Lucía Guerra López IESLV “J.R.

F” Historia UK

Final Assignment for Promotion

1. How influential was the abdication of King Edward VIII, in 1936, in spreading
distress and confusion among the public and the government? Watch the video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBn06A-sdok

The fact that the year 1936 is mainly characterized by the Abdication Crisis pretty much
displays how much the abdication of Edward VIII influenced in causing distress both in
the general public as well as the government. The Abdication Crisis comprises a series
of events that followed the first ever voluntary abdication in British history.

As Prince, Edward was quite popular because of his successful tours promoting “the
British way” and his concern for the unemployment caused by the Post War. In 1932, in
efforts to decrease unemployment, he toured workingmen´s clubs and enlisted more
than 200,000 men and women in occupational schemes. Together with his charming
character and looks, the then Prince of Wales popularity was increasing. This
popularity, however, started to decline after 1931, when he met Wallis Simpson.

Mrs. Simpson was an American actress, married with a businessman and once divorced.
Her friendship with Edward ultimately evolved to love, even if kept hidden by the
British media, it was very much displayed by international news outlets. As heir to the
throne and future King and Head of the Church of England, their love became almost
impossible. Before he could discuss this affair with his father, George V died and
Edward succeeded the throne. Even though his reign was short, the problems it caused
were big.

The year 1936 started with a new king, Edward VIII, but it was not until October that
the crisis really started. It began with the decree nisi Mrs. Simpson was granted, thus
making her separation official. It was then when King Edward VIII tried to gain the
royal family´s acceptance of his relationship. However, he needed political backup as
well. The Prime Minister at the time was Stanley Baldwin, who opposed the intended
marriage between Edward and Wallis. Another important component was the social
acceptance and the British citizens would never agree to have an American and twice-
divorced Queen.

The abdication only worsened the period the United Kingdom was going through.
Analysing the historical context, England was going through the disasters World War I
left: unemployment, food rationing, the decay of the “deferential society” that was
prominent up to this period, as well as great economic damage. There was a social
situation that needed to be taken care of, not to mention the Great Depression that struck
the US during the 30s causing many firms in the UK to go bankrupt.

The constitutional crisis that derived from this decision was of great importance. At
first, a morganatic marriage was considered, meaning she would not accede to his rank
and neither would the children of said marriage. Despite the efforts and discussions,
Baldwin ultimately stated this was not possible as well. On December 10 th, Edward

1
Lucía Guerra López IESLV “J.R.F” Historia UK

submitted his abdication and communicated it the following day in a famous broadcast,
where he said the famous “I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of
responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help
and support of the woman I love.”

It sounds very romantic and fairy-tale-like, nevertheless it seems to have been a cover
for the real motivation. Edward was known to be sympathetic of Sir Oswald Moseley,
leader of the British Union of Fascists. It was a danger to have a King that supported the
example of Benito Mussolini´s Party because of the unknown consequences this might
have.

If the abdication was not enough to promote distress among the public who were
already suffering from discomfort, the encounters between Edward, now Duke of
Windsor, and Adolf Hitler certainly did. Not only did he meet, he was honored by Nazi
officials in 1937. After the outbreak of World War II, the duke accessed a position as
liaison officer with the French which lasted until the 1940 when France fell to the Nazis.
Being aware of Edward´s pre-war sympathies with the Nazis, Winston Churchill offered
Edward the governorship of the Bahamas in an attempt to gently push him out of the
way.

The public´s response to the new king, Edward´s brother who became King George VI,
was concerning. The people´s faith in the monarchy was low and even though he was
thought of as a good family man, he was not considered the best choice for Head of
State. As Mr. G. Hardie, Labour MP, said: “what has happened recently has done more
for Republicanism than 50 years' propaganda could do.” The monarchy was shaken, the
citizens where shaken. It was a big blow for the Royal Family and for the British who
were already going through a rough period. George´s image did not help: he was shy,
physically not imposing and he stammered. However, he put a great deal of effort.

It is my personal belief that in the long term, the abdication happened to be helpful for
the United Kingdom. With the World War II, I cannot imagine what it could have been
with a Nazi sympathizing ruling Britain. Moreover, George VI restored people´s respect
for the monarchy. His kindness, sense of duty and that he showed himself as a good
man like many others brought people closer to the monarch. Not to mention, it paved
the way for one of Britain´s best known rulers: Queen Elizabeth II.

Bibliography:

 Knappen, M. M. (1938). The Abdication of Edward VIII. The Journal of

Modern History, 10(2), 242–250. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1898839
 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-VIII
 https://www.royal.uk/edward-viii
 COFFEY, D. K. (2009). BRITISH, COMMONWEALTH, AND IRISH
RESPONSES TO THE ABDICATION OF KING EDWARD VIII. Irish Jurist,
44, 95–122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44026689
 https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/edward-viii-abdicates

2
Lucía Guerra López IESLV “J.R.F” Historia UK

 https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/abdication
 https://www.biography.com/royalty/edward-viii
 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1936-12-11/debates/e73fb163-7e09-
48d1-ae2c-196dc7b3183f/HisMajestySDeclarationOfAbdicationBill

2. The speech known today as “Blood, toil, tears and sweat” (13 th June, 1940) text:
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/churchill-blood.asp ; broadcast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TlkN-dcDCk by Winston Churchill is considered
one of the most brutal yet magnificent political addresses ever made by a newly
appointed leader to his people in wartime. Yet, it could also have been considered a
political suicide. Why do you think he chose to do it in this way and how did the people
receive it? What are your impressions about it?

Winston Churchill´s speech was delivered in a crucial and complicated time in the
United Kingdom. The war they had been involved in for months at that time, now
known as World War II, had begun to unravel: Denmark and Norway were invaded by
the German Nazis, which followed the offensive against the West front (Luxemburg,
Belgium, Netherlands, and France). In addition to this, the Air Raids, or The Blitz, were
increasing and the British were facing several bombings. Defied by this, the Prime
Minister, Neville Chamberlain, resigned his position. His successor was Winston
Churchill, who first addresses the British with this speech in the House of Common in
May of 1940.

Things were not going well for Britain, therefore Churchill had to step up and this
speech was of great importance. For some it could be considered a political suicide to be
this blunt and brutal, however, Churchill´s speech raised the morale of Britain, which
was severely damaged.

A more thorough analysis of the speech reveals why some could consider it a political
suicide: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an
ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many months of struggle
and suffering.” Not only was he announcing and accepting the challenging months that
were yet to come, but also, he states that what he has to offer is his effort. Being in his
position, any other politician would probably hide or disguise the actual severity of
what is happening so as to avoid panic, as well as presenting themselves as superior, not
at the level of their audience. Churchill, however, did what I consider to be a great
reading of the country´s situation and the feelings the citizens had. His predecessor,
Chamberlain, was widely regarded as naïve and his political attempt to achieve peace
with Germany in The Munich Agreement had failed miserably. After Hitler broke his
promise not to demand any more territory by invading Poland, Chamberlain´s career
went south as he said “Everything that I have worked for, everything that I have hoped
for, everything that I believed in during my public life, has crashed into ruins.”
(https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/gb2.asp).

3
Lucía Guerra López IESLV “J.R.F” Historia UK

Appeasement was then no longer an option. It is my belief that the British regarded
these measures as mild and, even though it was risky, Churchill probably knew he had
to make a radical shift in order to uplift the morale of both the army and the citizens.
His rhetoric in the speech made in May, 1940 was that of a war leader. He resorts to the
traditional Aristotelian speech devices as a tool to get to his audience: Pathos is used in
order to appeal to emotion, while Ethos to prove his credibility.

An example of Pathos: “…for without victory there is no survival. Let that be realized.
No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood
for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward
toward his goal.” (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/churchill-blood.asp) here he
installs a sense of fear in his audience, a fear of the British Empire being taken over the
Germans, for which they want a solution. Churchill´s answer is war, that will ultimately
result in “Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and
hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.” Thus, he gains the
people´s support to engage war. Moreover, he is blunt by admitting the following: “We
have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many
months of struggle and suffering.” However, by knowing what is coming, that Britain
will suffer but that it is necessary to undergo this because the result is victory (a word he
emphasizes and repeats), Churchill is preparing the citizens and it is less likely to panic
if you are being told exactly what will happen.

An example of Ethos: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”
Churchill allows the audience to bond and see him as one of them. By saying he is as
well going to work hard he creates a sense of unity which is most necessary in times
like this. Furthermore, he puts himself as a guarantee. Metaphorically, he offers the
British his own blood and thus reassures the audience he is fully committed, which
gives everyone a sense of tranquillity.

Bibliography:

 Kersaudy, F. (2016) Winston Churchill. Editorial El Ateneo

 https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/churchill-blood.asp
 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/gb2.asp).

3. British Rock and Pop music has been worldwide influential since the 1960’s to the
present. Both soloists and bands such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Bee
Gees, The Tremeloes, The Herman’s Hermits, Queen, Genesis, Electric Light Orchestra,
Led Zeppelin, Yes, Pink Floyd, The Who, Oasis, and many others have become iconic
references of popular culture and they are also a very lucrative business since they are a
famous “export product” and a kind of “national brand”. Choose any artist you like,
describe briefly his, her or their career and explain why his, her or their contribution is
so significant to modern pop culture.

Among the many successful British Rock and Pop bands, one that stands out greatly is
Queen. Their career is admirable: from the originality to produce and create sounds to

4
Lucía Guerra López IESLV “J.R.F” Historia UK

the flamboyant performances, Queen was one band that never let the public down. Their
songs remain relevant through time and hits like “Bohemian Rhapsody” are still listened
by young people today.

In many ways Queen was an innovative band and one aspect that struck the most with
society was the lead singer´s personal history. Freddy Mercury had Indian origins and
was called “Paki” in a derogatory manner, in addition to this he was not afraid of the
public opinion and showed his true self: a flamboyant persona on and off stage.

In the 90s, being homosexual or even hinting it was not well received, in fact, until the
Sexual Offences Act in 1967 homosexuality was completely illegal. This act allowed
“homosexual acts” but only if they were private. Maybe it was for that reason that
Freddie Mercury did not want to discuss publicly his sexuality, or maybe because it
should not matter. For many years Mercury was in a relationship with Mary Austin, but
in spite being in a heterosexual relationship he was still questioned about his
“masculinity.” On stage, he was known for wearing outfits that outlawed the societal
conventions of the time and left gender behind. Another interesting thing is he
suggested to name the band Queen, which was a derogatory term for gay people at the
time. Having a pop star push these boundaries meant a lot, especially for those who
could identify themselves with him, but it also promoted a new mindset.

It was not easy for Freddie Mercury to succeed in Queen. Apart from his sexuality, he
was born to Indian Parsi parents. His real name was Farrokh Bulsara, but he adopted
name “Freddie” when he started attending British-style boarding schools in India. His
family emigrated to the UK in 1964, where he started to pursue his singing career.
“There’s no room for brown people in the Western music industry, and Freddie kind of
knew that,” says Leo Kalyan, a queer British Pakistani and Indian singer-songwriter.
Freddie then adopted a new character, a new name that meant a new identity. “I think
changing his name was part of him assuming this different skin,” said Queen´s
bandmember Brian May.

In order to understand this racism towards the so called “Paki,” it is necessary to go

back in history. The use of this term gained popularity with the increasing immigration
of South Asians to Britain. The Post World War II Britain was in desperate need to
rebuild and one of the measures was the UK and colonies citizenship. This massive
immigration from different parts of the Commonwealth caused a serious anti-immigrant
feeling. Even today with the Brexit we can still see traces of this hatred towards
immigrants.

Going back to Freddie Mercury, society was then faced with a talented pop star, lead
singer in one of the most notorious bands of all times who was queer and Indian. Queen
became a symbol: it stood for those who were not part of the status quo, and one of the
clearest examples is the Live Aid concert. In 1985, a concert was held as a fundraiser to
help end famine in Ethiopia.

5
Lucía Guerra López IESLV “J.R.F” Historia UK

Queen´s legacy continues: recently a movie was made about them called “Bohemian
Rhapsody.” The Oscar-winning movie has generated $685 million internationally, along
with an impressive $216 million at the US box office. According to Billboard, on-
demand streams of Queen’s music more than tripled in the six months following
“Bohemian Rhapsody’s” release compared with the six months prior to its opening,
going from 588 million to 1.9 billion. Moreover, they played in the Queen´s Platinum
Jubilee with their new singer Adam Lambert and continue to inspire artists all over the
world.

Bibliography:

 https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20191010-who-was-the-real-freddie-
mercury
 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Queen-British-rock-group

4. “The suffragettes were scandalous but they did not cause real change in society”.
Considering this extract on militant feminism from Emmeline Pankhurst at
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1913pankhurst.asp, up to what extent do you
agree?

The Suffragettes advocated for the right of women to vote in the United Kingdom.
Emmeline Pankhurst was, among her daughters and other women, one of the starters of
the movement. They founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in 1903,
based in Manchester. In 1906 they relocated to London where they began to become more
and more public. By basing its headquarters in London meant the Suffragettes could
protest where the government was situated. They chained themselves to government
buildings, petitioned in Downing Street and targeted landmarks to make their cause visible.

In June 1908 the Women´s Sunday took place, a procession that brought Suffragettes from
all over the country. They characterized themselves with the “Suffragettes colors”: violet,
white and green. The demonstrations turned more violent with the lack of Government
action.

With the increasing militance came prison sentences. Suffragettes were sent to Holloway
Prison where they refused to be treated as political prisoners and went in hunger strikes as
a response. As a result, the government introduced a policy or force-feeding. When this
failed, the government passed a law that allowed hunger-striking Suffragettes to be
released from prison when they were weakened, but only 'on licence'. Called by the
Suffragettes the Cat and the Mouse act because once their health have been restored, or
they reappeared in public taking part in militant Suffragette actions, they would be re-
arrested and returned to prison. This was seen as a release and catch game, like cats play
with mice.

6
Lucía Guerra López IESLV “J.R.F” Historia UK

Many considered the Suffragettes “scandalous” and used this as an argument to believing
women were not capable of having responsibilities because they were uncontrollable.
Others, such as Labour MP George Lansbury, were more sympathetic.

The momentum of the activists was eclipsed by the beginning of World War I.
Suffragettes were released from prison and dedicated to support the war effort. The
Women's Social and Political Union had not succeeded in achieving the vote, but its
campaigning style eased the way for women to take a more active and public role in
society during the war. There were work vacancies to fill since men went to war, thus
women found employment. They were now essential for the functioning of industries,
transport, among others.

In 1918 women over the age of thirty had been given the right to vote with the passing
of the Representation of the People Act, a breakthrough for women and a step in the
right direction, but sill with things to work on. It would not be until 1928 that another
law would be passed lowering the voting age for women down to twenty-one years of
age in accordance with male enfranchisement.

Even though the suffragettes did not achieve their goal, they paved the way for other
women to continue their fight. British suffragettes inspired women in the US, like Alice
Paul and Lucy Burns. In fact, Paul joined the WSPU organization, and both her and Burns
sold the newspaper Votes for Women on the street.

It would not have been possible to gain the women´s vote without the Suffragettes great
efforts, which woke in women the spirit to fight for their rights, a fight that continues
today. I do not believe there is anything relevant nor true about how some think they did
not cause a real change in society. They began something that continues today and cannot
be stopped.

Bibliography:

 https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/
electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/startsuffragette-/
 https://www.vox.com/21356259/19th-amendment-suffragists-alice-paul-
pankhursts
 https://www.suffrageresources.org.uk/about
 https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Votes-For-Women/