Queen Victoria (1)-61-62.pdf

Having said as much, Churchill is renowned for his steadfast confrontation of Nazism and appeasement in the 1930s. The term “appeasement policies” (to appease = to pacify an enemy by granting concessions), refers to the cowardly attitude of many European leaders during the 1930s, as understood again...

Having said as much, Churchill is renowned for his steadfast confrontation of Nazism and appeasement in the 1930s. The term “appeasement policies” (to appease = to pacify an enemy by granting concessions), refers to the cowardly attitude of many European leaders during the 1930s, as understood against the backdrop of historical events such as: Abyssinia, 1935; The Spanish Civil War, 1936; Rhineland, 1936; The invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1938 Following Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, we have the - infamous - Munich Accords of September 1938: Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier, Hitler and Mussolini. Indeed, Neville Chamberlain, who served as Prime Minister from May 1937 to May 1940, met Hitler three times in September 1938 and came back with a policy of appeasement that said that Hitler would calm down. It was a crucial moment and Churchill was very critical about it. He gave Hitler a host of concessions to appease his opponents. At the same time, during the 1930s, England was flirting with Fascism, most notably through the figure of Oswald Mosley (1896-1980). After his military service, Mosley became the youngest member of Parliament, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster in the Labour Government of 1929-31. He married one of the Mitford sisters and invited Hitler to his wedding. Progressively, Mosley became involved in a more anti-Semitic approach. As head of the British Union Fascists (BUF), he sent out “black-shirts” to intimidate people, culminating in the battle of Cable Street of October 4 , 1936. Eventually, Mosley became a th figure of humor (shouting and silly uniforms), He was imprisoned in 1940 and the BUF was banned. Mention should also be made of King Edward VIII. He became King but was never crowned bc he wanted to marry an American – Wallis Simpson – who had already divorced twice so he abdicated in 1936. Perhaps not a bad thing since he was pro-German and close to Hitler. His brother, George VI, father of Queen Elizabeth, became the king. Perfect symbol of modernization and glamour. B. Queen Victoria (1819 – 1901) Longest reign in British history (63 years), 5 in the line of succession (she became Queen in th 1838). Reign during industrialization made Britain the richest country in the world. She illustrated duties and morals. Also emerging middle class and urban underworld (child labor, unemployed and destitute people). She was assisted by her husband, Albert of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha (1819-1861, related to the Belgian monarchy) and they created a visible constitutional monarchy to stem a republican movement (republican sentiment was quite strong in the 19 century). Working for “the firm”, th Victoria became patron of 150 institutions, including dozens of charities (Albert supported the development of educational museums). She supported the armed forces and undertook civic visits to industrial towns. 61 The Great Exhibition in 1851 was a prime example of soft power. Victoria and Albert wanted to influence other countries by showing their strength and prowess (not impose power through coercion). Both (V&A) helped stem criticism and according to them, the monarchy had to fulfil various missions/duties. All-in-all, they demonstrated they had a practical, pragmatic value in society (not a decorative monarchy but built for a purpose). A sense of duty comes out strongly. In addition, Victoria was the first media monarch. In part this is due to her alleged intimate relationship with John Brown, her husband’s equerry who became a confidant after Albert’s death. Victoria mourned and retired for a long time (+- 10 years) in Balmoral, Scotland. All of this coincided with the development of modern journalism, photography, the telegraph, and finally, cinema. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli persuaded Victoria to resume her public duties in 1871. She further accepted the title of Empress of India (upon the advice of Disraeli) in 1877. The monarchy and empire were now tied together. If we fast-forward to 1997, we can relate Victoria to Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Diana. When Diana died in a car crash in 1997, the Queen also retired in Scotland, in part because she didn’t want to express sympathy for Diana. Increasingly, people were concerned about the Queen’s silence. Prime Minister Tony Blair reminded the Queen she had to make a public announcement regarding to Diana’s death. §2. British Politics A. The British Constitution The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy that does not possess a comprehensive and pre-eminent constitutional document governing the behavior of government. There is no 161 single sovereign text overlooking the country. The explanations for this one-of-a-kind constitutional feature are varied. One might ascribe the absence of a written constitution to the pragmatic and historical evolution of the United Kingdom. The present situation would be one of gradual and measured growth, a spontaneous happening that occurred through a process of growth – or sedimentation – rather than deliberate design. Arguably, the country never 161 Israel and New Zealand also lack pre-eminent constitutional documents. In the case of Israel, the country’s first governing assembly wrote a Declaration of Independence that promised to deliver a constitution. For political reasons in the main (tensions between secular- minded socialists and Orthodox Jews), Ben-Gurion’s Knesset side-stepped the issue altogether, leaving future Knessets the task of passing a series of “Basic Laws”, of which there are eleven (see http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod1.htm). The question of the superiority of the Basic Laws is disputed (various rulings of the High Court of Justice holding in the late 1990s that laws in contradiction with Basic Laws were null and void). See most notably the opinion of Chief Justice Aharon Barak, in United Mizrahi Bank v. Migdal Communal Village, CA 6821/93, 49(4) PD221 (1995), For a comparative perspective on this judgment, see Yoram Rabin and Arnon Gutfeld, “Marbury v. Madison and Its Impact on Israeli Constitutional Law”, 15 U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 303 (2007). For extended discussion on this entire topic, see Marcia Gelpe, The Israeli Legal Stystem (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2013), Chapter 8. Various reasons explain the absence of a written constitution in New Zealand: English legal and constitutional heritage, the size and unitary nature of the country, and satisfaction with the status quo. The Constitution Act 1986 and the Bill of Rights Act 1990 have the status of ordinary acts of parliament, open to repeal by simple majority vote in parliament. For extended developments, cf. James Allan, “Why New Zealand Doesn’t Need a Written Constitution”, Agenda, Volume 5, Number 4, 1998, pp. 487-494. 62