Latest news with #Agincourt
Telegraph
16-06-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Henry V is much more important than Pride and Mr Men
Henry V was a man who was used to hardship, but seldom to losing. As a young prince, he learnt the arts of kingship and warfare battling Owain Glydwr's insurgency in Wales and a rebellion of the kingmaking Percy family. Shot through the face with an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, he survived a long and painful operation to save his life. Rebuffed by his sickly father, Henry IV, when he tried to seize the crown of England before his time, he had to regroup and prove his worth as heir. Henry's Agincourt campaign in 1415 came within a whisker of calamity more than once before he rallied his 'little blessed many' to victory over the more numerous and confident French. After Agincourt, Henry seemed to become unbeatable in the field and a master of political management, so that it was only dysentery that eventually got the better of him, killing him at the age of 35 in 1422. Now, though, Henry V has taken a rare loss: at the hands of the Royal Mint, whose advisory committee judged him a less 'significant figure in British history' than the collected cast of the Mr Men books. It was on these grounds that – according to a freedom of information request made by The Telegraph – Henry was passed over for a commemorative coin on the 600 th anniversary of his death in 2022. The Mr Men and the Pride movement got the coins, while Henry got nothing at all. If we were able to ask Henry for his feelings regarding this depressing snub, it is likely he would ascribe it to God's plan, and perhaps consider it just punishment for his sins. Even by late medieval standards, Henry was very devout, and he interpreted his setbacks and victories alike to the inscrutable wisdom of the Almighty. We in our less mystical age may regard this differently. It is of course up to the Royal Mint whose face(s) they stick on our coins. Henry had his day with his face on the silver penny in the fifteenth century. He has in that sense been ticked off the list. It is also possible that in 2022 the Mint, like many other public institutions, was in the grip of so severe a woke spasm that its 'subcommittee on the selection of themes' truly believed that public, emerging from the daze of Covid, would be most cheered to find a rainbow flag or the bandaged cranium of Mr Bump adorning the UK's currency, rather than a medieval monarch who managed to commit the quintuple whoopsie of being white, male, straight, militaristic and dead. It does seem odd, however, for the Mint to have described Henry as insignificant in the course of British history. The proposal to commemorate his death was rejected because the subcommittee thought marking his reign and death would be 'more a celebration of Shakespeare's view of this king' than of the man himself. Yet Shakespeare wrote a play about Henry V for good reason: because he was, by the standard of his day and for generations thereafter, considered to be the paragon and acme of kingship. It was not some rogue, hot take of Shakespeare's that Henry was 'this star of England', who won 'the world's best garden' [i.e. France], when he forced on King Charles VI the Treaty of Troyes – the 1420 agreement by which he secured his claim to the Valois crown. This was a matter of historical fact. The highest goal of the Hundred Years War, which defined England's relationship with half of Europe for more than a century, was to secure in English hands the crown of France. Henry made this dream a reality. He was comfortably the finest military leader of his age, as well as the most adroit domestic politician. He was a king possessed of the highest personal probity, chastity, piety and morality, in an age where those things still mattered. He was a winner, but not a boaster; a warrior but also a lover of literature and music. He made a greater contribution to the development of the English language than any king before or after him. He was not exactly fun – a French spy writing early in his reign got him right when he said that in person Henry seemed more like a monk than a king. But he was regarded, on his untimely death, as the man who had for nine years shown how kingship was supposed to be performed, according to the standards of the day. His achievements in France outlived him for 13 years, and although Henry is often blamed for having sown the seeds of the Wars of the Roses by overextending English military resources in France, that is really to condemn him for having been a hard act to follow. We today do not need to share every aspect of Henry's worldview or to wish that it had been our own hands that rained down the pitiless hammer blows which killed the prisoners at Agincourt to accept that by the standards of his time, this king was regarded as the best England ever had. 'Throughout his reign, Henry showed much magnanimity, valour, prudence and wisdom: a great sense of justice, judging the mighty as well as the small,' wrote a chronicler at the time of his death. He was feared and respected by all his relatives and subjects and even by those neighbours who were not his subjects. 'No prince of his time seemed more capable than him of subduing and conquering a country, by the wisdom of his government, by his prudence, and by all the other qualities with which he was endowed.' This was not the opinion of a jingoistic Englishman, but of a French monk writing at the royal abbey of Saint-Denis. Even by his enemies' standards, Henry V was a phenomenon. In the words of the brilliant twentieth century medievalist KB McFarlane, Henry was 'the greatest man who ever ruled England.' If that isn't historically significant, it is hard to understand what is.
Daily Mail
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
What British children are REALLY being taught in school: Transatlantic slavery becomes most studied topic in UK history lessons - with only one in 10 students learning about Trafalgar and Waterloo
Fewer than one in five schools are teaching students about inspirational British victories such as Agincourt, Waterloo and Trafalgar, a study has found. The report discovered that while almost all pupils are being informed about the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the First World War, children are by and large being left in the dark about other history-changing moments. Chief among these are the battles of Waterloo and Trafalgar, with only 11 per cent of UK secondary schools teaching the details to their students, despite their vital roles in the history of the British Empire. The Battle of Trafalgar saw the Royal Navy defeat the French and Spanish fleets in 1805, confirming British supremacy of the seas, while the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 marked the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of British Empire. Meanwhile only 18 per cent of students are being taught about the Battle of Agincourt in the Hundreds Years' War, which confirmed Henry V as one of England's greatest kings. The report, by Policy Exchange, found that by comparison nearly all schools are teaching children about the Transatlantic Slave Trade, the Abolition of Slavery and the Norman Conquest of England. The data, which focuses on curriculums taught to Key Stage Three students - those aged between 11 and 14 - shows that schools have 'diversified' their syllabus after the Conservative government announced plans to focus on topics of 'cultural change' in 2022. The overhaul was introduced to allow children aged five to 14 to focus on the rich breadth of history, rather than being taught a narrow range of British-centric topics solely in preparation for GCSEs. However, many have said it's gone too far, former history teacher and chairman of Campaign for Real Education Chris McGovern said it was 'clear that the subject has been captured by the Left'. He warned that history is 'seen as a vehicle for undermining and destroying British national identity'. The top five most studied topics are now the Transatlantic Slave Trade (99 per cent), Britain in WW1 (99 per cent), the Norman Conquest (98 per cent), the Abolition of Slavery (96 per cent) and Reformation (95 per cent). Sitting right at the bottom of the list was the Battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo with only 11 per cent of students studying the topic. They were closely followed by the Battle of Agincourt (18 per cent), the Boer War (25 per cent) and the Irish potato famine (26 per cent). The former Secretary of State for Education, Nadhim Zahawi praised the report. He said: 'This thorough report from Policy Exchange demonstrates how much progress has been made over the last fifteen years, with increasing numbers of students receiving a knowledge-rich, chronological history education during Key Stage Three. 'It was heartening to see that core topics such as Magna Carta, the Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, the Slave Trade and its abolition, and Britain's roles in the World Wars are each taught in over 85% of schools. 'Though disappointing that inspiring events in English history such as the Battles of Agincourt, Trafalgar and Waterloo appear to have dropped off the curriculum.' While the report did warn that 'in too many cases this process has gone too far, leading to the teaching of radical and contested interpretations of the past as fact.' It also highlighted positive aspects of exposing students to varied studies, including key areas of British history such as the women's suffrage movement. The report also found that the topics studied at GCSE and A-Level are too narrow and competitive. Policy Exchange recommended a new British history survey paper from 1066 to 1989 to replace the current exams sat at GCSE. In another shocking revelation, it revealed that 53 per cent of people would say their knowledge on British history has been informed by film and television. And a whopping 15 per cent said they learn about history through social media. While as little as 12 per cent say their knowledge comes from newspaper and news media outlets. A spokesperson for the Department of Education said: 'High and rising standards are at the heart of the government's mission to break down the barriers to opportunity and give every child the best start. 'The independent, expert-led Curriculum and Assessment review is considering how to ensure young people have access to a broad and balanced curriculum that ensures young people leave school ready for work and ready for life.'
The Guardian
05-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
How about HMS Backpedal for the new Royal Navy submarine?
Never mind the possibility of offending the French by naming a submarine HMS Agincourt, Emma Brockes (Digested week, 31 January). What is often conveniently forgotten is that Agincourt (1415) was a strictly English victory. Scotland was on the other side, allied with France. Naming a vessel of the British Royal Navy after a defeat for a significant part of Britain seems odd, to say the least. If the Royal Navy was minded to name a vessel Agincourt, perhaps it could restore the balance by calling another one Castillon, the 1453 Auld Alliance rout of a much larger English force that brought an end at last to the hundred years war. Curiously absent from the history syllabus in my English MitchellEdinburgh The Royal Navy could probably power HMS Agincourt with the furious backpedalling of anti-woke Tory MPs after it was revealed that King Charles, rather than the Labour government, had instigated the name change to Rushton Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
31-01-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Digested week: Caroline Kennedy swoops on RFK Jr with talons out
'Trying not to upset the French' could be a chapter in a Debrett's guide to etiquette and manners, one that may have been taken to heart by the government this week with its decision to change the name of a new submarine. The Astute-class attack vessel is still being built, but on Sunday night, the Royal Navy announced that what was to become HMS Agincourt would, instead, be given the more Franco-friendly name of HMS Achilles. Up pops Grant Shapps, the former Conservative defence secretary, to dust off his opportunism and accuse the navy of bending to Labourite 'woke nonsense'. It's just like riding a bike! The naming of ships in this country is famously fraught after the saga of Boaty McBoatface, one of those jokes that was supposed to advertise the country's jaunty irreverence and ended up being flogged into tiresome half wittedness. But back to the submarine formerly known as Agincourt. The government insists the vessel hasn't been renamed because it might make the French feel bad, but rather to pay tribute to a previous ship of the same name that received 'battle honours' during the second world war. This would be more credible if Achilles had been the first idea out of the gate and not the substitution for a name that honoured the defeat of the French by Henry V at Agincourt in 1415. Times Radio, meanwhile, managed to whistle up an angry former Royal Navy commander, Chris Parry, who had the courtesy to deliver exactly what they were looking for and call the renaming a 'craven and contemptible surrender to ideology being pushed by the government'. We must be grateful no one put in a call to the British Legion. (The Daily Express probably did. I can't bring myself to look.) It was Kennedy v Kennedy in the US Senate this week at the confirmation hearing for the presumptive health secretary and anti-vaxxer, Robert F Kennedy Jr. The son of RFK came up against perhaps the only person in the US with greater surname capital than his own – Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of JFK, which makes her assuredly an outranking FK – who released a video in which she read out a statement enumerating all the ways in which her first cousin was a terrible person who was unfit for office. Caroline Kennedy wasn't messing around. Like a playful assassin, she opened gently, referring to RFK Jnr as 'Bobby' and contextualising him fondly as one of 'a close generation of 28 cousins who have been through a lot together'. That tone soon evaporated. Bobby, said Caroline, was 'dangerous and wilfully misinformed' on vaccines, lacking in any relevant medical or government experience, and wholly unsuited to the job of health secretary. And this was just the warm up. Reminding us that the Kennedys didn't accumulate their wealth and influence via charm alone, Caroline then flatly informed the Senate panel and the American public that her cousin was a 'predator' who, 'no surprise', keeps birds of prey and – who saw this detail coming? – once 'put baby chickens and mice in a blender to feed his hawks'. We look forward to the Republican-run Senate confirming RFK Jr to take his rightful place alongside Kristi Noem, the freshly confirmed homeland security secretary, who admitted in her recent memoir to having shot her dog. To the theatre, to see the acclaimed adaptation of Annie Ernaux's book of auto-fiction, The Years. The five women in the cast are fantastic, the staging is perfect, and – bonus drama – the 'graphic scenes' of abortion that have been knocking out audience members intermittently since the play opened, caused someone in the audience to faint. The show stopped for 10 minutes. As the action resumed, I found myself wondering if it was a man or a woman who'd keeled over. The scene was graphic to the extent that fake blood poured down the character's legs and the dialogue painted an even grimmer and more upsetting picture. Still – and sorry to be gross – the experience of having your bathroom turning into a scene from Straw Dogs is pretty familiar to most women I know, especially if they're approaching menopause. I assume it was a man who passed out. Anyway on with the play, in which there were cigarettes and existentialism and of course, blood, very much in line with the French idea of womanhood as hard work and less aligned perhaps with the British fondness for defensive flippancy. As we left the theatre, an older British lady in front of us laughed and remarked to her companion: 'I think we'll need some ice-cream after that.' Well said, madam. Menopausal ladies are big business at the moment. After Davina McCall's and Jen Gunter's bestselling menopause books, comes Dare I Say It, a menopause memoir by movie star Naomi Watts, and a new 'viral' menopause workout by Jennifer Aniston. Aniston's partnership with a fitness brand called Pvolve – no, I don't get it, either – offers a rigorous programme of low-impact exercise designed for middle-aged women. Fine, lovely, it's nice to see a historically ignored demographic get our moment of rigorous commercial exploitation. The upside to the Pvolve programme is that you don't have to leave your house to do it. The downside is that it involves buying a load of Pvolve-branded gear – an exercise ball, a 'heavy ankle board', 'glider discs' – to gather dust in your house when, two weeks into the programme, you understand you are not turning into Jennifer Aniston and give up. An impact of the pandemic on very young children is that, according to a survey of 1,000 teachers released this week, many of those who started reception last year spoke with vaguely American accents from too much screen time and were 'unable to climb a staircase'. Intellectually, I understand the concerns this might raise, but from experience it all looks normal to me. When my own tiny three-year-olds started the equivalent of reception, they spoke with American accents, struggled with stairs because we didn't have any, and one of them was still in pull-ups. Somewhere in the intervening seven years we figured it out.
Local France
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Local France
UK govt accused of renaming submarine to avoid offending France
The previous Conservative government announced in 2018 that the attack submarine would be named Agincourt in honour of Henry V's victory over the French in the 1415 battle. But the Royal Navy announced on Sunday that the underwater vessel, which is still being built, would be now be called HMS Achilles after a famous World War II cruiser. "We are proud of our nation's rich military history and the many famous battles fought," a Royal Navy spokesman said in a statement. "The seventh boat in the Astute class is to be called Achilles, a name which is particularly appropriate this year as we mark the VE and VJ Day 80th anniversaries." The spokesperson added that the name had been proposed by the navy's ships naming committee and "approved" by King Charles III, as per long-established procedure. But former Tory defence ministers Grant Shapps and Ben Wallace slammed the move, suggesting the Labour government was changing the name for fear of annoying French counterparts. "Renaming the HMS Agincourt is nothing short of sacrilege," said Shapps. "This submarine carries a name that honours a defining moment in British history. "Under Labour, woke nonsense is being put ahead of tradition and our armed forces' proud heritage." Wallace accused the government of "focusing on superficial nonsense rather than rebuilding our defence". "The French are one of our strongest allies. They don't get put off by names like that. I mean, that shows a very pathetic grasp of foreign policy and relationships," he told Times Radio. A spokesman for Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the Achilles name was "particularly appropriate" this year due to the Victory in Europe and Victory in Japan anniversaries. A message posted on the Royal Navy's account on X said six ships had previously borne the Achilles name.
