Trollheart

Originally Posted in: The Playlist of Life
Original Posting Date: October 23 2012
Status: On Hiatus
Post Type: Review
Media: Music

(Some small, slight edits)

Okay, well in fairness I wouldn't claim this to have been one of the albums that changed my life, but it certainly changed my mind about, shall we say, independent music? Up to this, I had mostly been buying and listening to albums by either progressive rock artistes or heavy metal acts, these being the two genres I was most interested in. I would occasionally see something interesting in the world of pop, but mostly I treated the charts with contempt. If anything, that attitude has grown in later years, and I think with good reason. But up until I heard this album, I had always considered anything outside the spectrum of what I enjoyed listening to to be either inaccessible to me or just “not my thing”. Of course, with the hindsight of age and experience this attitude seems, and is, extremely naive, but then we weren't all born like Jackhammer, with an insatiable need for music, any music!

Infected --- The The --- 1986 (Epic)

It was only after hearing the single “Heartland” that I took notice of The The. I think I can remember seeing them mentioned in passing in mags like Sounds and perhaps Kerrang!, but I never afforded them much notice. A band that couldn't even be bothered to come up with a decent name, I thought? Hardly worth taking the time to check out. Not only that, but my young (well, I say young: I would have been what, 23, at the time, but young in terms of experience let's say) mind had already drawn its own conclusions about this band, and had decided it was “weird” and “scary”, and the music was probably just noise. I know, I know!

The one thing The The album covers projected to me was anger: raw, unbridled rage, and I was probably reluctant to face that flood. Rich, I suppose, coming from a guy who at this point owned all the Iron Maiden albums, but then, Maiden had always come across as more theatrical to me: sure, they had the devil dancing on their album covers, but they never seemed like they meant it, like it was meant to be taken seriously. All part of the act. The The, on the other hand, seemed deadly serious. They weren't making jokes or comments, they weren't laughing at themselves, and laugh at them and you were more than likely going to find yourself with a bloody nose. If you were lucky!

Well, one thing was actually true. My impression of anger from the album was correct. If there's one thing that defines, delineates and informs an album by The The, it's anger. Raw, bubbling, almost psychopathic anger, just waiting to come to the surface through the medium of music. Of course, strictly speaking, this is one man's anger we're talking about. The The is not really a group. Not really. It's a loose affiliation of musicians who join Matt Johnson on his albums and help him out. More session men than band members, they often work on one album and then never again. Some have worked on two or three, but the lineup does change over each album, with of course one exception.

The The is the brainchild of Johnson. He's its voice, its heart, its dark, screaming soul. He writes the lyrics and music, sings and plays many of the instruments. It's his vision, his nightmare, his deformed and scowling little baby, and he guards it jealously. The subjects the songs follow are all close to his heart, from politics to social alienation and from love to death (the two being closely intertwined in his worldview, as seen in songs like “Kingdom of Rain” and “Slow Train to Dawn”), with some nightmarish dreamscapes painted along the way. In many ways, I imagine listening to Johnson's music must be similar to taking a trip, though I've never taken any drugs personally.

The album opens on the title track, with a quick acapella intro which is very shortly joined by bass and electronic drum patterns, guitar sqealing its way in until Johnson's angry, contempt-ridden voice sneers its way in. This is how he sings mostly, as if he's permanently angry, or frustrated with the world around him, and the way things are; and more, that people seem to be happy to put up with it. He's like a prophet crying in the wilderness, but foretelling the coming of the devil rather than Jesus. A warning, not a joyous prophecy. His voice drops into lower registers that make you think he's gritting his teeth, which he may be, and the backing vocals only throw his style into sharper relief. Some sax in the title track doesn't somehow seem out of place, and though an angry song, like most if not all of this album, it's uptempo and upbeat in terms of music. The dangers presented by love, or by getting caught by it, are spat out by him when he snarls ”Infect me with your love/ Nurse me into sickness/ Nurse me back to health” and it's a great powerful starter for the album, with a sharp echoey guitar ending.

It's followed by a slower, laidback song which opens on lone guitar with a little sax backing, then Johnson's vocal comes in as he tells his tale of woe in “Out of the Blue, Into the Fire”, saying “I thought if I acted like someone else/ I'd feel more comfortable in myself.” And so he enters into a one-night stand, but there's no love or romance involved: this is pure sex and when it's over he feels totally disgusted with himself, and with his paramour. He's less than gallant as he sneers ”She was lying on her back/ With her lips parted/ Squealing like a stuck pig” At this point the music gets heavier, particularly the percussion which hammers perhaps like Johnson's conscience as he realises he's made a mistake, but it's too late to turn back now. Great bit of strings at the end as the song fades out on female vocals, not sure who though.

The single is next, the one I heard that turned me on to The The's music. Sharp upbeat piano runs “Heartland” in, another deceptively upbeat song in which Johnson accuses the government of taking their orders from the USA, as he snaps ”All the bankers getting sweaty/ Beneath their white collars/ As the pound in our pockets/ Turns into a dollar/ This is the 51st state of the USA.” Great piano work on this, which really helps make the song, but it's the lyrics that paint such a stark, bleak picture of England: ”The stains on the heartland/ Will never be removed/ From this country that's sick/ Sad and confused.” There are female backing vocals again, but again I can't find out who they are. It's not too hard to see why this was a single, as it is very catchy, but I'm sure a huge percentage of the people who bought the single completely missed the political motivation behind the lyric.

Matt's accusation of the USA as the mother of all evils continues in “Angels of deception”, another dark, slower song somewhat in the vein of “Out of the blue...” where he decries wars and conflicts and the reasons and excuses used for them. Much of this he puts down to the good ol' US of A, singing ”Come on down/ The Devil's in town/ He's brought you sticks and stones/ To crush your neighbour's bones/ He's put missiles in your garden/ And rammed his theories down your throat...” It gets heavier for the chorus, with crashing guitar and thumping drums, and Johnson exclaiming ”Jesus wept! Jesus Christ!/ I can't see for the teargas/ And the dollar signs in my eyes!/ What's a man got left to fight for/ When he's bought his freedom?” It then goes into something of an almost gospel-tinged chant, the music beginning on single guitar, which becomes a full chorus then punctuated by punching drums, the chorus getting stronger and more angry, with this time the backing vocals credited to the Croquets, a big finish to take us into another American-themed song.

Whether it's meant as such or not I'm not sure, but I find that Infected can be taken as a concept album, one man's desperate journey to find himself, find something worth living for, find answers, find salvation, find redemption. Matt would probably sneer at me that I'm reading too much into his words, but you can see nevertheless from the beginning that the protagonist is looking for some sort of release, first through sex, via the first two tracks, then his journey takes him through the shattered and rundown streets of Britain, as he watches society crumble before him and try to maintain the glamourous face it presents to the world, while beneath the makeup the skin is cracking and splitting, revealing a much less pleasant visage.

Then he tries to find redemption and meaning through war, with both “Angels of Deception” and “Sweet Bird of Truth”, through to big business and cut-throat competition in “Twilight of a Champion”, till he finally ends his journey facing off against the Devil, no doubt a facet of his own personality he must face before the end. The result is left open, so that we never know if he defeated his adversary or was swallowed by him. Of course, he reeks confidence bordering on arrogance as he makes his exit from the album: ”All the vultures and crows/ Are fixin' up the tombstones/ They won't be picking the meat/ Off MY bones!” and indeed ”I'm gonna have Lucifer running back to Purgatory/ With his tail between his legs/ I'm gonna teach him a lesson/ He ain't never gonna forget!” But then, there is room for doubt as he admits ”I'm stuck between the Devil/ And the deep blue sea/ And I know that water's sucked down/ Better men than me.”

Great brass accompaniment on “Sweet Bird of Truth”, another of the singles released, which is a bit weird as I wouldn't class it as commercial or airplay-worthy really, with Matt growling in the guise of an American GI as they head to the sands of Arabia, ending up getting shot down on the way: ”This is your captain calling/ With an urgent warning/ We're above the Gulf of Arabia/ Our altitude is falling/ And I can't hold her up!” The chorus, with Johnson singing as the captain of the aircraft, is filtered through some mechanical doodad to make it sound like it's on a radio, which adds to the tension and feel of the song. Next up is the other big hit single, the one all the hipsters of the day latched onto. “Slow Train to Dawn” is a fast, uptempo song again concerned with love, or at least sex, on which Johnson duets again, this time with Neneh Cherry. Great guitar sound to the song, and again the brass is in full flight, giving the track a much more faux upbeat tone than it possesses, when Cherry sings ”Are you lying when you say you love me?” and Johnson responds “Lying when I say I don't...

If there's no actual concept behind the album, then the last two tracks are definitely linked. Yeah, that's right: there are a total of eight tracks on the album, but each one is gold. “Twilight of a Champion” opens with dark, heavy brass and then runs into a sort of twenties bass line with tinkly piano, Johnson's vocal grating and angry, with machinegun drumming on the Linn, and some touches I recognised later on the album prior to this, The The's official debut, Soul Mining. Guitars moan like wounded beasts or loom like guardians or sentinels, trying to block the path as Johnson makes his way down to his confrontation with the Devil. It's a heavy track and the last slow-paced one on the album, as the closer takes off at some speed.

It's driven by jangly guitar and peppy horns that really should work against the lyrical content, but somehow fit right in. Certainly, the uptempo rhythm of the song fits into the frustration and desperation in the music as the protagonist decides to finally face his fears head-on, win or lose. Johnson anthropomorphises this as a meeting with the Devil, a facedown, a final battle with evil. How it turns out we're not told, but it's a powerful ending and Johnson's almost calm anger and determination are evident in every line. It could of course be one last mad suicide bid, as he does mention going ”Down to the dock of the bay/ To feel the power of the waves” and that he's going to ”Wrestle with the thoughts/ Solitude always brings.” Perhaps he's just going to pick a fight; maybe he's had enough and wants rid of this life. There's a definite sense of heady euphoria though, as if this is the moment he has been born for, as if his whole life has been leading to this, and he can finally see some sense in an existence which up to now has confused, angered and bewildered him. Perhaps here, at the very end, the almost certainty of death --- his “meeting with the Devil” --- provides him a diamond-sharp clarity he has never before experienced, and he can at last see the purpose behind his life.

Or perhaps he's just insane. But it's a dramatic, energetic, adrendaline-fuelled ending. As the horns fade out in the distance, we're left with the looping sound of a slide guitar, providing perhaps a strange otherworldly effect as Johnson (possibly) dies, making his transition from life to, well, whatever lies beyond the veil.

At its heart, musically at least, Infected can be described as a synthpop album. The music is certainly dancebeat-oriented, and no doubt people danced to the likes of “Slow train to dawn” and “Heartland”, but the lyrics inside the music are not meant to be danced to. Almost like a wolf hiding in sheep's clothing, they lie in wait to jump out and kick the living crap out of you, slashing you with concealed knives and gutting you for not taking it seriously enough. This album can, and should, make you think, make you question, make you angry and make you afraid, things Matt Johnson has always excelled at. To dismiss this album as “just a dance or pop record” would be to do it a great disservice indeed, and to completely fail to grasp the true value and worth of “Infected”, and what it stands for.

As the man says himself in the closer, ”I never said I was the man I appeared to be/ Not the flesh wrapped around the bones of necessity...” If the “bones of necessity” can be applied to being the most surface level of the music, then it is wrapped in some very dark flesh indeed.

TRACK LISTING

1. Infected
2. Out of the Clue (Into the Fire)
3. Heartland
4. Angels of Deception
5. Sweet Bird of Truth
6. Slow Train to Dawn
7. Twilight of a Champion
8. The Mercy Beat

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Trollheart

Originally posted November 30 2019 in Funtasmagoria: The Whole Moving History of Animation


Arthur Melbourne-Cooper (1874-1961)

From what I can make out, the next milestone on the road to animation comes from the UK, from a guy called Arthur Melbourne-Cooper, the son of a photographer who created what is generally accepted as “the world’s first stop-motion film”. It was commissioned by Bryant and May, one of the biggest manufacturers of matches at the time, in response to an appeal to help the soldiers in the Boer War, who were struggling from a shortage of matches. You might imagine, far from home and fighting surely disease and heatstroke as well as an implacable enemy that the last thing on the minds of the soldiers was smoking, but when has that ever stopped a company getting what it wanted?

Using what would become a well-used method of filming one frame, moving the model slightly, filming again, moving it again etc, Melbourne-Cooper was able to make it seem as if the matches were animated, as two sticks figure made of them spelled out the appeal on a black wall. This all took place in 1899.

Now, let’s be clear and honest here. The voiceover on this video proudly claims “The oldest existing animated film in the world is British.” But no, it isn’t. Because as we’ve seen from our piece on our friend Charles-Emile Reynaud, a version of his Pauvre Pierrot is still around, albeit in a restored form, and that predates “Matches Appeal” by a good seven years. But I suppose if Melbourne-Cooper’s one, being shot, obviously, in black and white, has survived without being restored or altered for over a hundred years, then maybe she has a point. Whatever the case, it’s an impressive little bit, both of animation and of advertising, pulling at the heart (and purse) strings of the viewer, both by dint of their patriotic fervour for “the boys abroad” and by the cuteness of the little stick figures. Well, I don’t think they’re cute but I bet many who watched that film did, and donated their guinea accordingly.

By 1908 Melbourne-Cooper had progressed in leaps and bounds (for the time) and had moved on to be able to shoot a live-action movie with stop-motion (or, as it was called at the time, frame-by-frame) animation in the fantasy short film “Dreams of Toyland”. In the movie, a woman takes her son to a toyshop, where a distinctly sinister-looking shopkeeper sells her some toys. In quite a clever move, one of the toys she buys, a large omnibus, has an advertisement on it proclaiming the title of the film. That’s all very well and good as far as it goes, but nothing terribly innovative. Yet.

It’s when the child goes to bed that things start to get interesting. Suddenly the scene zooms in, and we see the toys all arranged as if they’re in their own little city. People cross roads while horses and carts move along them and that big omnibus makes its slow way down the thoroughfare. One of the soft toys (think it might be a golliwog - wouldn’t be allowed these days!) - even drives the omnibus while other toys, including a white teddy bear, climb on board. However in helping I think a monkey on to the bus the bear overbalances and falls off the bus. Oh dear! But he’s not hurt (when ever is anyone in cartoons or animation, or when does it ever matter?) in fact he starts fighting with.. yes I’m sure that’s a golliwog. So you have a white bear fighting a toy notoriously recognised as a black person. Whether innocently or no, whether making a political/racial statement or just completely coincidentally, you have perhaps the first filmed occurrence of a race fight on screen!

Now it looks like the golliwog is stealing some drunk’s bag and running off, and then being tackled by a monkey. Are they fighting or dancing? If the former, there’s a very violent subtext to this film! Now a guy on stilts is joining in and - no, they’re all dancing now. Definitely dancing. And now they’ve been run over by the omnibus! Oh look! Here’s that troublesome white bear back, and he’s riding a train. And he’s, um, ramming a monkey in the arse with it. Now the monkey is on a horse chasing the bear and here comes the omnibus again and - it’s crashed into the bear, running him over and blowing up. Man, such violence and such a dark ending!

Amazing stuff, and if you’re totally into looking for subtexts like me, there’s racial violence, latent homosexual activity, just normal violence and road rage! Crazy. And all before World War I. Arthur Cooper-Melbourne was not just an animator, but made plenty of live-action films (as this one shows) and in fact opened two studios, one of which burned down, but that pesky war interrupted his schedule and though he made some animated advertisments for cinemas after the war, opening an ad agency, he retired in 1940 and died in 1961.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Trollheart

Originally posted in: The Playlist of Life
Original Post Date: August 18 2012
Status: Defunct
Post Type: Article/editorial
Media: Music

(Originally posted under the title "My Brain Hurts" (and it did)...)

The often demented ramblings and musings
of a music journal author

Something has been troubling me since yesterday. I stumbled across an artist whose name intrigued me (often the first impression one makes on me is to have an interesting name, either of the artist or the album) and having trialed a few tracks found it not terrible. It was, I think I can only conclude, doom metal, but for what it was it was not too bad, and I haven't had that much experience with that sub-genre. So as I usually do, I went searching for more information on the artist. Wiki had nothing, which is never a good start. My other main source - for metal at any rate - Encyclopaedia Metallum was more helpful, but still details were sketchy. So I decided to type in the artist's name as a domain, and was gratified to see a website pop up.

The artist in question is known as Babylon Mystery Orchestra, and turns out, from what I can see, to be the solo efforts of one guy, who sings, plays all instruments, writes all lyrics and music and is so far unsigned, despite having six albums and being in existence since 2003. Is this a good thing? If he was that talented, surely he would have been signed by now? Perhaps. Not necessarily, I thought though. Some artists either turn down the advances of a major label as they either don't want their music diluted, want to retain control of their music or simply don't trust them. From having read about BMO I think he falls into the final category.

Now, the music is fine: nothing terribly special, but not unlistenable (at least, in the samples I heard) but I often look for more interesting than good albums to review. Wow, that sounds stupid doesn't it? That's not what I mean. What I mean is that I look for something interesting first, some hook on which to hang the review. Of course, if the music is terrible then it doesn't matter how different or thought-provoking the name is, I shy away from it. No point in sacrificing quality for novelty. I learned this lesson with Vincent Kuhner's album some time ago, buying it only for the extra-long title, and was very disappointed, if not totally confused by it. But if the music matches the interest factor, I can usually push “Purchase” and have a listen to the whole thing.

Babylon Mystery Orchestra is the brainchild of one Sidney Allen Johnson, and on his website there is a lot of rhetoric about the things he doesn't like, and/or trust, and it seems, in fairness, to be pretty much everything. He has written, it would appear, albums that take apart religion, politics, America ... here, I'll let the guy tell you himself: ”From its inception Babylon Mystery Orchestra has defiantly presented its vision of the truth, the way a true artist should, without regard to the prevailing popular views of the time. The gothic hard rock/heavy metal artist thrives on challenging conventional thinking. Especially that of the rock music elites. No man-made institution is sacred to Babylon Mystery Orchestra! Not America, portrayed as the Biblically doomed "Mystery Babylon the Great" on the debut CD Divine Right Of Kings. Not the Christian church, a man-made institution rightly questioned on the critically acclaimed work "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy of Satanic Christianity." The second CD, On Earth As It Is In Heaven, even condemned rock music itself!”

Okay, all fine and good. It's a thinly-disguised promotion for his previous works, certainly, but it manages to successfully state his case. So I'm intrigued, and want to investigate more. I notice that on his site the guy seems to have links to essays - essays? Yeah. So obviously he's reasonably intelligent and presumably articulate. A good way, I reason, to find out what he's all about is to read one or two. So I do. The one I choose seems to be a deconstruction of the theory of evolution. Now, to my mind, there is only one group that denies evolution as a solid theory, and that's creationists. So am I reading the rantings of a religious conservative? I read the article, which I have to say is both well-written and researched, and seems to reference some eminent scientists, who appear to agree that there may be flaws in Darwin's theory. I get a little unsettled by this, and await the revelation at the end that Johnson believes God created the world. If he says this, then I know (right or wrong) I'm dealing with a creationist, and my opinion may form on that basis.

But to my surprise, he doesn't say anything, beyond mentioning The Great Flood and Noah, however the manner in which he refers to them leaves me no wiser as to whether he's advocating creationism or laughing at it equally. My curiosity unsatisfied, I turn to see if there's a similar essay “taking down God”, as it were, but my attention is drawn to one about homosexuals. In this article, I find Johnson perhaps revealing his true colours, as he seems to launch into an angry, hate-filled tirade about the passing of laws in certain states promoting and allowing same-sex marriage. It's clear he doesn't agree with this, it's clear he has a hatred of gays, and also of the president, as he constantly refers to laws passed by Obama, with a thin veneer of hatred over his writing which suggests he either hates Democrats, or blacks, or both.

So, are we now looking at racism, gender-fuelled hatred and prejudice? It would, on the face of it, seem so. The fact that the symbol for BMO is a badly-disguised swastika does not help settle my nerves. I know it's the actual original ancient symbol that Hitler corrupted to make into the Nazi emblem, and which came to stand for repression, murder, totalitarianism and hatred, but in which context is it supposed to be understood when used as the logo for Babylon Mystery Orchestra? I don't see essays on Jews, but I do see a lot of hatred directed at Islam. This is not good. Islam is a religion; it's Islamic terrorists or extremists that should draw the ire of all right-thinking people, not a whole community that is spread out over the globe.

Titles run like: “There is no god but Allah: the truth about Islam part 2”, “The science of denying God”, “Heavy metal's golden goose ... COOKED! By the Ku Klux Klan” and “Homosexuals and Hugenots”, the latter of which was the one I read. This last one, at least, makes very uncomfortable reading, and I am left in something of a quandary (whoever owns it shouldn't have left the doors open, but there you are, I wandered in and now I'm stuck in it!): do I now judge this man's music - the lyrics of which do seem to reflect his view on the world as transmitted through his somewhat hate-filled but well-written essays - on the basis of what he writes? If I review it, can I divorce the music from the ideals, the man from the music, the album from the prejudice? And if I do review it, am I giving oxygen to a preacher of intolerance and hatred, becoming (however inadvertently or reluctantly) the mouthpiece for Sidney Allen Johnson, providing a platform from which he can spout his edicts and pronouncements? If people reading this enjoy the music, am I driving them into the arms of a fanatic?

But if I choose not to publish, not to pursue this review, ignore the man and his music, am I pushing the problem to one side and refusing to face it? Am I pretending this sort of hatespeak through music does not exist, even though I know it does. Of course I know, but is this a case of NIMJ (Not In MY Journal)!? Am I ignoring the problem and hoping it'll fade away? Am I taking the easy way out instead of taking this challenge head-on and trying to deal with it? Should I even involve his politics, beliefs, prejudices, or just concentrate on the music? But when the music is so deeply rooted in that belief system, how can I have one without the other? They're each part of the whole, more than the sum of their parts, and one road leads inexorably to the other.

Or do I misunderstand the man? His first essay, while coldly laughing at the idea of evolution and explaining WHY he does not believe in it - or, indeed, global warming - was quite a deep and enthralling read, and he can certainly string a word or two together, there's no doubting that. Is he a harmless conspiracy theorist, one of those people who blames the government on everything that happens, that think shadowy men sit around a dark table in a grey office somewhere and make decisions that affect the world, faceless, powerful men who are answerable to no - hey! Where are you taking me? What's the hood for? I demand to see the Irish ambassador!

Seriously though, do I give his writings credit, should I decide to go ahead with the review, or ignore them? Do I give him more exposure, let him say what he wants, and let people make up their own minds about that, or do I essentially repress what I've read, practicing a form of censorship myself which I have never fully agreed with? Will I be unwittingly doing the work of the “shadowy men” by denying Johnson and the Babylon Mystery Orchestra a chance to state their case? Will I be making myself a tool of the “Illuminati” or PNAC, or whoever he blames for all the ills and wars and diseases and economic meltdowns in the world?

It's not even that I'm that blown away by his music: I mean, it's okay, but I could just as easily review something else, forget about him and move on. But then again, could I forget him? If his words - be they misguided, plain wrong, or in fact the unvarnished, undisguised truth - have affected me so deeply that I felt I had to write this to try to sort out my reaction to BMO, do I not owe it to myself, and my readers, to explore further and see what's to be found? I only run a tiny music journal, in the final analysis, not a conspiracy centre or a television studio, but what I put in it is up to me, and I like to think that my choices are based both on personal experiences and first impressions as well as gut feelings.

What does my gut tell me about this? I'm still trying to work that out.

If anyone knows of Johnson, or Babylon Mystery Orchestra, and has any advice, I'd be really grateful to hear from you. Anyone else who would like to weigh in, on either side, your input would be welcome too.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Mindy

Awesome job, lots of information

__________________
https://www.instagram.com/shhons_meme_agency

Trollheart

Thanks man. Just trying to make sure the better stuff from my older journals doesn't vanish forever, or that people who weren't here at the time I wrote these pieces originally have a chance to read them now. Or not. Over ten years of journalling, you really do end up writing some shite. But occasionally, some good stuff makes it through too.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Trollheart

Originally posted in: Four Green Fields: Trollheart's History of Ireland
Original Posting Date: May 25 2021
Status: Current
Post Type: Article/editorial
Media: n/a

Intermission: Catholic England? The Trouser Serpent Enters Eden

Here I’d like to diverge slightly away from the timeline, and look back to see how things could have been different, for Ireland and for England. What I’ll propose here will of course be simplistic and I’m sure there are plenty of valid reasons for the hatreds between our two countries, but it can’t be denied that the biggest bone of contention - even when England left a remnant of its eight-hundred-year occupation behind it to stagger through almost into the twenty-first century - between us has been religion.

So, the question becomes: what if England had remained Catholic?

It’s not as crazy a question, I think, as it seems. England had been, after all, staunchly Catholic for thousands of years, if only because up to then there was only Catholicism in Christianity. It was the early fifteenth century that saw the rise of Martin Luther and what would become known as Protestantism, which slowly spread across Europe, but England resisted it, even to the point of its then king, Henry VIII, writing in vigorous defence of Catholicism and denouncing Luther, earning him the title Fidei Defensor, or Defender of the Faith, bestowed upon him by a grateful Pope Leo X. Remember, at this point England was a world power, and the pope would have been concerned had its king turned against him. Of course, later that’s exactly what he did (though not specifically against the Pope himself, but against his allies) but that’s history and here we’re considering an alternate timeline.

Henry’s problem with Catholicism - or more properly, the Pope - was that the Bishop of Rome refused to annul or make invalid his marriage to Catherine of Aragon in order to allow him marry Anne Boleyn. There were of course many reasons for this, not least among them being that Catherine was the aunt of Charles V of Spain, the Holy Roman Emperor and an important ally of the then pope, Clement VII, the sanctity of marriage (the moreso between a king and his wife) within the Catholic Church, and the possibility of disinheriting and effectively bastardising Catherine’s daughter Mary, who would be next in line to the throne.

So Henry decided, after trying to cajole, force or trick the pope into annulling the marriage, he didn’t need him. He would do it himself, and so, like a child annoyed at the rules of the game and making his own game, taking his ball and going home, Henry VIII of England set himself up as head of his own religion, his own breakaway faction from the Church, following (mostly, or as far as it benefited him to do so) the precepts of the fledgling Protestant movement being taught and disseminated by Martin Luther, thereby creating the Church of England and making England a Protestant country.

But consider: what if the pope had allowed the annulment? Yes, the historical ramifications would have been huge - Queen Mary, known to history as “Bloody Mary” for her persecution of Protestants when she came to power - would never have ruled, and her sister, Elizabeth, would have ascended the throne unopposed, rather than, as she was, seen throughout her reign by Catholics - the pope especially - as a bastard and a Protestant usurper. Plots to dethrone or assassinate her would not have been hatched, and in all likelihood, England might have been stronger against its enemies, being a cohesive, truly united kingdom.

Apart from the Scots, of course. Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!

Meanwhile, Ireland might not have been such a prize, or, if it was, might have acceded more readily to a king who followed the same religion as them. Much of the opposition to England’s invasion and occupation and rule of Ireland was that it was performed under the banner of Protestantism, the Anglican Protestantism taught by and compulsorily required by the Church of England. Irish Catholics feared the erosion, even destruction of their faith, and so fought with everything they had against this foreign oppressor. But had Henry got what he wanted from the pope, it’s highly unlikely England would have changed religions. Up until the time of the “king’s great matter” as they referred to his pending demand for divorce or annulment of his marriage to Catherine, Protestants and Lutherans in England were seen as heretics, and imprisoned, tortured and burned with the full approval and knowledge of the king. It was only when Henry began to see - or be shown, by men like Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, who had much to gain by swaying His Majesty’s allegiances their way - that allowing, even embracing and finally insisting on Luther’s new anti-Rome religion could help him to get what he needed that he broke with Rome.

Though there were plenty of Protestants in England at the time, and many at Henry’s court, before the “great matter” (or before the king met Anne Boleyn) none of them would have admitted it, for to be branded a follower of Luther was to repudiate the Catholic Church, seen at the time as the only Church, and Luther’s ideas as heretical and nothing more than the ramblings of a sect or cult leader, and that was punishable by death, usually very painful death. Henry’s about-turn in accepting Protestantism was motivated purely by his own lust and his desire to get his own way, and set in motion by the refusal of the pope to grant this.

So had Henry either been able to keep it in his pants, or convince the pope that kicking Catherine to the kerb was the best policy, England might now still be a Catholic country, and everything from the Famine to the Rising and right up to the Troubles need never have happened.

The first and only time I have heard of in history where a man set up an entire religion and his people were later persecuted, imprisoned, burned and hanged because the king wanted to get his end away. Well, technically he could do that anyway, but since Durex would not be invented for about another four hundred years, he wanted to make sure any sprogs his new bit of totty dropped were legitimate heirs, especially if he hit the jackpot and got a son.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018