting that I’m aware of none who would greet any of the recent prime ministers in the same enthusiasm as our QE. And may she reign  long enough for me to meet her, and until we are ready for the next monarch.

*Not to mislead readers, my usual view of that paper has returned for other behaviours. It was on this principle only

Wallis and Edward

It is strange how history parallels itself. Since the Royal Wedding, I have researched our current royal family, about whom I truly knew little. It became like the story of Elizabeth I: I kept hearing about the previous generation and how their actions had a clear impact on the current. In the Tudor story and film Elizabeth, I found that I must know who ‘the whore Anne Boleyn’ really was to understand why Elizabeth’s claim to the throne was arguably tenuous. Understanding Anne actually told me far more than that and introduced me to a woman every bit as fascinating and remarkable.

Reading about today’s royal family is exciting because it is the same kind of epic history, but still unfolding, with the possibility to interact with it. We don’t know the end of the story. I like to read stories where I don’t know the end; it is a shame that classics and history are half known to the general public so that there is rarely the pleasure of complete discovery for the first time. We know the Titanic sinks and that Mr Rochester does marry Jane Eyre. We know that Elizabeth I doesn’t marry and that Anne Boleyn is executed. Those events are best discovered like a film that starts with the end and you have to learn why that end is arrived at.

Reading about Prince Charles – whose story is still being made and whose ending is not known – I kept coming up against warnings about being like Uncle David, whose regnant name was Edward. This seemed to be the ultimate threat, the most dreaded comparison. The shadow of Edward VIII’s abdication was and perhaps is still looming in the memory of the royal family, though many of them were born after that event and even after his lifetime. I previously knew only that Edward abdicated to marry; I knew nothing of to whom, except her name and that she was divorced. However – any books, films and perhaps people are quick to fill in my blank that this was a feckless, selfish couple; she, a crude, loud American siren. And brave old Bertie conquered his stammer and stepped into his shameful brothers’ shoes and gave us the current royal lineage, with the strong Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon at his side, known to us today as the late Queen Mum.

This year, I have seen three films about that era: The King’s Speech, Bertie and Elizabeth, and Any Human Heart. They all add to what the biographies say. David/Edward says little in the films, and neither does Wallis Simpson, but their small parts are almost caricatured in not being flattering. Only in 2001’s Bertie and Elizabeth was there a hint that he carried on with his duties, despite being exiled and stripped of his title, and still had popularity when he met people.

Yesterday, I watched the 2005 film for television, Wallis and Edward. I wanted to hear their side of the story. My instinct had been to wonder if Edward and Wallis were really so dreadful and to feel sorry for Edward. Who else but royalty cannot reject the work our family lines up for us? You can refuse to be a doctor as your parents hoped or to carry on the family business, but this is one firm you cannot leave. I find his abdication speech very moving. He says he can’t be king and do the best for his people without the woman loves. I understand that. Who else has ministers and laws telling you whom you should marry? Why is the anti-Catholic law still in place? The prime minister has no such scrutiny, yet PM Stanley Baldwin felt that he could manipulate his Sovereign on that matter. Easy to deal the duty card to someone else when it’s not your companion that’s being dictated.

Jean Brodie says “…Stanley Baldwin who got in as prime minister and out again ere long”. This has stuck with me – that it’s the headmistress, Miss Mackay, who admires Baldwin and has the slogan near his picture, ‘safety first’. The complex antiheroine loves truth, beauty, art, and esteemed Axis European leaders whose getting in and getting out caused immeasurable suffering. I think that regarding the Windsors, Stanley Baldwin can also be charged with causing suffering – not with the mass torture and execution of fascist dictators, but his prejudice fuelled pressure had an effect on the nation and his government as well as ripples of hurt and stress for the whole the royal family, Edward and Wallis especially.

I wish that Wallis and Edward had ended not with the end notes that they were ostracized for the rest of their lives and that Wallis died a recluse, but that Baldwin resigned and the sympathetic friend Churchill became our famous, perhaps iconic prime minister, and that Wallis and Edward’s lives and duties carried on beyond their wedding day.

Wallis and Edward is well written and the DVD’s interview with writer Sarah Williams is very illuminating. It’s her first made script, inspired by coming across a book on Wallis in America that perhaps indicated another light was possible on the woman so hated and decried over here. In Sarah’s telling, the Queen Mother comes across as scheming and controlling. King George V is not portrayed well in any of the films, always been bombastic and cold and autocratic, a negative force on both brothers. David/Edward is neither hero nor villain, but complicated. Wallis is not grasping at the English throne, but would rather see her love alone on it and lose him than cause constitutional crisis. She is always the one with caution, showing sadness and fear when things escalate. Rather than Wallis leaving yet another husband callously, it’s he who leaves her. She is willing to put her second husband before the king, but it is Ernest Simpson who asks for the divorce. There’s none of the crude, brash presumption in this Wallis, played by Joely Richardson. Joely’s an actress who plays sympathetic protagonist roles and so this casting makes us willing to warm to her and suggests that’s what we are supposed to do.

It’s easy to see Anne Boleyn/Henry VIII parallels in that a man falls in love so passionately that he is prepared to go against his ministers and shake the constitution to do so. Henry, like many kings, took lovers of married women, and this was accepted. Edward VIII was advised to do the same, without marrying her, but this film has Edward refuse to take such a double standard. Wallis, like Anne, is not aristocracy and her husband, like the men of Tudor paramours, angles their women towards the king to reap the benefits for themselves. Ernest Simpson is a nice partner who bravely confronts the King with his intentions – he does not want to leave Wallis unless she is well looked after.

The parallels with the current royal family are also powerful. Charles and Camilla’s wedding was announced during the filming of this drama. Had that happened earlier – or when Charles becomes king – a similar crisis could have emerged. I also recently saw the Channel 4 docudrama series, The Queen. It covers Charles and Diana’s break up and a parallel in living memory with Princess Margaret. Margaret wanted to marry a senior employee, Peter Townsend, but eventually gave him up for duty. I wonder how much of ‘Uncle David’ would have been behind that decision and the Queen’s views on both her sister and her son’s marriages. Being the daughter of the other brother, the one thrown into the limelight by the decision of the abdicator, one can surmise at how that affected Queen Elizabeth’s beliefs. A girl at the time, it may be that her parents influenced her ideas about it as she perhaps can remember little herself; I don’t think she had much contact with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as David/Edward and Wallis became.

I would like to do further research on Wallis and Edward, and am open to the more sympathetic view. Like Anne Boleyn, it seems she has been demonised, but it is better that she does not remain so for centuries if it not deserved.