UK STUDENT’S FILE

BRITISH TRADITIONALISM

(5 weeks: September – October)

PLAN

  1. Lead-in
  2. Mock UK Citizenship Test
  3. Reading 1: WHAT ARE BRITISH “CORE VALUES”?
  1. Obligatory material
  • Reading 2: WHY THE MONARCHY MUST STAY
  • Reading 3: WHY THE MONARCHY MUST GO
  • Reading 4: HOW GOOD A DEMOCRACY IS BRITAIN?
  1. Additional texts
  • Reading 5: EDUCATION IS THE ONLY WAY TO CLOSE CLASS DIVIDE
  • Reading 6: “HUMBLE” BRITAIN: SHOULD IT BE?
  • Reading 7:RUSSIA: MONARCHIST NOSTALGIA REMAINS POWERFUL
  1. Lead-in
  • Mock UK Citizenship Test
  1. Why doesn’t Britain have a written constitution and what democratic country is it comparable to in having no single document codifying the way its political institutions function and setting out the basic rights and duties of its citizens?
  1. How many monarchies are there in the world?
  1. How many current queens regnant do you know?
  1. How old is Queen Elizabeth II and how long has she been the reigning Queen of the Commonwealth Realms?
  1. What is the minimum age of a person who can stand for public office?
  1. Why was The Chicago River dyed green in 2005? Was it somehow connected with British history?
  1. Britain's national dish is:
  1. Roast Aberdeen Angus Beef, Yorkshire Pudding and braised leeks.
  2. Fish and chips.
  3. Chicken tikka masala.
  4. Inedible, whatever it is.
  1. What do people throughout Britain commemorate with bonfires and fireworks and by burning an effigy of Guy?
  1. Name a British author whose books (the idea for which was conceived whilst on a train trip from Manchester to London in 1990) have gained worldwide attention, won multiple awards, sold more than 400 million copies. She once said: “I am not trying to influence anyone into black magic. That is the very last thing I'd want to do”.

  • Reading 1:
What are British “Core Values”?
Archbishop Cranmer

February, 2011
In recent years, we observe that ‘Britishness’ for Margaret Thatcher was about individual responsibility and industry – the Protestant work ethic; the place of the United Kingdom in the world; the maintenance of democracy; the flourishing of liberty; the importance of the family; respect for Parliament, Church and Monarchy; and a patriotism which was not ashamed to fly the Union Flag. For John Major it was concerned with warm beer and cricket on the village green; ‘back to basics’; traditional values. For Tony Blair it was about social justice and rebranding for the postmodern era: ‘Cool Britannia’; of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States in support of an interventionist foreign policy to rid the world of evil dictators. For Gordon Brown it was... well, he never quite got there, but he did talk an awful lot about tolerance and fairness.
David Cameron has yet to synthesise his views, but in 2007 he observed: “It is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.” On social cohesion, he said that ‘integration is a two-way street. If we want to remind ourselves of British values – hospitality, tolerance and generosity to name just three – there are plenty of British Muslims ready to show us what those things really mean’. He was, of course, on the campaign trail, but he could scarcely have said anything more provocative to the indigenous peoples of these islands than to laud Islam as the paragon of family and community values to which all Christians must aspire. And yet he was right to observe that many British Asians do value what it means to be British far more than many of those with a genetic heritage going back millennia, and they have achieved an admirable level of integration within just one generation.
The consensus of all the main political parties is that modern Britain has been enriched by ethnic pluralism and enlightened by theological ecumenism* and European political union. But these developments have caused something of an identity crisis in the nation, spawning numerous books and articles which seek to define what is meant by ‘Britishness’.
First and foremost, Britishness is about tolerance: it is the attribute which has enabled five million immigrants and their descendants to comprise a tenth of the country’s population. This pluralism is a priceless ingredient of the nation’s culture, and it is incumbent upon people of all creeds, philosophies, ethnicities and political ideologies to tolerate those with whom they do not agree.
But British culture cannot be cohesive when there is diversity of language, laws, traditions, customs and religion. As far as England is concerned, foreign encroachments have been fiercely resisted since the Reformation, yet the accommodation of Roman Catholics has developed of necessity to the extent that they agreed to abide by the laws of the state. A logical corollary** of this is that Asian immigrants to the UK ought now to adapt their cultural traditions and religious expression to accommodate ‘British toleration’ or conform to those aspects of ‘Britishness’ which make society cohesive. And so a Briton has the right to oppose or support British policy in Iraq and may campaign to that effect, write, agitate and stand for election towards the chosen end. But it is also elementary that he does not have the right to stone adulterers to death, hang homosexuals or blow up the underground or an aircraft. Toleration of the intolerant is distinctly un-British.
And so, secondly, we observe that the rule of law and equality under the law are core British values. There is no doubt that some religious practices may coerce some. But mindful of minority ethnic voting communities, politicians have trod carefully along the via media between religious liberty and cultural prohibition.
Over recent centuries, it is Protestantism which has defined the character of Great Britain: from the Armada, through the Act of Union in 1707 to the battle of Waterloo, Britain was involved in successive wars against Roman Catholic nations. It was a shared religious allegiance that permitted a sense of British national identity to emerge, and which has served as a unifying narrative under the aegis of the Established Church through which the common good has traditionally been defined. Of course, this history is peppered with myth, sentiment and flights of fancy – notions that somehow God had chosen England, and the nation is singularly blessed by virtue of the purity of Protestantism over the discredited and sullied Catholicism of continental Europe. This selective sense of religious history and an idealised perception of the moral purpose of the United Kingdom in the world are part of our ‘Britishness’. We have a cohesive religious base, which is intrinsic to the national psyche: essentially, whilst acknowledging the liberties of atheists and rights of secular humanists, to be ‘religious’ is to be British.
And so, thirdly, to be British is to be free – to believe, to own, to contract and to associate. The state only has authority to the extent granted by Parliament, which is subject to the assent of the people. The foundations of those liberties – Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, Bill of Rights, Act of Union – guard against state coercion. To abrogate*** them is to diminish our liberty and to deny our heritage. It is not British to be subject to foreign parliaments or alien courts – temporal or spiritual – especially where they seek to impose a doctrine or creed which is antithetical to that which we have evolved over the centuries.
To be British is sometimes to tolerate conflicting philosophies, mutually-exclusive theologies and illogical propositions. But not at any cost.
Notes:
* ecumenism – the principle or aim of uniting different branches of the Christian Church
** corollary – an argument that is the natural or direct result of another one
*** to abrogate – to officially end a law, an agreement
  1. Obligatory material
  • Reading 2: учебникЕ.М.Зелтынь, Г.П. Легкодух Английскийдлябудущихдипломатов.English for future diplomats.-М,;МГИМО(У)МИДРоссии,2005–Unit 5.

UNIT 5

Why the Monarchy Must Stay

It keeps politicians from holding all the power

Harold Brooks-Baker

Winston Churchill often described parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as being imperfect - but the best that man had yet devised.

It is human nature to require a leader at the helm. In our century we have looked to our heads of state for this role. Apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state should foster the notion of political accountability, while remaining above politics. That, of course, can't be true in places where the head of state is an ex-politician - or in America, where the head of state is the political leader. The British system of constitutional monarchy, like the more than half-dozen monarchies still in existence in Europe, aptly shows why a monarch is a more successful figurehead than a president.

"In Great Britain things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual become constitutional," wrote American historian George Brinton Cooper 40 years ago. In Britain the monarch remains very much at the heart of its Constitution. As constitutional monarch, Queen Elizabeth II holds powers that may surprise many. She can choose a prime minister, dissolve Parliament and declare war. In reality, she waives these powers and is bound by tradition to accept the advice of Parliament. This system prevents politicians from too easily usurping power and, it may be argued, has prevented a dictator from dominating Great Britain since Oliver Cromwell's short rule in the 17th century.

It is one of the great strengths of monarchy that it has never taken sides in any political debate, that it shows itself, as an institution, to be even-handed. This apolitical stance has made it possible for the political culture of Great Britain to assimilate, with relative ease, theories that would appear on the face of things to be radically at odds with a system of monarchical government - for example, socialism. Monarchy in this century has workedwith socialist governments as effectively as with those whose politics one might choose to think were more sympathetic to the institution.

If one were to jettison the monarchy, government, Parliament, the nation and the commonwealth would be turned upside down. Every nut and bolt of every one of Britain's major institutions would have to be altered to make way for change. Bear in mind that every organ from the post office to the armed services acts with authority from the monarch. The troops that are sent to Bosnia and the letters that arrive in one's letter box are all effectively Her Majesty's. This is a system that has shown itself to work - and it's generally agreed that if something works, it should be retained. Any replacement would be ruinously costly, both in financial terms and also in terms of the loss of a unifying national symbol and a vital historical link. Only a monarchy can provide such continuity, remaining constant in a country's ever-changing national vision.

British monarchy has served both the empire and the commonwealth with great distinction. It is easy to forget in Great Britain that Queen Elizabeth is head of state not only of one small island nation, but also of the 53 nations of the commonwealth, with a combined population of 1.5 billion. In short, she is head of state to more than one quarter of the earth's inhabitants. As such, she flies the world nurturing a sense of unity between nations. From this follows trade, and a vital economic boost to the nation's industry and commerce. At home, monarchy is at the center of a multimillion-dollar tourist industry. (And Elizabeth II donates more than $90 million a year to the treasury). Monarchy adds dignity and historical relevance to all state occasions, and there can be no doubt that it is still more impressive to be met by a monarch than by a president.

And yet monarchy is threatened because the idea of republicanism seems more democratic and less overtly hierarchical. After the "annus horribilis," "Camillagate," "Squidgygate" and other royal antics, support for the monarchy in Great Britain dropped to 38 percent. Yet these poll results stem largely from a confusion in the public mind between the words "monarchy" and "royal family". In a monarchy there is only one person of importance: the reigning monarch. The public actions and statements of other members of the royal family - however laudable or distressing they may be - have no effect on the monarch's power or status. Nor should any individual's character or conduct be confused with those of an institution of much longer standing. Monarchy's legitimacy flows from its history and traditions and from the fact that it cannot be overwhelmed by any shortlived cult of personality. It commands too much respect.

Despite recent bursts of anti-monarchical feeling, however, it is still hard to discover a strong movement toward a republic in this country. There is still no focus for this opposition, nor has any popular political party taken up the call for the monarch's removal. Even The Independent, one of Britain's most respected broadsheet newspapers, in its call for a wider debate on this issue still advocated the retention of Queen Elizabeth as head of state until her death. Taken together, what does all this show? That people like things the way they are.

Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, is an American living in London.

NEWSWEEK March 11, 1996

Reading notes

Cromwell, Oliver (1599-1658) - English general and politician. He was leader of the Parliamentary army against King Charles I in the English Civil War (1642-51) and became Lord Protector of England and the Commonwealth (1653-58) after the king's execution. The English Civil War resulted from a power struggle between King Charles I and the English parliament led by Oliver Cromwell, during which the King, Charles I, was defeated and executed.

Annus horribilis (Lat.) - a horrible year, a year of disasters. In a speech made in 1992, referring to the recent scandals and misfortunes which had struck the Royal family, Queen Elizabeth II used this phrase to sum up the previous twelve months, quoting from a letter sent to her by a sympathetic correspondent. The expression is based on the much older annus mirabilis, describing 1666, a year of marvels, or calamities such as the great fire of London.

The scandals and misfortunes of 1992: in January Chuck and Di meet with the Queen. The possibility of divorce is rejected. In June "Diana: Her True Story" by Andrew Morton reports suicide attempts and bulimia. In July the couple discuss separation, involve lawyers. In August tapes surface of a mushy 1989 phone chat between Di and James Gilbey. In December separation is announced. Charles hires a new nanny, "Tiggy", to help look after the children. Di is enraged.

Camillagate - reference to Camilla Parker Bowles, an old-time friend of Prince Charles.

Squidgy - nickname of James Hewitt, a close friend of Princess Diana's.

broadsheet newspapers - quality newspapers like The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph.

Exercises

1. Fill in the missing prepositions or adverbs where required.

  1. to look ___ somebody ___ support (advice, leadership)
  2. to waive ___ powers (formalities)
  3. to be bound ___ tradition
  4. to take ___ sides ___ a debate
  5. to prevent a dictator ___ dominating Great Britain
  6. to assimilate new theories ___ relative ease
  7. ___ the face ___ things
  8. to be ___ odds ___ sth/sb
  9. to make way ___ change
  10. to act ___ authority ___ the monarch
  11. to serve ___ distinction
  12. the results stem ___ a confusion ___ the public mind

2. Look for words and expressions in the text to match

the following definitions.

  1. suited to its purpose; appropriate; fitting
  2. to raise or promote the development of
  3. to take or assume power (property) by force or without right
  4. not hidden; open; apparent
  5. giving fair and equal treatment to all sides; impartial
  6. a person put in a position of leadership, but having no real power, authority or responsibility.
  7. to bring up with care; stimulate; cherish
  8. the attitude adopted in dealing with a particular situation
  9. to keep in a fixed state or condition
  10. showing favour, approval or agreement
  11. very destructive or harmful; disastrous
  12. to throw away as useless or a burden; get rid of
  13. praiseworthy; commendable (esp. of behaviour, actions, etc.)
  14. causing sorrow, misery, pain or suffering
  15. having a short life span or existence
  16. a silly or ludicrous act; trick, etc.; prank
  17. to speak in support of; be in favour of
  18. to give up or forego (a right, claim, privilege, etc.)
  19. to end by breaking up; terminate
  20. the quality that makes one worthy of special recognition

3.Explain and expand on the following sentences
from the text.

1.Apart from carrying out ceremonial duties, a head of state should foster the notion of political accountability, while remaining above politics.

2.In Great Britain things that are conventional become habitual, and things that are habitual become constitutional.

3.Queen Elizabeth II waives these powers and is bound by tradition to accept the advice of Parliament.

4.If one were to jettison the monarchy, ...every nut and bolt of every one of Britain's major institutions would have to be altered to make way for change.

5.Any replacement would be ruinously costly, both in financial terms and also in terms of the loss of a unifying national symbol and a vital historical link.

6.The poll results stem largely from a confusion in the public mind between the words "monarchy" and "royal family".

7.Monarchy's legitimacy flows from its history and traditions and from the fact that it cannot be overwhelmed by any short-lived cult of personality. It commands too much respect.

4.Consult the dictionary and learn the derivatives
of the following words.

to retain, to alter, to account; relevance, distinction

5.Explain the difference in meaning or usage of the following
groups of words. Think of situations in which they would be
appropriate.

1.notion - concept - idea - belief

2.conventional - traditional - habitual

3.to foster - nourish - nurture - rear

4.to devise - invent - contrive - plan

6.Support or challenge the following notions expressed
by the author.

1.Winston Churchill described parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy as being imperfect - but the best that man had yet devised.