Author Archives: Natalie Bennett

How to really annoy David Starkey

If you wanted to identify a book that David Starkey, the historian who claims that history has been falsely “feminised”, then Melissa Franklin Harkrider’s Women, Reform and Community in Early Modern England: Katherine Willoughby, duchess of Suffolk, and Lincolnshire’s Godly Aristocracy, 1519-1580 could well be a perfect example.

Women, in Starkey’s world, had no significance in the 16th century, and writing a biography of a woman, even one who was high-ranking, with access to royalty, would be a pointless exercise. Read this slim monograph, however, and you’ll realise just how silly this stance is.

Take even the start of her life: when her father, Lord Willoughby, died in 1526, leaving her as his sole heir, her mother (note that point Starkey) successfully defended the lands and goods against a bid , this despite her mother, Maria, not even being English, but a noblewoman who had arrived as a lady-in-waiting to Queen Catherine of Aragon.

Certainly, when at age 14, she became the fourth wife of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, she wouldn’t have had much chance for independent action or influence, but when Brandon died in 1545, she was left a wealthy and powerful widow, a position that scarcely weakened when in 1552 she married her gentleman usher, Richard Bertie.

But she wasn’t just living a comfortable life of privilege; like pretty well everyone at this time she was caught up in the virulent religious controversies that saw England swinging backward and forward between Catholicism and “godly Protestantism”.

Harkrider shows how she worked to promote the gospel among her relatives, servants and other dependents, noting: “She has been variously been described as an ‘evangelical firebrand’ and ‘champion of the godly’ at Henry VII’s court, the ‘doyenne of the evangelicals’ during Edward IV’s rule, and the head of a ‘pious menage’ in Elizabeth I’s reign.”

The author is particularly interested in how Katharine’s experience of religion differed from that of other Protestants, and the unusual survival of documents relating to her flesh out the story of her “zeal and her beliefs on communion, liturgy, and ceremonialism in detail” and suggest “the diversity of Protestantism” as it emerged in the later 16th century”.

This is only a slim monograph, which is perhaps a good job, since Harkrider’s prose could be at best described as pedestrian, and the structure rather repetitive, but the interest of the tale makes the reading worth the effort. And the tale of Katherine, and women like her, need to be recovered for woman today, to understand that their foremothers might have faced even greater restrictions than women today, but they still found ways to make an impact on their world. And to counteract misogynists such as Starkey….

Britblog Roundup No 217

You might have thought with a long Easter holiday weekend, spring finally arriving to encourage bloggers off their sofas, and the world of practical politics starting to gear up for the European elections, that this would be a quiet period in the British blogosphere.

You’d have been very, very wrong. For it’s a blogger, Guido Fawkes, who’s been providing newspapers and television news shows with a flood of material arising from his revelations about Damian McBride. This was one of his early accounts of the story.

And plenty of other bloggers have been doing sterling political writing on other subjects:

* Longrider has been examining the effects of the egregious collection of our pesonal data and L’Ombre de l’Oliver is offering practical help in clogging up the system.

* Dodgeblodgium has been following the clunking footsteps of our police state.

* And Senator Stuart Syyret of Jersey has been experiencing it first hand – astonishing treatment of an elected representative.

* The People’s Republic of Mortimer provides a collection of links on reactions to the death of Ian Tomlinson, and analyses the way old alliances have apparently been broken. (And Mr Eugenides summarises the feelings of the “right” (his quote marks), while Quaequam Blog also considers the reactions of the blogosphere.)

* “A Tory” has been questioning NHS spending – and (and this is something I won’t say often), I entirely agree with him. Why should we all be paying for chaplains?

* Cath has been explaining that chimp behaviour can’t actually lead to the conclusion that women should wear unisex clothes at work. In an entirely related post, Penny Red explins why women are angry and why it is so hard to express that anger.

* The NHS Blog doctor has been looking at “social care” and the fate of NHS whistleblowers, the former topic also of concern on Suz Blog.

Also: K.T. Dodge questions “socialised medicine; Amused Cynicism considers what’s politics for?; Matt Wardman is designing satirical billboards, and the very same billboard inspired A Geek in Oxfordshire.

* And Liberal England was less than impressed by the Diocese of Rochester’s account of the drugging of girls in its care, a subject on which Suz Blog has also been exercised.

* Finally, for something very different, Roe Valley Socialist analyses the SDLP’s budget proposals.

Heading into a category you might simply call life, Blognor Regis writes powerfully of his emotions in witnessing the aftermath of a collision between car and cycle.

Croila tells a tale that many a parent will no doubt relate to: how far do you trust your kids?.

Lady Bracknell explains some of the challenges of living with diabetes.

And Rebecca Laughton guest blogs on Transition Towns on what smallholders can teach the rest of us.

Looking at business, Jim on The Daily (Maybe) is considering ethics and the price thereof, with reference to the sale of Innocent Smoothies to Coke.

Going geopolitical, Is There More to Life than Shoes? considers the push to get Turkey into the European Union, as does Archbishop Cranmer. And Charles Crawford considers the issues around the US’s envoy to the Vatican.

And we might as well take on a spot of religion as well: Heresy Corner lives up to its name, taking apart Marilyn Bunting’s attack on the New Atheists, although Stumbling and Mumbling has another view.

Heading into the arts and humanities side, on Pickled Politics Rumbold tears into David Starkey’s views on the insignificance of women in the 16th century. Elizabeth I anyone? (Actually imagining Starkey in that court is quite fun – somehow I don’t think he’d have made the grade…)

For something different, Catherine on The F Word reviews Being Human BBC Three’s drama about a vampire, a werewolf and a ghost in a flat share.

Living for Disco offers a range of Twitter-style book reviews (I can see it taking off).

And SwissToni is considering racism in the James Bond novels.

Finally, the inimitable Diamond Geezer has been visiting the newly reopened Whitechapel Gallery and Ornamental Passions is testing fire brigade sculptures against reality.

And that’s all for a very full week this week: don’t forget to get in your nominations at britblog AT gmail DOT com for next week’s roundup, which will be on Redemption Blues. For more about how it works, see Britblog Central.

Somers Town area forum

A belated report from last month’s meeting, as I dig into my to-do pile.

We heard about the planned bicycle hire scheme for Zone 1 in London (along the line of Paris’s Velib). Although no contractor has yet been selected, it is planned to begin in May 2010.

There will be 400 sites in all, the majority in Westminster, with 39 in Camden. The main theory is to alleviate Tube congestion.

Camden has 4.24 suqare km in Zone 1, and there is to be 9 docking stations per square kilometre, and a total of 1064 bicycles.

The theory goes that space will not be taken from pedestrians or existing cycle parking, but will be “buildouts” into the road. (Except that we were then told that of the four proposed locations in Somers Town one was on an existing carriageway and three were on footway.)

Two are on St Pancras Road just north of St Pancras station, on either side of the footway, one in Doric Way and one near the top of Eversholt St.

We then heard a briefing about the demographics of Somers Town: 56% of local people are from ethnic minority backgrounds, (compared to 40% London and 13% England). A total of 120 languages are spoken in the ward. 25% of the population is under 16 (17% London, 20% England). 87% are under 65 (85, 67). 64% of men and 48% of women are economically active (London 75/60, England 74/60). 3.6% of people are longterm unemployed (Camden average 2%). 55% of Somers Town children get 5plus good GCSEs (Camden 50.7%).

Male life expectancy is 70.3, the lowest in London – 11 years younger than Hampstead. (Women 78 – London average 81.2).

An important part of herstory…

Matilda of Canossa has, at the hands of history, suffered the fate of many women – been dismissed in a footnote as a weak and wilful character, buffeted by fate and frequently reacting irrationally – and what’s more, the mistress of a pope. (That despite the fact that her bones were the first to be laid in St Peter’s in Rome that belonged to neither a pope nor and saint.) And that’s despite the fact that the last bit of the traditional insulting portrait is almost certainly true – when a charismatic, powerful and politically adept man of 50, and a strong-minded woman who’s determined never to be forced back to live with the husband she hates spend years in close proximity, and six months alone (well except for the servants of course) in an isolated mountain fortress, it seems pretty fair to assume what happened. (And the warmth of the surviving letters between them certainly do nothing to dispel that conclusion.)

But Michele K Spike argues, powerfully, in Tuscan Countess, much else that has been written about Matilda is so much tosh. After all here was a woman destined, it seemed, by her time, the 11th century (running a little way into the 12th), to live her life as a pawn.

In the northern Italy of her time, part of the German empire, under Salic law, which allows inheritance through the female line, but not by females. So although Matilda is the daughter of Bonifacio, the Lombard count of Modena and Reggio and duke of Tuscany, hen she was left fatherless by a “hunting accident” – such “accidents” were astonishingly common at the time – popes being almost equally as prone as noble leaders to sudden, unexpected demises – she was left stranded. She was formally betrothed to the son of a rebellious noble (to whom her mother was hurriedly married, despite them being first cousins), a move perhaps related to suspicions that the German King had a hand in the “accident”. Nonetheless King Henry III swept down on Italy, took all of her father’s lands and wealth for himself, and took Matilda and her mother Beatrice to live at his court , under his charity, as his prisoner.

This was a time that, although the idea of law was starting to take hold, military might was really the only argument that counted, and women, everyone would tell you, couldn‘t lead armies. Society was again developing and growing after the centuries of turmoil after the Roman collapse: Bonifacio had become so wealthy by being one of the first Lombards to come down from his mountain fortress of Canossa and take interest in the scruffy Roman remnants of Mantua. He provided security for its traders, and taxed them for the privilege, and both sides flourished under the deal.

But with Bonifacio dead his daughter seemed helpless. Still this was some prisoner: a direct descendant through her mother of Charlemagne, Matilda read and wrote Latin, she spoke the precursors of German, Italian and French. Later she accumulated what was for her time an immense library, mostly sermons, essays on the Christian life, and on the letters of St Paul, many now preserved in Mantua and the monastery at Nonantola. Her illuminated gospel is in the Morgan Library in New York.

Spike is heavily dependent on the account of Matilda’s life provided by Donizone, the monk who the modern author strongly represents as in effect Matilda’s ghost autobiographer. There are omissions and apparently curious errors of fact in the text, but Spike argues convincingly that these were deliberate attempts to obfuscate and confuse – all with the aim of establishing Matilda’s right to her father’s lands, and thus right to decide their fate after her death.

That must have seen very distant when at 16 she was pushed reluctantly into marriage with “Godfrey the Hunchback”. They were together about two years, then, Spike suggests, although the evidence is thin, after she gave birth to a child that soon died. In the background of all of this – Spike follows the elevation, and usually the quick deaths of pope after pope in the struggle – is a church battle royal, between the Lombard bishops who favoured married clergy and the purchase of bishoprics, and the reforming Cluniac faction, which wanted to abolish both.

So Matilda, possibly mourning, and certainly determined not to return to her husband, lands in Rome in 1073, just as the consummate politician Hildebrand, whose family had already made a couple of popes, became one himself, despite being neither a priest nor a monk. But now he was Gregory VII, aligned firmly with the reform faction, and Matilda was not just a beautiful face, but a political opportunity, as he was to her. If she could claim her father’s lands, they could help the papacy. With the pope’s support, she had a much better chance than on her own.

And that’s just what she and her mother jointly did – while also acting as a go-between for Gregory and King Henry IV. And she was advising the pope. And he admitted it! That sent to German bishops into a spin.

The new pope was in trouble, but Matilda was setting her own course, arranging the vicious murder of her husband, to get him out of the road. That’s an adjective I wouldn’t usually use in that context – but since the method was a sword thrust through the anus while he was on a privy, it seems appropriate. Within two months, her father’s vassals, seemingly appreciating her ruthlessness, were accepting her as their governor. On June 15, 1076, “Dom Mathildae Comitissae” held court for the first time on her own..

There’s much more tooing and froing, such is typical of the turbulent politics of the time, including the famous story of how a penitent King Henri IV had to wait in the snow outside Matilda’s fortress at Canossa, with she and the pope inside, to see if his excommunication would be lifted. Gregory was deposed, despite Matilda’s best efforts. It looked like she’d be left with a few mountain-top strongholds. But she wanted more.

So for the first time Matilda successfully led her forces into battle, in guerrilla tactics that were to become her trademark: on July 2, 1084, she attacked a relaxed Lombard army at dawn, and utterly routed it (after, admittedly the full force, that she could never have taken on, had gone.

But Gregory was captive, deposed, and a week after he died, on June 1, 10085, , Henry IV issued an act depriving Matilda of lands she held and giving them to the man her husband had designated his heir. The Normans, who for reasons of their own were still supporting the Gregorian reforrms, were happy to make an alliance – indeed they sent Robert, duke of Normandy, the oldest son the Conqueror, to seek her hand, but there were important points on which their interests differed.

But she was pushing on with Gregory’s reforms, supporting bishops and priests who backed them, and funding a pamphlet war over Gregory’s memory. But it was again a military victory that was to really ensure her fame, continued fortune, and have other far-reaching effects on northern Italy. It was at Canossa, in October, 1092. King Henry Iv, raging at her resistance, brought his great force before it. But he didn’t know the mountains, and nor did his men, and when a cloud descended suddenly on them so too did Matilda and her forces; panic and confusion did the rest. And this was the effective end of Henri’s kingship – Matilda had effectively dethroned the most powerful monarch in Europe.

Spike has done fine work in recovering Matilda as a historical actor in her own right – but that’s not to say that this isn’t a text, and in interpretation, without some gaping flaws. First, and most seriously, Spike assumes that Matilda did all of this for lurve, pure lurve… which for a concept that didn’t take such a form until the Romantics, and wasn’t even developed at all by the troubadours until after Matilda’s death. That is one very large ahistorical stretch. If, however, one was to assume that Matilda’s motivation was to win power and influence, and not least control over her own life and fate, a motivation that we know has resounded through the ages among both men and women. And it’s also not much of a stretch to think that in this highly religious age, Matilda genuinely believed in the reforms that she championed.

Then there’s the church – Spike is clearly a fervent adherent of the Catholic Church. And while some of the glowing references to the modern-day church were enough to make me nauseous, those could be ignored. Where it does really matter is in going soft on the church of Matilda’s time – Spike skips quickly and carefully over the corruption, the murders, the violence – not whitewashing exactly, but not presenting the reader with a full picture.

And finally there’s the writing. Sadly, this is a story that never quite comes alive on the page: the reader can let their imagination soar with Matilda’s story, but a clunking adjective, or the painfully described “treading in Matilda’s footsteps” around Italy and German, will soon get in the way.

But still, my advice is simple: ignore all of that, for this is a story – a herstory – that every woman should know. (And man too, for that matter, particularly perhaps Catholic priests who think of the church as a man’s institution.) And this is, for the moment, is how you’re going to get into Matilda’s story. (Although there is apparently a military history by David Hay I must track down.)

Green Party conference panel: “The failure of the growth economy: towards new economic solutions”

I left this session with a very clear sense of where we need to go.

The highly practical point was made that what gets measured gets done. Need to two types of indicators – ecology side – how is the natural environment going? then on social side – measure the progress that we are achieving as a society? Then it is probably necessary to combine that (sensibly) into one number and make that the single goal of optimisation.

Sounds simple when you say it quickly…

Some of my notes from the session that help explain how I reached that conclusion…

Dan O’Neill
Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy

What is wrong with the growth economy?
Biophysical limits on growth
Even if it could continue, no longer desirable, not making people given any happier
Growth is driven by increasing debt – no longer sustainable or desirable

Increasing production and consumption as measured by GDP (i.e. money spent) and seeking to maximise it is a. fairly recent policy goal. It was developed (as GNP) by the allies during WWII as way to maximise wartime production. Since then we have basically continued with model of wartime economy.

What this ignores is that the economy is a sub-system of the environment – as it grows have to put more resources, and there are more wastes that the environment has to absorb.

GDP depends strongly on energy supply – map 130 countries against each other, very close correlation. Still highly dependant on fossil fuels, but peak oil appears imminent.

The statistic of the ecological footprint depends on how much land society needs to produce resources and assimilate waste – grows with GDP. Up until now it has only dropped during recessions.
We, i.e. the human race, now have an ecological footprint greater than suitable land – we are using resources faster than can be generated and producing wastes faster than they can be absorbed.

Steady state economy: what does this mean?
Stable population
Stable consumption
Energy and material flows minimised within ecological limits
Constant stocks of human built and natural capital

Characteristics
Sustainable scale
Just distribution
Efficient allocation (still a role for markets, but careful not to apply to inappropriate things)
High quality of life

Policies need
1. Limit the range of inequality in income distribution
(Currently growth is used as an excuse to avoid dealing with poverty)
2. Shorten the working day, week and year
3. Reform monetary system
read more »

Notes from the Green Party Spring Conference maternity services panel

Professor Wendy Savage
Birth is such an important matter and government policy has been extremely important in changing way give birth. A 1946 survey of births in one week found that 46% were at home. By 1956 one-third at home, more than 50% these were there or in GP-led units that were effectively run by midwives. By 1970 this had fallen to 12% home birth, one-third out of hospital. Sir John Peel, the queen’s obstetrician, wrote a report saying that all women should have opportunity to have “benefits” of hospital birth, although there was no definition what were.

By 1980 only 1 per cent of births were at home, half of these didn’t intended to. In 1982 a Commons committee on perinatal mortality found that it was safer to have baby in hospital but at home, but they weren’t comparing like with like, given that half of home births were unplanned. In 1979 a comparison that considered women who had booked for a home birth and they had extremely low perinatal mortality. Nevertheless the Commons study was used by obstetricians to further push women to have babies in hospital.

In 1981-2 it was the first time voices of women heard by any government enquiry; this study said that there was no reason not to have home birth. But the programme had to be cost-neutral to change to midwifery services. Lots of pilots showed women have better deal, but no money, so nothing much changed.

I still remember the euphoria of that night in 1997, bitterly now, when I look at what New Labour has done. But birth wasn’t one of their priorities.

Home births rose slightly 1-2pc – some parts of country up to 10 or 12pc. It is a woman’s right to have her baby at home. Such an important thing – you are in your own home with the professional as a visitor. For most people hospitals are associated with death and dying, and the way midwifery is organised in NHS is just hopeless. There is no continuity of care. I find it really tragic that the only way for many women have a proper birth is by having an independent midwife. Tears come to my eyes when see videos of births at home; we have made such a mess of birth in the NHS.

Health care commission did huge study in 1997 – 89pc of women happy antenatal care, 90 happy in care, only about 60pc happy with postnatal care.

My solution change the way to midwives organised. Think of it arranged just as doctors: there are GPs and hospital doctors. We should have midwives in community who look after the majority of women – only refer to obstetrician if necessary.: obstetricians are a risk factor for caesarean section.

Choice is supposed to be being provided, but there are endless e-bulletins say nothing, piffling amounts of money. In 2008 the government said 360m pounds would be put in, but it hasn’t reached the midwives. I had a look to today at the latest ebulletins. Absolutely nothing about midwives, only about the tariffs, part of this govt trying to turn the NHS into business.

Sarah Davies, senior lecturer in midwifery at the University of Salford
In 1980 I started training as a student midwife – just at the beginning against the fight back of extremes of medicalisation. I went on a march demonstrating against an obstetrician insisting women lie down to give birth. As a feminist I was very keen on idea of normal birth – knew instinctively right thing. Since then had more and more evidence that right. Normality is best supported by midwives: medicalisation doesn’t improve outcomes for women and doesn’t make for happy midwives.

There is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality at the moment. It is very difficult for student midwives learning about what should be happening – they see harassed midwives in huge hospitals trying to deal with heaps of bureaucracy. At the same time you have got policy saying midwife-led care is way forward. Currently there is a reconfiguratioin in Greater Manchester – closing five out of 12 maternity hospitals. The scheme is called “making it better” – this is typical of the doublespeak that goes on at moment. There are no plans for higher rates of home births and birth centres and the whole scheme is driven more by neonatologists than people in a community midwifery.

Birth is about relationships – current New Labour project is about moving to fragmentation of care. All these reports about safety – teamwork about relationships essential, yet all getting more and more fragmented.

Britain has the most centralised medical service in Europe – hospitals like Liverpool with 8,000 births a year. Women when they get to choose, they chose small, private places.

And we now have more evidence than we ever had – in 2008 there was a big review of midwifery-led care and it is clear that all women should be offered it. This is not up for debate – the question is how do we implement it?
read more »