These Games of Thrones - Part 2

It was a strange feeling for me that hours after publishing Part 1 of this series, the news was announced to the world that our Queen Elizabeth II had died. 

Great Britain and the realms and the Commonwealth (of which New Zealand is a part) entered into 10 days of mourning and King Charles III ascended to his role of King.

What this past week has shown me and confirmed to me, is that our political system with the Crown as the constitutional head, is the greatest form of democracy in the world, bar none. In the next month, I will write a post on why I think New Zealand needs to stay with the monarchy and not become a republic.

Much of my belief stems from strong opinions around the Treaty of Waitangi, but also, paramount above even this, is the core belief that human nature craves power and control. There is something within the depths of all mankind that cannot help himself but given the chance will elevate him or herself, or when he finds himself treated as a god, to enjoy this, to bask in this, like a pig in muck, and countries choosing to become a republic is sometimes the means of doing this, lofty ideologies descending into self-centred political manoeuvrings. But more about that next month.

When thinking about the Westminster system, it got me thinking about how it all began. I believe there were two pivotal points in history that had long-lasting impact on our political system. Those two points of change in British history began with King Henry VIII, and then later with Oliver Cromwell's dealings with King Charles I. You might also be surprised to learn the the British monarchy has been abolished in history more than once, but somehow they survive and come back from this.

As a result of these changes, the Crown is now 'above politics'. It gives the countries who are under the Crown leadership that tries to bring people together. In the great jostle for power and control, under the Westminster system, nobody can really have total power. The Sovereign can't. The Prime Minister can't. Isn't that a good check and balance for true freedom? Given mankind's propensity for absolute power and control, I think it is.

With the passing of Queen Elizabeth two weeks ago, Great Britain and all her realms and those who have her as Head of State (as we do in New Zealand) are now going through a transition period of change-over. I've always thought one of the most incredible moments in history must be that moment as the Sovereign dies, as their spirit leaves their body, attention immediately turns to the heir presumptive. In our case, Prince Charles, now King Charles. The transition is immediate. When Victoria became Queen, she wrote about the moment in her diary, 

"I was awoke at 6 o'clock by Mamma, who told me the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Conyngham were here and wished to see me. I got out of bed and went into my sitting-room (only in my dressing gown) and alone, and saw them. Lord Conyngham then acquainted me that my poor Uncle, the King, was no more, and had expired at 12 minutes past 2 this morning, and consequently that I am Queen."

This painting depicts the constitutional act of 'kissing hands" - effectively an acknowledgement of the transition of power, a declaration of that transition from the dead monarch to the new.

Painting by Henry Tanworth Wells, 1887.

So how has lust for power and control manifested in the British Royal Family? How has history been impacted by it? How did it change from absolute power to what we have now - a balanced sharing of power. Judge for yourself whether these games of thrones still continue. 

I want to start with the War of the Roses in the 15th century - which was one of England's most bloody and unsettled times, but was crucial in setting up the system we now have. It is actually a wonderful love story also (after the War of the Roses ended).

It began in 1455 and ended in 1487. 

It's an incredibly messy, complicated, brutal, tragic story with way too much killing. I have spent the last three weeks researching it and I still don't feel that I fully grasp everything that went on.

I do remember briefly covering it in history class in high school, but it was delivered in such a boring way all I could remember about it from then are the two rose emblems. So let's start there.

Basically, to break it down and over simply it, these related families, the Lancasters and the Yorks - cousins and descended from King Edward III (House of Plantagenet), both wanted the Throne of England. So they kept fighting each other in the hopes that one would stay alive long enough to be all powerful, or perhaps wipe out every living soul from the opposing family that would be the war that ended all wars.

The King in 1455 was King Henry VI.

Born at Windsor Castle, to put this into perspective he is our current King Charles' 15th Great Grand Uncle.

I want to say that royals named Henry are a bit of a mixed bag as far as character and success. I'm not sure I'd be naming my child Henry, if I was descended by any of these kings, but it is definitely a name that runs in the family (our modern Prince Harry is actually Prince Henry). 

Henry VI - a Lancastrian - was King twice, such was his tumultuous life. Probably the most memorable thing about this soft-spoken, gentle (some say feeble) King is that he married Margaret of Anjou, who became a force to be reckoned with, within the royal family and in the War of the Roses. She was behind many of the Lancastrian uprisings. Ultimately, she was triumphant, but history has a funny, twisted way of rewriting victories such as hers, as you will discover eventually, if you follow my series.

In a largely patriarchal society, where women were commodities in the relentless manipulations for power, it is interesting that many of these women, especially in the time of the War of the Roses, were powerful and clever and key to many events. Margaret of Anjou, Elizabeth Woodville and then her daughter Elizabeth of York each had a significant part to play in the War of the Roses.

These Queens, the powerhouses behind the Wars of the Roses - were reportedly beautiful women, so I feel that their medieval portraits don't really do them justice, so here are their 'modern' portraits, as portrayed through the popular dramatised series about their lives.  The White Queen (Margaret of Anjou portrayed by Veerle Baetens and Elizabeth Woodville portrayed by Rebecca Ferguson, and The White Princess, Elizabeth of York portrayed by the incomparable Jodie Comer) - dramatised versions of Philippa Gregory's novels about these women. They are excellent portrayals, I think.  Notice in some of the original art, Elizabeth of York who married Henry VII holds a white rose, and in the original art (below) Henry VII holds a red rose. If that's not a spoiler alert, I don't know what is!

But returning to the reason we are here - the Kings.

We began with King Henry VI. We end with King Henry VII, and a few other Kings and wanna-be kings in between, and Warwick the Kingmaker, a York cousin who featured prominently across the lives of the Kings and who if he was alive today, could probably go on Oprah and whinge about the royal family. 

King Richard the III and King Henry VII were the last two Kings to fight for their throne on the battlefield. 

Spoiler Alert: The Red Rose wins. No wait. The White Rose wins.

Ah - that is the plot twist at the end of this tale.

Image Credit: Bill Sibly (image has been modified).

I want to do a whole blog post on King Richard III, because as it turns out, he is a much maligned King. He is known through history as the worst King England has ever had, but many of his supposed wicked deeds are unproven and possibly the work of the propaganda machine from the Lancasters at the time. Imagine that! Propoganda in the 1400s! It is fascinating! His body lay undiscovered for 500 years and was recently found. A movie is coming out about it soon!

This is a brief summary of some of the key characters during that terrible, bloody time in England known as The War of the Roses.

If any of this has piqued your interest, I highly recommend this YouTube documentary series on the War of the Roses, because I have found it too complicated and I'd be writing about it forever, to try and unpack everything that went on during this time, and this series breaks it down, makes it understandable and is a rip-roaring watch!

These Games of Thrones - Part 1

As a woman ten years older than Meghan Markle, I feel like someone of my maturity or older needs to sit her down and remind her of that old adage, "if you haven't got anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all." It was the sort of thing my mother would say when my siblings and I would squabble as children. Of course, most people grow out of that kind of petty behaviour. At least they learn that it is socially unacceptable.

A couple of years ago I wrote on my social media page why I thought Meghan Markle was a narcissist. It came after the Oprah interview and I laid it out pretty clearly, using examples such as family and friends isolation and minimising her primary partner - that is Prince Harry, and reducing him to subtleties such as "H," among other examples.

I was vilified by a few American women who disagreed with me. The trouble with that is that I have had a lifetime of dealing with narcissists and I stand on the authority of that. Up until 2019, my life has been an education in how narcissists function, and now I am studying abnormal psychology at university. So, frankly, you can try, but you will never convince me that it is otherwise in this case.

My sympathies lie with the Royal Family. The behaviour of Prince Harry and his wife has offended my sensibilities, so I can't imagine how it must feel to be 'stabbed in the back' as they have been, time and time again. It goes against everything decent and honourable and is, quite frankly, unfair, dirty, and mean to put his family in this position, knowing that they are unable to defend themselves. It's an unfair fight. It's bully behaviour. 

Now, I don't want to spend the whole of this post ranting about Meghan Markle - there are other people who do that far better than me and have a greater audience, such as Lady Colin Campbell, Esther Krakou and Tom Bower.

I do want to talk about Ambition and Revenge.

When a narcissist seeks revenge, you then know that they have no other arrows to fire. Insider secret here:  Revenge is the narcissists downfall. Always. It means that they know they are defeated and this is their last crack at getting back at you. When I have seen the narcissists in my life fire their revengeful attacks I have learned to give a little, knowing smile of satisfaction, knowing that they are imploding on themselves. It's over. Pretty much. They might not ever give up their pursuit of revenge, but essentially it is their downfall or at the very least, marks the turn in the tide of their campaign against you. 

Ambition. There is nothing wrong with having ambition. I have ambition. Even at my age, I still have hopes and dreams for the future and goals I want to achieve. Someone like Meghan Markle has ambition too and to give her full credit - she has achieved what she set out to achieve. In Tom Bower's book, Revenge, her father says she told him as a child she wanted to be famous and walk the red carpet (paraphrased). She's achieved that. Good for her.

What is not good with ambition is when you trample over others to get what you want. That's not good, and kind of makes you an unpleasant person. A toxic person. 

When it comes to the Royal family of Great Britain, they are no strangers either to Revenge or Ambition. It comes with the territory because while they hold very little political power these days, they have high status, great wealth and influence and prestige and global recognition and there have been many, many members of the royal family and outsiders too, who have used their own egotistical greed to take the Crown and garner its power.

As a member of the Queen's great Commonwealth, I've grown up with the Royal Family. The Queen has been a constant presence in my life and we have followed the roller-coaster ride of their family joys and troubles and I have really enjoyed watching Prince William and Kate get married and start their family and just be happy. I look forward to their Coronation. I think they will make an amazing Prince and Princess of Wales and and even more amazing King and Queen. I am definitely on Team William and Kate. 

But I write this because the battle for the throne continues even in our modern day. It might not be so bloody as it was during the War of the Roses when cousins fought each other to the death for the throne, or like it was in Queen Mary I's rule where she just executed anyone who challenged her, but make no mistake, the fight for the crown still rages on and it is my opinion that Meghan, once ensconced in the family, perhaps realised she couldn't have the top job. That one day Prince William, as Head of the family would control her finances, she'd have to courtesy to Kate for the rest of her life, and also that while it might look glamorous from the outside, royal life is not really very glamorous and actually quite a lot of hard work and by chance of birth, you are destined to serve the people of your kingdom. The Queen has done an excellent job of this - uniting people, supporting people in hardship and maintaining strength and dignity and calmness through many dire situations. 

Now if you are British, or have grown up with the culture of the royal family, this is knowledge that is innate. But I can understand that an American - where the culture and values system is more individualistic - see the royal family kind of like the princesses of Disney movies. All glamour and pretty dresses and fairytale romances and would actually struggle with understanding this concept and cultural phenomena of service and duty, turning up in the pouring rain on a grim British day to cut ribbons and shake hands with strangers.

Keep in mind that William has grown into the knowledge that he will be King one day. His mother also, who had a deep respect for the Crown - she herself being of British aristocracy, knew the weight this would put on his shoulders and helped prepare him for it, just as he and Kate are now preparing their son, George for that same role that ultimately, in the fulness of time will come to him. They might not necessarily have chosen it for themselves, but it is their destiny. But with that destiny there will always be  the threat of power-hungry, ambitious, egotistical narcissistic behaviour of others that would challenge the crown, challenge the right to the throne, just as we have seen down through the annals of history.

Windsor Castle, UK

The British Royal Crown has almost never been without struggle for the power of the Crown. Just about every monarch has either had to fight for their reign, or they've had turmoil in the government during their reign. I thought in Part II I'd do a quick run-down of some of the more turbulent monarchs and what was happening at the time of their reign and how some of those old royal, parliamentary acts actually influence the royal family today. I love royal history. In fact, if I wasn't studying Forensic Psychology I might be doing a history degree. 
In Part II I will give  my extremely brief overview of significant battles for the throne throughout 'recent' history. 
Starting in 1455 with the War of the Roses.