It is the way of the world that are will always be winners and losers, and the winners always come up with ways of consolidating or improving their position. There is no better example of this than the current political climate in Britain. The campaigning for the General Election on May 6th is well under way, and I can't really believe what the politicians are saying with their
promises to do this and that if they get in. I'm sorry, but I have gone beyond this kind of kidology a long time ago. No politician can deliver what you want no matter which party he is in. Politicians rub their hands in glee when they win a seat in Parliament and they know that a gravy train is waiting for them at the nearest station, though now of course they have to be a little bit careful at what they claim as expenses. No, most politicians will always look at personal opportunities first, I'm convinced of it, and the constituent will always come a distant second in the priorities race. Take Labour's time in office since 1997. Don't they remind you of a watered down version of the Conservatives? I remember the time when they won in 1997 very well. I
wrote a letter to Tony Blair on my way to work on a train to Liverpool one early morning in 1995, which I didn't send in the end, going on about how our country needs a Labour government to rid of the hated Tory rule, who had proved that they don't give a shit about the ordinary working people here in Britain. The continous relevations in the tabloids about
Conservative MP's screwing their secretaries and basically just doing what they wanted, and seemingly getting their jobs back after a spot of 'gardening leave' just pissed me off so much.
But it just wasn't the content of the revelations themselves that pissed me off. It was the blantant disregard to decency and honesty, which I believe that Tony Blair and his government would adhere to, and wanted to see in politicians. I must have been quite passionate about politics or the state of the country (which really I suppose go hand in hand) during this time. I believe it must have been the accumulation of 11 years of the Tories in power that produced this frustration and vented onto my writing pad that morning. I don't feel exactly the same way now. The hope I had back in those days has long disappeared and has been replaced by a cyncism that has almost turned to apathy. Apathy must never be reached, though. It's the rock bottom of
human experience, and would surely signal the end of human civilization if it were to become compulsory. That will never happen, certainly not as far as I'm concerned anyway. When you
study history as long as I have you get a sense or feeling on what's important, or should be important. Being apathetic means that decisions are not made and making decisions is what
changes things. Indeed history is the study of human decision making. There's almost a science attached to it. What was one of Newton's laws? For every action there is an equal reaction. Well, the history books are full of actions that provoked reactions, whether equal or not. For an effective government to function there must ALWAYS be winners and losers, the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. Take employment. There can never be jobs with decent, liveable wages for all of us. It's impossible. The competion would be cut-throat, and literaly the stress and anxiety would change our personalities so much that a 'kill' or be 'killed' behaviour would prevail. Imagine a world where everyone has degrees and were highly skilled, and all competing for the same positions. Everyone wants to better themselves, elevate to the next level in wealth and social standing, but its important for our society to work if some never find their way up the ladder. Ever wonder why people do menial jobs? It's because it has been drummed into them that that's all they are capable of, which must have started at school. We are graded and assessed in school and our path in life is pretty much established there. They are needed, because others would not do it. Where would we be without shop workers, for example? Some may say that these kinds of jobs are transient, but I've seen the same people working in the same shops for years, and apparantly quite content to carry on. Not my cup of tea, but it fits into the life plan of some people. So when a politician promises to cut unemployment or create more jobs, he's really saying he's going to cut the unemployment figures down, which are highly interpretable anyway. The words and the delivery he uses are directed at the individual because it's the individual's vote he's after. Analysing the discourse of a politician is quite fascinating. Try and hear what the politician is really saying behind the words that he chooses. They are trained to say the right things, at the right times of course, especially when an election is coming up. Still, a skilled discursive psychologist could literally read his mind.
Health. This one's easy. If everyone was healthy and living longer the population would increase so much it would place enormous pressure on resources. It is a tricky balancing act. Too many ill people and the same can happen, affecting the well being of the economy. The very profitable pharmaceutical industry can't afford to have too much healthy people about, or they would not make as much money. Think about it. People smoking has been an enormous source for raising taxes for years. If everybody stopped smoking imagine the difference it would make to the budget! It's just not in their interest to help people quit. You have to wonder why after all the years and the money pumped in as to why a cure for cancer has not been found. Imagine the effect THIS would have on so many industries if ever one was discovered. I find that strange. How many times have we heard on election campaigns that promises are made to make the health service better? Every one of them! And do they? Even today the health services are in a shambles so despite the billions spent nothing has improved. So, there's another 'promise' that I won't take too seriously either. I got a chance to see the Live Sky debate last night and I encouraged the boys to see it so that they can try and see what its all about. It's Simon's first election and he didn't have a clue who he was going to vote for. I was particularly interested in what Ben's view was, 14 and still in school so not much interest at this stage of his life about the current state of the country. To my horror his first impression was that Cameron appealed to him! Then as he viewed more of the debate he soon realised that Cameron was not for him and that Brown was the one that appeared to make sense. At the end of the debate Simon, on the other hand, told me he was more confused than ever! Which is not surprising because, of course, all 3 of them were saying that they want to do the same thing, but were saying it in different ways. All 3 parties were claiming that they had the 'winning ticket' to a better Britain, but all 3 can't be right! The confusion was heightened for Simon, I think, because they were all pretty evenly matched, so not one of them came out on top, as one of the polls suggested. In hindsight it probably wasn't the ideal debate for a first time voter to be exposed to, especially as Simon has never been interested in politics before. He would rather it all go away, but his politicisation will, I'm sure, change the way he views his world from now on.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Recycling! Recycling! Recycling
Recycling! It's become a new swear word in our house recently. Our local council have really gone to town with the disposing of plastics and other re-useable material and it really has opened my eyes as to how much recycling is thrown away. Almost everything in fact! The trouble is our kitchen can't cope with the amount of re-cycleable rubbish that is generated. No space. So there is always recycleable rubbish, which normally would be safely put away in the main kitchen swing bin, in plastic bags ready to be taken out. Here's us trying to keep a kitchen tidy and there's always plastic or cardboard or tins about! What we need is another swing bin just for the recycling, but we have nowhere to place it. Small kitchen. Now you might think I'm dead against the idea of recycling, I'm not. I actually think it's a good idea, but I think the practice of recycling so much different types of material is unworkable. Certainly in our house. For heaven's sake even plastic has been sub-caterized. All the local recycling areas, which are normally near the supermarkets, won't take black or hard plastic! That will have to go to our main recycling depot at Mochdre, as does the cardboard. So not only we have to recycle the usual tins, cans, glass and paper, which get collected every 2 weeks, we now have to find space for:
Ordinary plastic
Hard plastic,
Black plastic
Juice cartons
Cardboard/card
Metal
Wood
There are others but these materials we hardly deal with, such as stone.
This is a lot of work and I can help feeling that I'm doing the binman's job for him. Most of our rubbish is recycleable so in effect I'm carting my own rubbish to the designated loading off areas! For free! This leads me to the notion of who is benefiting from all this recycling? Someone, somewhere, must be making money out of it. It's less work for the binman, because their main duties down at the depot at Mochdre include directing the public to the proper places to dump their rubbish. The ones on the waggons seem to working really hard whenever I see them every other Friday. And of course the poor old gentleman who I saw the other day working his socks off preparing huge amounts of cardboard for a press of some sorts. He looked really stressed, seeing more and more people coming into his hut with loads more work for him. His attitude seemed pretty good considering these circumstances, to be honest. The rest were wandering around checking if people are going to the right skip. Now and then they would spot some individual misdeameanor and make sure the items were deposited in the right place. To see their worried faces when I had 2 different types of recycleable material (wood and plastic) and I went up to the plastic skip first, and I caught the guy's eyes as he looked to see if I was going to chuck the wood in there as well. I'm being unkind. I would probably be monitoring just as hard if I was in their position. I know it's good for the planet but it is, I believe, used to make products. So, therefore, it is really raw materials for the production of items for selling, presumably for profit, or why would companies bother making these items. So, we can be seen as unpaid manual workers, bringing our, sometimes paid for, old recycling material to be prepared for the production of goods which are going to end up on the shelves of many supermarkets all over the country, possibly abroad, and with a marked up price because it been made from recycleable material! I have become increasingly cynical in my old age and I can't help thinking that there is an angle involved here.
Rant over!
Ordinary plastic
Hard plastic,
Black plastic
Juice cartons
Cardboard/card
Metal
Wood
There are others but these materials we hardly deal with, such as stone.
This is a lot of work and I can help feeling that I'm doing the binman's job for him. Most of our rubbish is recycleable so in effect I'm carting my own rubbish to the designated loading off areas! For free! This leads me to the notion of who is benefiting from all this recycling? Someone, somewhere, must be making money out of it. It's less work for the binman, because their main duties down at the depot at Mochdre include directing the public to the proper places to dump their rubbish. The ones on the waggons seem to working really hard whenever I see them every other Friday. And of course the poor old gentleman who I saw the other day working his socks off preparing huge amounts of cardboard for a press of some sorts. He looked really stressed, seeing more and more people coming into his hut with loads more work for him. His attitude seemed pretty good considering these circumstances, to be honest. The rest were wandering around checking if people are going to the right skip. Now and then they would spot some individual misdeameanor and make sure the items were deposited in the right place. To see their worried faces when I had 2 different types of recycleable material (wood and plastic) and I went up to the plastic skip first, and I caught the guy's eyes as he looked to see if I was going to chuck the wood in there as well. I'm being unkind. I would probably be monitoring just as hard if I was in their position. I know it's good for the planet but it is, I believe, used to make products. So, therefore, it is really raw materials for the production of items for selling, presumably for profit, or why would companies bother making these items. So, we can be seen as unpaid manual workers, bringing our, sometimes paid for, old recycling material to be prepared for the production of goods which are going to end up on the shelves of many supermarkets all over the country, possibly abroad, and with a marked up price because it been made from recycleable material! I have become increasingly cynical in my old age and I can't help thinking that there is an angle involved here.
Rant over!
Saturday, 3 April 2010
My ancestors - beyond the Warenne line
To recap from previous posts, I have recently discovered that I have an ancestor named Margaret Puleston, wife of the Baron Lewis Owen of Dolgellau. She was a grandmother of Catrin, wife of my direct ancestor, Evan Morgan, supposed son of Bishop William Morgan, the Welsh translater of the bible.
In my first post on my ancestors I outlined my connection, through Margaret's Puleston ancestry, to the Warenne family, Earls of Surrey, a family originally from a place by the river Varenne in Upper Normandy. The first Earl had familial links with William the Conqueror, through his mother Emma. William fought with the Conqueror at Hastings and thus became amply rewarded by being given many lands in the shires of England. Indeed earlier, in 1054, Warenne had aided the Conqueror, then Duke of Normandy, at the Battle of Mortemer. The then King of France sent his brother Odo and Count Rainald to lead an army against the barons of various provinces in Normandy, led by Robert Count of Eu. Their defeat resulted in William de Warenne being given Roger de Mortemer's lands.
It appears that this William de Warenne married Gundrada, claimed by many to be a daughter of William the Conqueror. Others claim that she was a step-daughter of William's, a child of his wife's Matilda's first marriage. Others say that she was no relation, but what is certain is that both William and Gundrada founded the Priory at Lewes where they were interred. Their coffins were re-discovered in October 1845 through work on a railway line and created great interest in local papers. The archaeologist Mark Antony Lower appears to believe she was a daughter of the Conqueror. He was one of the archaeologists consulted at the time. He certainly was a favourite of William the Conqueror, or he wouldn't have been so richly rewarded, so it's not so strange that he would not be allowed to marry a member of the Conqueror's family. David Charles Douglas, a critic of this theory, suggests that Gundreda couldn't be the daughter of Matilda because she would have been too young. He cites that Baldwin V and his bride Adela, Matilda's parents, did not comsummate their marriage until 1031, and 1049 was the year that William the Conqueror declared his intent to marry Matilda. It was quite normal in thise times to have marriages between minors. As an extreme example Elizabeth de Vermandois, who I will write about later, married her first husband, Robert de Meulan, at the age of 9. With Robert being 35 years her senior, this was unusual to have such an age difference, but it wasn't unusual to start having children at 14. There was apparantly a dispute with Rome over the legality of the proposed marriage. Edward Freeman, notable writer of the history of the Normans, argued that this 'complication' with the marriage was due to the fact that Matilda was already married. In fact she also had at least 2 children, namely Gerbod, his father's namesake and an Earl of Chester, and Gundrada. Why did William pursue Matilda when it would surely be easier to marry another equally worthy princess? The main reason seems to be in Matilda's lineage. Through her father Baldwin V she was a descendant of Alfred the Great, and William wanted to strengthen his claims to his intention of being King of England. On the surface this seems quite calculating by William, but by all accounts he loved Matilda and apparantly remained faithful to her during their marriage, a rare occurance especially within royal marriages. So, he appears to be one of the lucky ones, to have love AND wealth AND success!
Returning to Gundrada, the reason why some believe that she was related to the Conqueror in some way is because of a reference on a deed to the foundation of the priory of Lewes in Sussex. There is also a charter, the Cottonian manuscript, which is in the British Museum, where he refers her as his daughter. There is also the issue of Gundreda not being mentioned by the well known historians of the time. It is a pattern excercised by early genealogists of failing, or not bothering to record daughters even with the highest families in the land. In support of this, another of the Conqueror's daughters, Agatha, who married Alphonso, King of Galicia, was also omitted from accounts of Norman historians.
If the evidence does indicate that Gundrada was Matilda's daughter, if not William the Conqueror's, then it opens up a line towards Alfred the Great, through Matilda's father Baldwin V (see below).
Baldwin V - Baldwin IV - Arnulf II - Baldwin III - Arnulf I - Baldwin II m. Aelfthryth, daughter of Alfred the Great
Baldwin V married Adele of Flanders, a grandaughter of Hugh Capet, a great great great great great grandson of Charlemagne. It's really take your pick from the rulers of Medieval France from here, and there are too many individuals to mention here.
We are in the same ball park when we look at Elizabeth de Vermandois's lineage. She was the wife of the second Earl of Surrey and another ancestor, William de Warenne, who died in 1138. Her father was Hugh Magnus, of Vermandois, a crusader, who died from wounds sustained in a battle against the Turks at Tarsus. His parents were Henri I (1008-1060) and Anne of Kiev (died 1075) a Russian princess whose mother was Princess Ingegerd of Sweden. Again the possible connections to ancestors is numerous. A lot of them lead back to Charlemagne.
In my first post on my ancestors I outlined my connection, through Margaret's Puleston ancestry, to the Warenne family, Earls of Surrey, a family originally from a place by the river Varenne in Upper Normandy. The first Earl had familial links with William the Conqueror, through his mother Emma. William fought with the Conqueror at Hastings and thus became amply rewarded by being given many lands in the shires of England. Indeed earlier, in 1054, Warenne had aided the Conqueror, then Duke of Normandy, at the Battle of Mortemer. The then King of France sent his brother Odo and Count Rainald to lead an army against the barons of various provinces in Normandy, led by Robert Count of Eu. Their defeat resulted in William de Warenne being given Roger de Mortemer's lands.
It appears that this William de Warenne married Gundrada, claimed by many to be a daughter of William the Conqueror. Others claim that she was a step-daughter of William's, a child of his wife's Matilda's first marriage. Others say that she was no relation, but what is certain is that both William and Gundrada founded the Priory at Lewes where they were interred. Their coffins were re-discovered in October 1845 through work on a railway line and created great interest in local papers. The archaeologist Mark Antony Lower appears to believe she was a daughter of the Conqueror. He was one of the archaeologists consulted at the time. He certainly was a favourite of William the Conqueror, or he wouldn't have been so richly rewarded, so it's not so strange that he would not be allowed to marry a member of the Conqueror's family. David Charles Douglas, a critic of this theory, suggests that Gundreda couldn't be the daughter of Matilda because she would have been too young. He cites that Baldwin V and his bride Adela, Matilda's parents, did not comsummate their marriage until 1031, and 1049 was the year that William the Conqueror declared his intent to marry Matilda. It was quite normal in thise times to have marriages between minors. As an extreme example Elizabeth de Vermandois, who I will write about later, married her first husband, Robert de Meulan, at the age of 9. With Robert being 35 years her senior, this was unusual to have such an age difference, but it wasn't unusual to start having children at 14. There was apparantly a dispute with Rome over the legality of the proposed marriage. Edward Freeman, notable writer of the history of the Normans, argued that this 'complication' with the marriage was due to the fact that Matilda was already married. In fact she also had at least 2 children, namely Gerbod, his father's namesake and an Earl of Chester, and Gundrada. Why did William pursue Matilda when it would surely be easier to marry another equally worthy princess? The main reason seems to be in Matilda's lineage. Through her father Baldwin V she was a descendant of Alfred the Great, and William wanted to strengthen his claims to his intention of being King of England. On the surface this seems quite calculating by William, but by all accounts he loved Matilda and apparantly remained faithful to her during their marriage, a rare occurance especially within royal marriages. So, he appears to be one of the lucky ones, to have love AND wealth AND success!
Returning to Gundrada, the reason why some believe that she was related to the Conqueror in some way is because of a reference on a deed to the foundation of the priory of Lewes in Sussex. There is also a charter, the Cottonian manuscript, which is in the British Museum, where he refers her as his daughter. There is also the issue of Gundreda not being mentioned by the well known historians of the time. It is a pattern excercised by early genealogists of failing, or not bothering to record daughters even with the highest families in the land. In support of this, another of the Conqueror's daughters, Agatha, who married Alphonso, King of Galicia, was also omitted from accounts of Norman historians.
If the evidence does indicate that Gundrada was Matilda's daughter, if not William the Conqueror's, then it opens up a line towards Alfred the Great, through Matilda's father Baldwin V (see below).
Baldwin V - Baldwin IV - Arnulf II - Baldwin III - Arnulf I - Baldwin II m. Aelfthryth, daughter of Alfred the Great
Baldwin V married Adele of Flanders, a grandaughter of Hugh Capet, a great great great great great grandson of Charlemagne. It's really take your pick from the rulers of Medieval France from here, and there are too many individuals to mention here.
We are in the same ball park when we look at Elizabeth de Vermandois's lineage. She was the wife of the second Earl of Surrey and another ancestor, William de Warenne, who died in 1138. Her father was Hugh Magnus, of Vermandois, a crusader, who died from wounds sustained in a battle against the Turks at Tarsus. His parents were Henri I (1008-1060) and Anne of Kiev (died 1075) a Russian princess whose mother was Princess Ingegerd of Sweden. Again the possible connections to ancestors is numerous. A lot of them lead back to Charlemagne.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
