Parliament between 1603-1629 Essay Example for Free

Parliament between 1603-1629 Essay The period 1603-1629 is perhaps better divided into two distinct sections 1603-1625 (reign of James I) and 1625-1629 (reign of Charles I) since these two monarchs had fairly different approaches to foreign policy, which in turn determined how Parliament responded to them. James I brought a peaceable approach to foreign policy, hoping to establish a reputation for himself as a mediator within Europe. One of his first actions as monarch was to negotiate peace with Spain in the Treaty of London in 1604. This was unpopular with Parliament for several reasons, the main one being that as Protestants many members of parliament were opposed to peace with Catholic Spain for religious reasons. However, with regards parliament, peace did have the benefit of saving a great deal of money which would have had to be raised by Parliament, and relations between parliament and James remained fairly constant over the next few years. James next major action with regards foreign policy was to support a Protestant successor to the Duke of Cleves-Julich in 1609, even to the extent of committing several thousand troops to the cause. This action undoubtedly gained Parliaments support, as did the marriage in 1613 of James daughter Elizabeth to the Protestant Frederick V of the Palatinate. Throughout these early years of James reign, his foreign policy did not seem to have a detrimental effect on his relations with Parliament indeed, his later actions in this period even served to improve his relations with Parliament. And although there were some disagreements between James and Parliament during this time, they were due to finance issues and not foreign policy. After this time, however, relations between monarch and Parliament began to sour, and one of the key factors in this breakdown of relations was the foreign policy pursued by James from 1614 onwards. From this time, James attempted to negotiate marriage first for his eldest son and then, after his death, for his heir and second son Charles with the Catholic Spanish infanta. This was deeply unpopular with most MPs, as they feared the influence a Catholic Queen of England would have on the continuing reformation of the Protestant church, and desired a foreign policy more hostile to Spain than any previous policy of James. The situation worsened as James first had the very popular Sir Walter Raleigh executed after he clashed with Spain on a trip to South America, and then as he distanced himself from the conflict between Catholics and Protestants over the Palatinate. At this point in time it appeared that relations between monarch and Parliament were very bad indeed, since James had been governing without Parliament since 1614, although this was more over disagreements about finance than anything to do with religious policy. However, when James finally did call Parliament after a seven-year gap, foreign policy became the main issue. James called Parliament in order to raise money to go to war to recover the Palatinate, an action which was widely supported. As time progressed, though, without any sign of James actually preparing for war since he was still pursuing negotiations Parliament began to demand a naval war and an end to the marriage negotiations with Spain. This angered James enough to lead him to reply that none [in the House of Commons] shall presume to meddle with anything concerning our government or deep matters of State, referring, in the main, to Parliaments rights (or not) to discuss foreign policy. This led to the Commons producing a Protestation, which claimed the right of Parliament to free speech, regardless of royal prerogative. James then dissolved Parliament and arrested several prominent MPs. Certainly, this rift had arisen mainly due to James foreign policy (although there still were other contributing factors, namely finance but also other domestic policies). However, it was not permanent as James called a final Parliament in 1624, in which he seemed to accept that he would have to go to war with Spain, especially since both his son Charles and his favourite, Buckingham, were now joining Parliament in asking for war, due to the breakdown of marriage negotiations. Parliament voted subsidies although they were insufficient for James to wage a land war and left satisfied with the situation, although no war was waged in the remainder of James lifetime (he died ten months after dissolving Parliament). So, when James died in 1625, it seemed that towards the end of his reign his foreign policies had been responsible for souring relations with Parliament, although it is worth noting that the resolutions of the final Parliament (if not fulfilled) had gone some way to repairing the relationship between monarch and Parliament. It also seemed as though, with the ascension of Charles I, who had openly supported war during the last years of his fathers reign, relations with Parliament would be improved. However, although Charles came to the throne full of plans for a war with Spain, Parliament only voted i 250,000 for a sea war and were unsure about the other plans made by Charles and Buckingham costing around i 2 million. These plans Mansfeld, the Cadiz expedition and the Isle de Rhe expedition became a series of failures, mainly due to poor training, and led to the unpopularity of both Charles and Buckingham. By 1626, relations with Parliament were very bad, and the main (although not only, since e. g. tonnage and poundage caused disputes), cause of this was foreign policy. The reluctance of Parliament to vote sufficient subsidies for war, the attacks in the House of Commons of Buckingham and the disillusion with the war caused by the failed expeditions, led to Charles dissolving Parliament in 1625. When Parliament met again the following year, Charles had married the French, Catholic, Princess, Henrietta Maria. Because of Charles need for parliamentary subsidies, he tried to reduce the MPs suspicions about pro-Catholic policies and therefore failed to carry out part of the marriage treaty. This eventually led to war with France at the same time as England was at war with Spain, a disastrous policy which caused real damage to the monarchs relationship with Parliament. Charles relations with Parliament only continued to deteriorate after this time, eventually leading to Charles pursuing Personal Rule from 1629, and the reasons for this deterioration stemmed from Charles foreign policy, mainly because of the money needed to fund the wars, for which Charles resorted to more and more desperate measures for example the forced loan, which led to greater discussion of the monarchs financial and religious policy. There is no doubt that foreign policy played a major part in the souring of relations between monarch and Parliament in the period 1603-1629. However, its influence can be seen to have increased later on in this period after Charles came to power. With James I, foreign policy did play a part in affecting his relationship with Parliament especially towards the end of his reign. However, it was his foreign policy combined with other issues particularly finance which led to a breakdown in relations in 1621. Perhaps if foreign policy had been the only issue things would not have reached such a crisis point. And, even after the breakdown occurred, the fact that James called another Parliament in 1624 showed that it was by no means permanent. In contrast, all of Charles problems and disagreements with Parliament appear to have stemmed from issues surrounding his foreign policy and the breakdown in 1629 was far more threatening to the continued existence of Parliament than any with James as monarch.

Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock Essay: Inability to Love

Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock - Inability to Love    T. S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" is not a poem about love, at least in any traditional sense. Rather It is a collection of the fragmented thoughts of a man without self-esteem. Far from being about love, it is about one man's inability to love (himself or the world around him.) It is the cynical statement of a man who does not believe good things will ever happen to him, or that the world has anything to offer him. The title is bitterly ironic; Prufrock does not love any body, least of all himself, (no matter how much he might aspire to the ideal of romance and passion), nor does he believe that any one could ever love him. His own life is devoid of love, so in his bitterness he brands his work a "love song". Although the poem addresses the reader directly, saying, "Let us go then, you and I,"1 Prufrock is really just talking to himself. His is a tale of shame and insecurity that he would never dare share with another human being. The epigraph graphically illustrates this; being a passage from Dante's "Inferno".... "If I thought my reply would be to someone who would ever return to earth, this flame would remain without further movement; but as no one has ever returned from this gulf, if what I hear is true, I can answer you with no fear of infamy."2 When one considers the poem in the light of this prologue, one must see that Prufrock is basically telling the tale of his isolation and living hell, but without shame because he believes his words will never be heard. He speaks to himself, and poses questions to himself as many do when they are grappling internally with issues and problems of their own. I wish to discuss two main thread... ...nse it is indeed a song about love, but it is not a "love song" in the traditional sense. "The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock" is not radio friendly mainstream love. Bibliography Eliot, T. S., "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", in Leonard, John, Ed., Seven Centuries of Poetry in English, Third Ed., Melbourne: Oxford, 1994, pp.128-31. End Notes 1 Eliot, T. S., "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", in Leonard, John, Ed., Seven Centuries of Poetry in English, Third Ed., Melbourne: Oxford, 1994, pp.128-31, l. 1. All subsequent line numbers refer to this text. 2 Leonard, p. 128. 3 ll. 13-14, 35-36. 4 ll. 32-33. 5 ll. 38, 45, 122. 6 ll. 45-46. 7 l. 122. 8 ll. 97, 110. 9 l. 55. 10 ll. 73-74. 11 l. 34. 12 l. 51. 13 l. 60. 14 l. 81. 15 l. 85. 16 l. 84. 17 ll. 87, 99. 18 ll. 129-131.

Audiences are not only entertained Essay

For centuries, drama has acted as a mirror for culture and society. Through the power of dramatic form, we have been invited to be entertained yet also engaged in the social concerns, which can both be provocative and surprising. Both ‘Stolen’ by Jane Harrison and ‘A Beautiful Life’ by Michael Futcher and Helen Howard address contemporary social concerns and issues in Australian society. Stolen employs dramatic styles, techniques and conventions to portray the social issues caused by the stolen generation. On the other hand, A Beautiful Life again employs dramatic styles, techniques and conventions to portray the unforgettable story of a refugee family who escaped the hardships of Tehran Jail, only to find themselves suffering racism and injustice in the High Court of Australia. Stolen addresses the Stolen Generation and the social concerns surrounding the impact of individuals and the Indigenous community. Harrison splits up the action between five diverse characters, tracing their independent stories from childhood to adulthood. We have the sexually and physically abused (Ruby); the hopeful turned hopeless (Jimmy); the stolen child who in turn has her children stolen from her (Shirley), the lost (Sandy) and the ‘black’ girl in a ‘white’ man’s world (Anne). In a workshop of the opening scene, ‘Arriving’ (pg. 1) in which the characters speak in the ‘stream of conscious style’ the difference in what each actor produced to portray their particular character was very noticeable. Harrison’s use of a wide breadth of characters is effective in reflecting the broad spectrum of social concerns the Stolen Generation faced: physical, sexual and mental abuse, ‘I promised not to tell’ (Ruby: pg. 8); high suicide and depression rates, ‘I can’t fight’ (Jimmy: pg. 34); cultural loss, ‘Who do you think you are?’ (Voices: 29); loss of belonging, ‘Always on the run’ (Sandy: pg. 3) and loss of family, ‘This time I’m going to hold my baby and never let go’ (Shirley: 2). Stolen uses absurdist techniques, including a non-linear and episodic plot  structure and undefined place and time to convey the disconnection and lost culture that has resulted within the Indigenous community as a result of the Stolen Generation. The dialogue closely follows the conventions of spoken language creating a sense of realism to the audience, to emphasis the fact that these events did happen and cannot be reversed. One of the most typical techniques with Stolen is the use of monologues. The experiences of each child are portrayed through these monologues – the delivery indicates how these experiences are traumatic and a fundamental part of their psyche that is not easily spoken about through normal conversation. Through a class workshop I was able to watch a class mate act Jimmy’s monologue ‘Racist Insults'(pg. 33-34). I found this scene particularly engaging because we are not only watching a young man end his life, but we watch a fraction of how our ‘White Australians’ treated the Indigenous. The audience gets a first hand view of the racism and abuse copped by most Indigenous Australians, this scene shines a direct light on the hardships we put forward onto our Indigenous and why a whole culture is missing from our nation. While Stolen deals with how we treat our Indigenous, A Beautiful Life cover the social issues surrounding refugees and the ignorance of Australian people regarding human rights. This play covers the period when 5000 Mojahedin freedom fighters were killed by Iran’s government regime. The play interweaves the experiences of Hamid: his torture in jail in Tehran and witnessing human rights abuses before making a dramatic escape to Australia; and his arrest and trial following a protest outside of the Iranian Embassy in Canberra in 1992. Hamid, his wife Jhila and their son Amir – who represent refugee culture – are represented in the court by Australian lawyers Brendon O’Sullivan and Stephanie James. Both present the Australian culture as being ignorant ‘bloody Arabs’ (pg. 21), racist ‘a bunch of Muslim fanatics’ (pg. 7) and stereotypical ‘ranting bloody slogans to Allah’ (pg. 7). Futcher and Howard emphasis the un-empathetic nature, stereotypical and racist culture of Australians through Stephanie and Brendan. Amir (Hamid’s son) makes the perfect narrator as he grows and develops through the play from a young Iranian boy into a 20 year old Iranian/Australian who can believable comment on both countries. The character of Amir has humour ‘She’s Irish, she can get really angry’ (pg. 41), compassion, ‘It’s all  right, Mum’ (pg.11) and a desire to tell the story of his Iranian/Australian family, ‘What about the Boltons, Dad? (pg. 13). Brechtian techniques such as the used of a non-linear and episodic storyline, as well as historification and the breaking of the forth wall (through Amir) give insight into contrasting cultures and systems of justice. The use of performance styles, such as physical theatre, engage the audience so that the play has heighten reality: allowing the audience to follow Hamid, through the racism, prejudice and his lack of human rights. The use of dramatic dialogue allows the characters in A Beautiful Life, persuade, argue, threaten, provoke and inspire the audience. Language techniques include the use of the Farsi accent or clipped tone to lend authenticity to the Iranian feel of the text and of course to show the reactions of ‘Australians’ – represented by Brendan and Stephanie – when the characters speak their mother tongue. I first encountered the use of the accent when acting the character of Jhila in _SCENE FIVE,_ I feel as an actor that use of accent does add authenticity and a sense of realism throughout the scenes making it easier for the audience to connect with the character rather than the actor. Through the power of dramatic form, we have been invited to be entertained yet also engage in the social concerns explored throughout Stolen and A Beautiful Life. Through the performance of scenes in workshop activities and in-depth study of both texts, I have come to understand the styles, form and conventions Harrison, Futcher and Howard use to convey their points of view. Whilst Stolen uses absurdism to portray the social issues caused by the stolen generation, A Beautiful Life uses Brechtian techniques to portray the unforgettable story of a refugee family who escaped the hardships of the pain and suffering caused by the Stolen Generation on both the personal and societal side Tehran Jail, only to find themselves suffering racism and injustice in the High Court of Australia. On a final note both composers worked well using dramatic forms, techniques and conventions to engage the audience to understand the social concerns explored in the plays.

The History Behind the Presidents Resolute Desk

The Resolute Desk is a massive oak desk closely associated with presidents of the United States due to its prominent placement in the Oval Office. The desk arrived at the White House in November 1880, as a gift from Britains Queen Victoria. It became one of the most recognizable pieces of American furniture during the administration of President John F. Kennedy, after his wife realized its historic significance and had it  placed in the Oval Office. Photographs of President Kennedy seated at the imposing desk, as his young son John played beneath it, peeking out from a door panel, captivated the nation. The story of the desk is steeped in naval lore, as it was crafted from oak timbers of a British research vessel, HMS Resolute. The Resolutes fate became wrapped up in the exploration of the Arctic, one of the great quests of the mid-1800s. The Resolute had to be abandoned by its crew in the Arctic in 1854 after becoming locked in ice. But, a year later, it was found drifting by an American whaling ship. After a meticulous refitting at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the Resolute was then sailed by an American naval crew to England. The ship, with great fanfare, was presented by the American government to Queen Victoria in December 1856. The return of the ship was celebrated in Britain, and the incident became a symbol of friendship between the two nations. The story of the Resolute faded into history. Yet at least one person, Queen Victoria, always remembered. Decades later, when the Resolute was taken out of service, the British monarch had oak timbers from it saved and crafted into a desk for American presidents. The gift arrived, as a surprise, at the White House during the administration of President Rutherford B. Hayes. The Story  of H.M.S. Resolute The bark H.M.S. Resolute was built to withstand the brutal conditions of the Arctic, and the heavy oak timbers used in its construction made the ship uncommonly strong. In the spring of 1852 it was dispatched, as part of a small fleet, to the waters north of Canada, on a mission to search for any possible survivors of the lost  Franklin Expedition. The ships of the expedition became locked in ice and had to be abandoned in August 1854. The crews of the Resolute and four other ships set out on a dangerous journey across stretches of ice to meet up with other ships that could return them to England. Before abandoning the vessels, the sailors had secured hatches and left things in good order, though it was assumed the ships would likely be crushed by encroaching ice. The crew of the Resolute, and the other crews, made it safely back to England. And it was assumed the ship would never be  seen again. Yet, a year later, an American whaler, the George Henry, saw a vessel drifting on the open ocean. It was the Resolute. Thanks to its astoundingly sturdy construction, the bark had withstood the crushing force of the ice. After breaking free during a summer thaw, it somehow drifted a thousand miles from where it had been abandoned. The crew of the whaling ship managed, with great difficulty, to sail the Resolute back to harbor in New London, Connecticut, arriving in December 1855. The New York Herald published an extensive front-page story describing the Resolutes arrival at New London  on December 27, 1855. Stacked headlines in the New York Herald noted that the ship had been found 1,000 miles from where it had been abandoned, and touted Wonderful Escape of the Resolute From the Ice. The British government was informed of the find, and accepted that the ship was now, according to maritime law, the property of the whaling crew who had found her on the open ocean. Members of Congress became involved, and a bill was passed authorizing the federal government to purchase the Resolute from the private citizens who were its new owners. On August 28, 1856, the Congress authorized $40,000 to purchase the ship, refit it, and sail it back to England to present to Queen Victoria. The ship was quickly towed to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and crews began restoring it to seaworthy condition. While the ship was still quite sturdy, it needed new rigging and sails. The Resolute sailed from the Brooklyn Navy Yard on November 13, 1856, bound for England. The New York Times published an article the following day which described the extreme care the U.S. Navy had taken in repairing the ship: With such completeness and attention to detail has this work been performed, that not only has everything found on board been preserved, even to the books in the captains library, the pictures in his cabin, and a musical-box and organ belonging to other officers, but new British flags have been manufactured in the Navy Yard to take the place of those which had rotted during the long time she was without a living soul on board.From stem to stern she has been repainted; her sails and much of her rigging are entirely new, the muskets, swords, telescopes, nautical instruments, etc., which she contained have been cleaned and put in perfect order. Nothing has been overlooked or neglected that was necessary to her most complete and thorough renovation. Several thousand pounds of powder which were found on board will be taken back to England, somewhat deteriorated in quality, but still good enough for ordinary purposes, such as firing salutes. The Resolute had been built to withstand the Arctic, but was not very fast on the open ocean. It took nearly a month to reach England, and the American crew found itself in peril from an intense storm just as it neared Portsmouth harbor. But conditions suddenly changed and the Resolute arrived safely and was greeted with celebrations. The British extended a welcome to the officers and crew who had sailed the Resolute to England. And Queen Victoria and her husband, Prince Albert, even came to visit the ship. Queen Victorias Gift In the 1870s the Resolute was taken out of service and was going to be broken up. Queen Victoria, who apparently harbored fond memories of the ship and its return to England, directed that oak timbers from the Resolute be salvaged and made into a gift for the American president. The enormous desk with elaborate carvings was crafted and shipped to the United States. It arrived in a huge crate at the White House on November 23, 1880. The New York Times described it on the front page the following day: A large box was received and unpacked at the White House today, and was found to contain a massive desk or writing table, a present from Queen Victoria to the President of the United States. It is made of live oak, weighs 1,300 pounds, is elaborately carved, and altogether is a magnificent specimen of workmanship. The plaque on the Resolute Desk noticed by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. Corbis Historical / Getty Images The Resolute Desk and the Presidency The massive oak desk remained in the White House through many administrations, though it was often used in upstairs rooms, out of  public view. After the White House was gutted and restored during the Truman administration, the desk was placed in a ground floor room known as the broadcast room. The enormous desk had fallen out of fashion, and was essentially forgotten until 1961. After moving into the White House, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy began exploring the mansion, becoming familiar with the furniture and other fittings as we hoped to embark on a restoration project of the buildings furnishings. She discovered the Resolute Desk in the broadcast room, obscured under a protective cloth covering. The desk had been used as a table to hold a motion picture projector. Mrs. Kennedy read the plaque on the desk, realized its significance in naval history, and directed that it be placed in the Oval Office. A few weeks after President Kennedys inauguration, the New York Times published a story about the desk on the front page, under the headline Mrs. Kennedy Finds a Historical Desk for President.   During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, a front panel, with a carving of the Great Seal of the United States, had been installed on the desk. The panel had been requested by President Roosevelt to hide his leg braces. John Kennedy, Jr., peeking out from the Resolute Desk. Bettmann / Getty Images The desks front panel opened on hinges, and photographers would snap the Kennedy children playing under the desk and looking out through its unusual door. Photographs of President Kennedy working at the desk as his young son playing under it became iconic images of the Kennedy era. After President Kennedys assassination the Resolute Desk was removed from the Oval Office, as President Johnson preferred a simpler and more modern desk. The Resolute Desk, for a time, was on display in the Smithsonians American Museum of American History, as part of an exhibit on the presidency. In January 1977, incoming President Jimmy Carter requested that the desk be brought back to the Oval Office. All the presidents since have used the gift from Queen Victoria crafted of oak from H.M.S. Resolute.