London Entry 3

Adopting the Fleur-de-Lis

Found on the Tower of London website.

    One of the most striking things that I noticed upon viewing the crown jewels in the Tower of London was the symbols that adorned the crowns, scepters, and other regalia. Specifically, the imagery of the fleur-de-lis that reappeared on each and every piece (flanking the crosses on the crowns above) had me questioning why a specifically French symbol was so prevalent in the English monarchy. After further research, I found that the fleur-de-lis on English regalia was an outdated symbol that represented the English throne's power over France; a symbol that was never abolished, though its meaning was relinquished centuries ago.

    As seen in the evolution of the royal coats of arms, the fleur-de-lis was adopted as a symbol on the family crest by Edward III in 1340, who had a claim to the French throne through his mother. This lasted for nearly 500 years, until in 1801, King George III renounced his claim to the French throne through the Treaty of Paris. It is astonishing to see these ancient coats of arms bearing the symbols of France just as prominently as those of England. Similarly, the prevalence of the symbol on the crown jewels was equally shocking. As artifacts that seem so entirely English, it is odd that they should just as equally recall images of France.

   The best way to attempt to reconcile this disconnect is to view the trait of ruling from afar (a geographically distant monarchy) as a distinctly historic English trait. By adopting the French symbols, England was attempting to create one identity under one monarch, though they were geographically separated from the French. The fact that this symbol has not disappeared from the regalia represents the power of memory: England was once a colonial world power, and now is simply a world power on its own. Though France is no longer under the control of England, the memory of that relationship lives on in the royal symbols upon the crown jewels.

London Entry 2

Penny Stinkers and Groundlings

    Upon visiting the reconstruction of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, I found myself pondering the relationship between Shakespeare's works and socioeconomic class. Oftentimes in modern society, knowledge of Shakespeare is associated with status and a thorough (often expensive) education.  However, the tour emphasized the variety of classes that attended Shakespeare's plays.  In fact, the theatre itself was constructed to house the entire range of socioeconomic classes in Elizabethan London. Shakespeare's works were accessible to all classes in his era, as shown by the construction of the theatre and mentions in his plays themselves.

    One of the first facts given to us during the tour was the explanation of "the pit." For a penny (though this was nearly a day's wage), the lower classes could enter and stand on the ground. The middle class sat in the surrounding booths for a slightly higher price, and for a small fortune, the upper classes sat in the high decorative booths flanking the stage and upon the stage balcony where they could be seen.

    This dynamic represented the class division in London.  Those standing in the pit were referred to as "groundlings" or "penny stinkers." The groundlings were even mocked in Hamlet:

O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious
periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to
very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who
for the most part are capable of nothing but
inexplicable dumbshows and noise.
(Hamlet, 3.2)

In 1630, shortly after the term's debut, the OED lists "groundling" as an insult referring to a person of lower class.  Though the terminology and mockery of the lower class customers of The Globe may make them seem unwelcome, the lower classes were a staple in Shakespeare's audience.  In even a casual read of Shakespeare's plays, some crude humor and mockery of the upper class is just as apparent as the high brow jests and insults to the lower class.  Shakespeare clearly did not pen his works with a solely upper class audience in mind.  He was indiscriminate with his mockery, and pandered to various forms of humor.  The physical form of the Globe is a tribute to his universal class appeal.

London Entry 1

Regarding the entombment of Queen Mary Tudor and Queen Elizabeth I

    In the space beneath the stone floors of Westminster Abbey lay the remains of numerous influential figures in English history.  The space above the same floors is dedicated to the display of monuments for the wealthiest and most powerful among them.  One of the most notable tombs is that of Elizabeth I, the last monarch to be laid to rest in the Abbey.  The Abbey's website expounds upon the memorial to the late monarch, but only mentions in passing that her half-sister, Mary (often referred to as Bloody Mary), rests in the same tomb.  Upon seeing this, two questions were raised:
1. Why were the two sisters of opposing faiths interred in the same tomb?
2. Why is Mary left bereft of substantial mention and monument?

1.    The inscription beneath the base of the tomb provides some explanation behind the decision to bury Elizabeth atop Mary's grave:

Found on the Westminster Abbey History site

The Abbey's web page on the memorial explains that King James I founded the memorial to Elizabeth and oversaw the move of her remains to this memorial.  However, the site fails to explain exactly how or why Elizabeth's remains ended up in the same tomb as her sister's.  The two queens subscribed to violently opposing religions, murdering followers of the other's faith.  This plaque seems to attempt to reconcile their differences by explaining that they both "laid down their lives for Christ and conscience sake." Perhaps the decision to bury them together was meant to mark the end of the religious turmoil, showing that the two queens who spearheaded each campaign were led by the same fundamental desires.  In this interpretation, it can be surmised that by interring the queens in the same tomb, James I was symbolizing the country's reconciliation of religious differences.

2.    The second question that is raised relates to the prominent mention of Elizabeth relative to the mention of Mary.  Elizabeth is memorialized with a marble likeness upon the tomb and a lengthy, two-paragraph-long obituary in Latin upon the memorial.  Mary is only mentioned on the base of the tomb, where her name falls after her younger sister's: "Partners in throne and grave, here we sleep, Elizabeth and Mary, sisters, in hope of the Resurrection."  This monument and its old inscription represents the time's feelings toward Mary in relation to Elizabeth: she was unworthy of a monument or obituary, and is second to her sister in her only brief mention upon her resting place.  This representation of the sisters is not unique to that time, however: the Abbey's website has an extensive page on Elizabeth's life and burial (linked above), but only a brief biography on Mary.  The page relating to Elizabeth's monument mentions Mary just as briefly as the marble inscription does.  At the time of Elizabeth's death, the country had been reformed to Protestantism after Mary's violent attempt at Catholic conversion.  This reform has lasted until today; England is still officially Anglican.  History has marked Mary as bloody, while her sister is the pure virgin queen.  The villainization of Mary perfectly represents the idea that "history is written by the victor." Due to the outcome of the religious turmoil, Elizabeth, the victor, is blessed with a beautiful monument in the Abbey, while Mary is merely mentioned in passing.