Rani Padmavati: In Film and Literature

Rani Padmavati is a legendary Rajput Hindu queen. Her story has been most recently bought to modern audiences by Sanjay Leela Bhansali, in his 2018 film ‘Padmaavat,’ which still remains one of the most expensive Indian films ever made. It tells the story of Rani Padmavati, and focuses on the war that her husband, Ratan Singh (Shahid Kapoor) becomes embroiled in with Muslim Sultan Alauddin Khiliji (Ranveer Singh).

In the film, Khiliji sets his sights on Rani Padmavati, played by Deepika Padukone, after hearing of her legendary beauty. Khiliji captures Singh, but in retaliation, Padmavati agrees to meet with Khiliji if she can see her husband first. He agrees, but instead of meeting Khiliji, she cunningly flees with Singh. Incensed by this, and consumed by his desire to claim Padmavati for his own, Khiliji goes to war with Singh, killing him in a duel. In order to ensure that Khiliji does not emerge victorious, and to protect herself and her honour, Padmavati leads 16,000 women to commit Jauhar – mass self-immolation to escape persecution or capture. It is this act, as well as her beauty, that has cemented her in legend. She is seen as an icon if chastity, and is generally seen as the ideal wife and woman.

The film is based on a Sufi poem written in 1540 by Malik Muhammad Jayasi, which has formed the basis of several different versions of the same story. Historian Ramya Sreenivasan notes that all versions influence each other. Jayasi’s version and the film are broadly similar although there are some details that are omitted. A particular favourite is the inclusion of Hiraman, Padmavati’s talking parrot. In the film, while hunting in Sinhala, modern day Sri Lanka, Padmavati meets Singh by accidentally shooting him with an arrow. In the poem, it is Hiraman that flies to Singh to tell him of Padmavati’s beauty – it is for this reason that he travels to Sinhala to find her. Another difference is the time at which Padmavati commits Jauhar. In the film she hears of her husband’s death, whereas in the poem she goes ahead with her plan once she is assured that defeat by Khiliji is imminent. Speaking of Khiliji, his portrayal in the poem, and his character in real life, varies to that of the film.

It is worth nothing that Singh and Khiliji are both historical figures, and Khiliji’s siege of Singh’s kingdom of Chittor in 1303 is well documented. In the film, Khiliji is greedy, adulterous and ruthless. His desire to possess Padmavati appears to stem from physical desire throughout the film. Historians such as Subimal Chandra Datta note that Khilji’s siege of Chittor was more likely for political gain, not desire for Padmavati. The desire present in the film directly contrasts Singh, Shahid Kapoor’s pious Hindu King. In the poem, and in real life, Khiliji was seen to be honourable and pious, and at the end of the poem is remorseful at the deaths of Singh and Padmavati, noting that man’s insatiable desire is destructive.

The Hindu/Muslim presence in the film is one reason that it caused such controversy. Due to Khiliji’s villainous portrayal, Muslims essentially saw the film as anti-Muslim, and Hindus disliked the idea of Padmavati being portrayed in film. Several Rajput organisations vandalised the set and attacked director Sanjay Leela Bhansali, who also received death threats along with Padukone. The release of the film was delayed, and the name changed from ‘Padmavati’ to ‘Padmaavat.’ Rajputs rejected the idea of having Padmavati involved romantically with Khiliji. No such scene existed, but the rumour caused such a furore that Bhansali released a statement dispelling it. Every character seemed to trigger some sort of political argument.

Back to the heart of the film – Padmavati. Unlike the two ment that fight for her, evidence that she actually existed is scarce. This makes her even more interesting, and powerful in the film. At first I felt that for the first half of the film she was side-lined, a lot of time was dedicated to both men and their feud. This speaks to the wider theme of the patriarchy, as despite her importance and legendary status, she is side-lined by man’s quarrels. It also speaks to the patriarchal nature of days gone by, and throughout the first half of the film Padmavati is not afforded much agency. This does turn when she springs Singh from imprisonment, although the focus then shifts to the duel between Singh and Khiliji.

Her final act is what cements her in legend, and where her power exceeds that of all around her. By committing Jauhar, she ensures that Khiliji’s victory is meaningless and although it costs her dearly, she, more than anyone emerges triumphant and ultimately has the last word. In the film, she leads all women into the frame. All the women wear red, seemingly mimicking the sea of blood spilt by Khiliji’s siege. Padmavati stands out in contrast in pink. He catches a glimpse of her walking into the flames, but is barred just before he can stop her. This only exacerbates the idea that he is obsessed with her, thus confirming her honour and piety.

In a rousing speech to the women, Padmavati states:

“Yeh shareer raakh ho jayega par Amar rahegi Rajputi Shaan, Hamara usool, Hamara swabhimaan, Aur Yahi Alauddin ri Jeevan Ri sabse badi haar hogi”

“This body will turn to ashes but the Rajput honour, our principals and our self-respect will remain intact and this will be the biggest defeat of Alauddin’s life”

Deepika Padukone as Rani Padmavati

She maintains that although they will suffer, their victory is assured in Alauddin’s defeat. It is this assurance that gives her strength. In the film she carries a white cloth with prints of her husband’s hands. This is interpreted as her husband’s permission, allowing her to commit such a grave sacrifice. While the story is epic, and Padmavati’s actions are nothing short of incredible, it does also comment on the history of India and the pain and atrocities that have occurred there. It speaks to the religious divide between Hindus and Muslims, all of which was worsened, especially for women, due to patriarchal ideas. Although it is Padmavati that has the final word, it is still the war waged between Alauddin and Ratan, for whatever reason, that led her into the fire, and by extension, into legend.

Thanks for reading!

Panjabi Representation in ‘Eastenders’: The Panesars

When EastEnders announced that they were introducing a Sikh Panjabi family in 2019 I will admit that I was surprised. Usually, Asian characters and/or families on screen were either Hindu or Muslim. When I was younger, if I did not fit into the category of Hindu or Muslim then people would be at a loss, prompting them to ask ‘well… what are you then?’ So, the prospect of having my religion and culture represented on a mainstream soap opera was exciting but also concerning.

Before the representation debate became a thing, I would probably say that I was bothered by it but unconsciously. Say if my family and I spotted a Sikh person on television, we would all stop, fall silent and rewind. The most we got was probably an extra on the market in EastEnders, but rest assured, that cameo would come up in conversation when chatting to other family members the next day.

Upon their announcement, what struck me most about the family were their authentic Panjabi names. I can name countless examples of Asian actors/actresses appearing on screen as westernised characters with Caucasian names. This of course happens in real life, but in my opinion, disproportionately. And, if an Asian name is used it may not always be correct. As in, it may not correctly communicate the characters’ cultural heritage. In Asian culture, names can tell us as much as where the family is from, their religion and their caste. The Panesar family comprises of parents Sukhwinder and Nishandeep, and their children Kheerat, Ashneet, Parvinder and Jagvir (plus Ravi and Davinder later down the line). It was obvious to me that the team at EastEnders did their research, as these are quite obviously Sikh Panjabi names, much like my own.

The family also are not listed as Sikh Panjabi for the hell of it – their speech and actions confirm that they are. While I don’t have a turban, like the Panesar’s, I will drop the occasional Panjabi phrase and attend Sikh ceremonies. This is not shied away from in the show, as highlighted by Jagvir’s funeral. The presence of the Gyani, sheets on the floor and the families’ white attire all mirrors the everyday practices of a Sikh funeral. Recently, Suki and Nish had an Ardas for their wedding, which is essentially a blessing. Up until this point, I had never heard or seen any form of Sikh prayers on television before, apart from in the odd documentary or news bulletin.

When introducing any character there is danger of falling into social and cultural stereotypes. Of course, these stereotypes are there for a reason, but EastEnders has worked to ensure that the Panesar’s recognise these, but also add to them. Yes, they own the Minute Mart, and yes, Ashneet is a doctor, like many South Asians out there, but the family also have a property empire and a pest control business. The stereotypes that exist are listened too, but the characters are not totally restricted by them.

The interesting relationship between culture and religion has also been touched upon. While Panjabi’s have a reputation for drinking, for example Kheerat was frequently seen with a whiskey, in the Sikh faith it is frowned upon. Nishandeep and Kheerat have this conversation when the former is released from prison. Whilst Kheerat criticises Nishandeep for cutting off his hair in prison, Nishandeep criticises Kheerat for drinking. Both arguments are valid and recognise the clash between culture and faith. This clash is something that we all navigate in our everyday lives.

Speaking of turbans, the inclusion of Kheerat’s was essential to the character and was used to highlight his faith. When facing a racist shoplifter, as most people of colour in soap opera do, Kheerat informs him that his turban is not a ‘hat’ but a ‘crown.’ As a child, I heard people referring to turbans as hats. While highlighting his pride in his faith, and the power that he draws from it, he lets audience members know the importance and significance of his turban, which may deter ignorance in the future. This is an important thing to remember about soap opera – they do have the ability to educate and influence.

During a scuffle in later scenes, Ravi accidentally tears Kheerat’s turban off. The shock on the Panesar’s’ faces communicates the enormity of what has just happened, a feeling that would have been felt by Sikh viewers. Suki later tells Ravi that he got off ‘lightly,’ informing Ravi and the audience that a Sikh man or woman’s turban should not be disrespected.

While Kheerat made headlines for this, the other Panesar children haven’t had much of the limelight. Vinny has ventured into DJ’ing and has a mobile phone business in the launderette, but other than that he has struggled to venture out of his older brothers’ shadow. I always saw Vinny as a character that spoke to the younger siblings, those that do not quite know what they want to do and might seem a bit different for being more creative and sensitive. Being caught between a businessman and a doctor cannot have been easy. Vinny’s future seems uncertain, and time will only tell if he will be able to, or whether he will even be allowed, to rise to the challenge of filling Kheerat’s shoes.

Conflicting desires and sexualities also seem to be at the heart of the Panesar family, which is refreshing but also risks being repetitive. EastEnders’ Muslim family, the Masood’s struggled to cope with their son, Syed’s, homosexuality; a story which the character is most associated with. Having bisexual characters in the family normalises the idea of South Asians belonging to a sexuality other than heterosexual, and this can only be a good thing. Also, unlike the Masood’s, Ashneet’s bisexuality is accepted by majority of her family, bar her mother… let’s talk about her.

I really did not see Suki’s romance with Eve coming for the simple reason that I never considered it. It has been cooking for a long time now, and while it may not have been intended, I see that storyline as a love letter to South Asian female oppression. Now that Nish has arrived on the Square it is not difficult to see that Suki has been controlled in all aspects of her life – he has already started slicing her out of various business dealings. His return has only catalysed her desire to be with Eve, which will no doubt have disastrous consequences when Nishandeep finds out.

All in all, I can only the praise the team at EastEnders for the work that they have put into the Panesar’s. Whilst ensuring that their culture and faith remains relevant to their characters, they have also embedded them into the fabric of the Square by allowing them to contribute to other people’s storylines as well as hold their own.

Thanks for reading!

‘Blonde’ 2022: Some Thoughts

Andrew Dominik’s latest film, ‘Blonde,’ centres around the life of Marilyn Monroe, and since its release it has caused some serious controversy. Generally critics are mixed in their reviews of the film, of which the defining feature seems to be Ana de Armas’s visceral, if not slightly haunting, performance. On a general note, the film itself is shot and organised differently. The lack of a linear narrative makes the film more immersive, but also harder to get a clearer grip on the story and Marilyn… which I suppose mirrors her real-life mystery. Maybe this lack of clarity was meant to reflect Marilyn’s fragile state of mind, especially towards the end of the film. Whether the film successfully got into Marilyn’s psyche is still under debate, but in the meantime, let’s have a look at some other moments in the film.

The film opens in black and white, a trick used by Dominik throughout the film. This seems to indicate particularly low moments in Marilyn’s life, perhaps explaining why her childhood is only seen in black and white. A theme that endures from this point in the film is the debate about who her father is, and her abandonment by her mother. This theme resurfaces throughout the film in Marilyn’s calling of her husband’s ‘daddy’ and her general questioning about her lineage. While other people’s influence on Marilyn throughout the film ebb and flow, the figure of her father remains, in a somewhat overbearing way. Already Marilyn is slave to the thought/memory of a man. Another theme that endures.

The use of black and white also adds to the nightmarish, and almost horrific, nature of the film. Monroe screams and wails frequently, as if she is featuring in some kind of horror film. The irony is, the horror film, as we are told to believe, is actually her life. The scenes with her mother evoke that of horror a film, as well as her abortion. Surrounded by men, as she is for majority of the film, Marilyn is subject, and almost forced, into having an abortion. She runs away in terror, whilst still in her hospital gown and struggles to find a way out. It reads like a scene in a horror film where the heroine is being subject to some sort of lobotomy and cannot break free.

Speaking of the abortion stuff.

Seeing the baby, and having it to talk to Marilyn is very strange, and only adds to her suffering. The second baby berates Marilyn for aborting the first one, and asks her ‘you won’t hurt me this time will you?’ It claims it’s the same egg, only making Marilyn suffer further through her guilty. I am not sure what this adds to the film, and am unsure how relevant it is, especially when there are bigger machines out there that cause Marilyn’s distress. These should be focused on and held to account. The way in which she miscarries this child also feels unfair. She trips and falls accidentally, which results in her miscarriage. Yet again, the use of the baby in the womb serves only to make Marilyn look guilty of killing her child, adding even more to her downward spiral.

Even though, in the aforementioned abortion scene, the focus is on Marilyn’s abortion, she is heavily exploited in this scene. There is one shot where, we see the doctor performing the abortion, from inside Marilyn. It is quite uncomfortable, and makes the audience wonder where interest becomes obsession. Do we really need to see inside Marilyn? Surely that interest is going a bit too far.

The film is pretty much seen through the male gaze, with Marilyn being the focus and centre. The scene where she stands on the grate, and her skirt billows, goes on for quite a while, panning from her legs to the male spectators. We know what the shot is, we know how she was perceived in her films, in which she portrayed fictional characters, do we need that as well to such a degree in a biopic… if we can describe this film as a biopic. The frequent nudity links to this as well, and as well as exploiting Marilyn, it exploits de Armas, as it is her body on screen.

Take the JFK scene for example. It feels unnecessarily graphic, we do not really need to see Marilyn fellating JFK, Dominik could have used other techniques to suggest that that is what happened. There is no conclusive evidence to say that this happened in real life, so from this scene it is unclear what Dominik was trying to accomplish. It does not allow Monroe or her memory any dignity. If he was trying to highlight Marilyn’s exploitation and suffering, then every other moment in the film ticked that box.

The film does not allow her much agency, so instead all we see is her suffering at the hands of one man, and then another. The difficulty is, if Dominik is trying to be true to life, then he probably has it right. However, the film is not true to life in some respects and cannot be hailed as a traditional biopic. Perhaps for this reason, Dominik should have tried to allow Marilyn some agency and some dignity, instead of infantilising her for over two hours. Not once is it mentioned that she set up her own production company, a plot point that has historical basis, and gives Marilyn the agency to push back against the men who wronged her.

So, in conclusion I am not really sure what to make of it all. This is probably down to the nature of the film as mentioned before, it is not a traditional biopic, it does not have a strongly linear narrative, and because of my reservations I am unsure what the filming is trying to achieve if anything. It does try to offer a window into Monroe’s life, the window itself being painted with the male gaze. What I am sure of though, is that it does not prioritise the subject… at times it side-lines her, robs her of dignity and ultimately turns her into a passive figure… when it does not need to do that ALL of the time. Dominik’s Marilyn is effectively the characters that she played onscreen, a breathy, blonde bombshell. Not much else is added to her, she is not multidimensional. That is probably the greatest flaw of the film. After over two hours, Marilyn remains a mystery… and maybe one best left alone.

Thanks for reading!

‘Mexican Gothic’ and Decay

‘Mexican Gothic’ was published in 2020 and was written by Silvio Moreno-Garcia. Upon its publication its popularity quickly soared, and many likened the novel to the works of Guillermo del Toro and Daphne du Maurier.

The novel opens with young heroine Noemí receiving a disturbing letter from her cousin Catalina. Catalina fears that her husband, Virgil Doyle, is trying to poison her. Noemí flies to her cousins’ aid, and discovers at the Doyle’s household, High Place, a multitude of secrets.

The beginning of the novel pays homage to many of the original Gothic classics. Noemí likens High Place to an ‘abandoned shell of a snail,’ implying that the Doyle household is desolate, and has been forgotten by civilisation.[1] A snail shell is also fragile, perhaps a reference to Catalina’s fragile state of mind. It also might foreshadow the Doyle’s downfall at the end of the novel. Their position is not secure. The atmosphere of High Place is cold and unwelcoming, setting the scene for an eerie Gothic tale. At High Place, Noemí goes on to uncover a family curse, a history of incest and a deadly mycelium that has infested High Place and the Doyle family themselves. It is this that they use to stay alive. At the end of the novel it is revealed that the fungus can store memories and preserve the family history. This explains why the family intermarry, as to not pollute their bloodline and strengthen their own connection with the fungus. Before the truth about the fungus is uncovered, it is clear from the start that High Place, and its inhabitants are rotting from the inside.

It is noticed that Catalina is ‘ravaged by disease.’[2] While it is clear that Catalina is ill, the aggressive nature of the word ‘ravaged’ emphasises her fragility, and the violence of her illness. While she is ravaged by disease, whilst inspecting the library, Noemí notes that a book is ‘ravaged my mould.’[3] It seems, in High Place, that the superior power is bacteria or fungus. Nothing else can stand in its way, animate or inanimate objects are rendered helpless in the face of it. As the story deepens Noemí concludes that everything that the family touches ‘rots.’[4] Although she does not yet know that the family control this fungus for their own ends, it seems that she is beginning to associate the family with decay, not just the conditions of High Place itself.

Following on with this theme, during one her dreams, Noemí imagines that she is being regarded by Virgil, like a ‘butterfly pinned to a velvet cloth.’[5] Virgil is clearly controlling Catalina, and her status as a pinned butterfly references the ongoing conflict between man and nature. In this instance, the Doyle’s are winning this battle, as they control the fungus, and in this specific example, Virgil controls Noemí. She has supplanted Catalina as Virgil’s muse, and her helpless state foreshadows the growing danger that she faces at the hands of the family. She is being watched, and being acted upon in this scenario, as she is being acted upon by the fungus, even though she doesn’t know it.

An interesting image, which is present throughout the novel is the ouroboros. It is essentially the image of a snake that is eating its tail, it serves as the family emblem. The image itself appears to allude to self-destruction, as the snake is ingesting itself. The Doyle family, while using the fungus to stay alive, also destroy themselves to do it, sacrificing family members to the deadly fungus over the centuries. The snake’s self-ingestion may also allude to the history of incest within the family, a trick used by the Doyle’s to ensure their compatibility with the fungus, which is well suited to their bloodline. The infinite nature of the snake alludes to the enduring nature of the fungus and the immortality of the Doyle family.

When the truth is finally revealed, so is the irony of the situation. At the end of the novel Howard is essentially rotting away:

‘His skin was terribly pale… boils… emaciated… boils grew, as thick as barnacles… a corpse afflicted by the ravages of putrefaction, but he lived.’[6]

Howard plans, with the help of the fungus, to take over the body of Francis. In this description, again, the idea of being ravaged comes up, and it appears that Howard is afflicted with some kind of disease akin to the plague. After inhabiting the body of Francis, he plans to marry Noemí to continue the family bloodline. It is ironic that the family’s desire for self-preservation involves their own physical pain and decay. They sacrificed their own family member, Agnes, to host the fungus. Their immortality comes at a great price, and requires them to turn on each other, turn away from reality and from civilisation. Amongst all this destruction, it is further destruction that destroys the family and frees Noemí from the fungus. Agnes’ body is set on fire, and as the host, her demise weakens the family’s connection with the fungus.

At the end of the novel, Francis worries that he may still be infected with the fungus, having been exposed to it for a long time. Noemí assures him that together, they can persevere. A union between Noemí and Francis is hinted at, but not the one that Howard had imagined. Noemí in the novel is representative of the outside world, and it is her influence that saved Francis from his corrupt family. It was she who dragged him away from them and into the outside world. Out of the darkness of High Place, and into the light.

Thanks for reading!

[1] Silvia Moreno-Garcia, Mexican Gothic (London, Jo Fletcher Books, 2020), p. 21.

[2] Ibid., p. 24.

[3] Ibid., p. 38.

[4] Ibid., p. 69.

[5] Ibid., p. 80.

[6] Ibid., p. 203.

‘Bridgerton’ and South Asian Representation

I’ll be honest – the only reason that I watched the second season of Netflix’s ‘Bridgerton’ was to see the story of the Sharma’s. I was not as mesmerised by the first season as other people were and found it to be a bit too romanticised. I described it as period drama that lacked the darkness of Brontë and the sarcastic bite of Austen. However, the announcement that the cast of the second season would feature South Asian characters compelled me to watch. There was not much South Asian presence in the first season of ‘Bridgerton’ and I would allege that there is hardly any on television right now. The Sharma’s, particularly sisters Edwina (Charitha Chandran) and Kathani, or Kate (Simone Ashley) are at the heart of the second season, and with much of the discussion that has come with it.

Something that critics have noted is the historical inaccuracy of the very presence of the Sharma family. Namely, the fact that South Asian people would not have had the chance to rise so highly, and that the show does a disservice to our heritage and culture by not acknowledging Britain’s colonial past. Similar debates erupted around the presence of Lady Danbury and Duke Simon Hastings in the first season. Can we really expect a show like Bridgerton to be historically accurate? It is regency romance after all, which is not a criticism of the genre but just a reminder that it is not designed to be the historical fiction akin to Hilary Mantel’s ‘Wolf Hall.’ And if Kate or Edwina were to chastise the Caucasian characters for the atrocities that Britain committed against India… what would be the point in a show like this? If Kate were to raise this point, we would then see her marry Anthony at the end. Would people then argue that her character was somewhat hypocritical? It is a tricky debate to handle, but ultimately the show is here to entertain, and provide some light-hearted, soapy romance drama in period dress. Should Britain’s colonial past be discussed in this format? It would probably fit better, and strike harder, in a properly researched documentary.

However, this kind of thing does rear its head at an uncomfortable dinner. Kate’s white grandfather threatens to disinherit her because of, what we are told to believe, is sexism. When watching though, it seems like it is there in black and white, or rather brown and white. It then becomes more confusing as we then see an Asian mother chastise her Asian daughter, Lady Mary, for ‘polluting’ the family with her illicit love affair. This is a reference to the fact that Lady Mary’s lover, who she ran away to India with, was not of aristocratic standing. I found the whole thing to be a bit confusing, and I thought, is this a caste thing? The man that Lady Mary ran away with, Kate’s father, was of lower social standing. Could this have been the moment to explore Britain’s colonial conquests and prejudices? But then, would this have worked if the debate erupted between two Asian women?

Rightly or wrongly, what first stood out to me about the Sharma sisters was their skin colour. It is typical of Bollywood films to cast fairer actors and actresses in lead roles, as lighter skin is favoured in India. This is a reflection on the caste system, as labourers would work in the fields, and become more tanned, but also a leftover thought of colonialism in which white people saw themselves as intellectually and physically superior to the people of South Asia. Either way, I, along with family and friends have found it disheartening that our own skin tone is not favoured by our own home country. The fact that a Netflix show with a dark-skinned Indian woman at its heart was, for a time, the most watched show on the streaming service is something that should be praised. Chandran highlighted this when talking to Teen Vogue, noting that no one let her ‘forget’ that she was dark skinned growing up.

However, people have picked up on, and criticised other details about the Sharma family. One big question which has been raised is where the family actually come from. Edwina refers to Kate as ‘didi,’ which is Hindi for sister, yet the latter refers to the former as ‘bon,’ which is Bengali for sister. The Tamil word ‘appa’ is used when the girls refer to their father. Asian surnames also provide information as to where a family may hail from, and their caste, with critics pointing out that those having the northern caste name of ‘Sharma’ would not speak Marathi, a language that comes from Maharashtra, a state in western India. Obviously, India is a mix of hundreds, if not thousands of cultures and languages… but it is probably unlikely that one family interchanges between four different languages every day… or maybe the fictional Sharma’s do? Maybe this was done on purpose to show that the two sisters are accomplished? Or maybe this is just lazy. Maybe the name ‘Sharma’ was chosen just because it shares a prefix with ‘Sheffield.’ The show has said that extensive research was carried out to ensure the Sharma women were authentic… but who carried out this research? I do not really want to go naming and shaming, but, for example, if these researchers were Caucasian, would that just mean that, again, white people are telling Asian stories? It is Asian people that have pointed out these details – they know them without having to research. Surely Asian people are the font of all knowledge when discussing Asian culture and issues… just save time and ask them!

Although their surname could be confusing, upon viewing I was more bugged by the characters’ forenames. I have never been hugely passionate about the diversity debate as I perhaps should be, but one thing that has continually annoyed me is seeing South Asian actors on screen appearing as characters with Anglican or Christian names. A ‘Doctor Who’ special a few years back had an Asian actor appearing as ‘Mitch,’ and I just thought… what is the point? Anyone could have been cast in that role. And would you really meet an Asian man called Mitch? I highly doubt it. It does nothing for Asian representation. American sitcom ‘Parks and Recreations’ blew this out of the water by having Tom Haverford call himself Tom to avoid people getting confused about his real name. This happens in real life, I ‘anglicise’ my own name, so people find it less hard to say. I do not like the way it sounds, but I felt I had to do it. Actress Simone Ashley has done the same thing, her real name being Simone Ashwini Pillai. So, when it was revealed that Kate was in fact ‘Kathani,’ I was pleasantly surprised, and actually appreciative. ‘Kathani’ is also not one of the common Asian names that you see on television, immediately setting Miss Sharma aside from other Asian television characters. It was nice that the show made this extra bit of effort. As for the name ‘Edwina’ however… I will just have to let that one go. In the shows’ defence, I cannot think of how they would have been able to ‘Asian up’ Edwina’s name, without changing it completely.

However, it was nice to see Asian practices on screen, and for me these were the scenes that stuck out. One of the highlights was the Maiyan, or Haldi ceremony, as this is something I have taken part in at family weddings. The string cover of the theme of ‘Kabhi Kushi Kabi Gam’ was also a nice touch. Many people commented on Kathani’s oiling of Edwina’s hair as something that they related to too. This scene spoke to the bonds of South Asian sisterhood, and the closeness of Edwina and Kate in the show.

One Asian practice that did draw criticism though was Kate’s brewing of masala chai. Although it was nice that chai got a mention, and it was funny to see Kate chastise English tea, I agree with her, some criticised Kate’s brewing technique. Other people criticised its inclusion altogether, stating that something built off the back of colonialism should not be included. I am not sure how far I agree with the latter statement, as chai is a huge part of Asian culture. The Sharma’s are not just Indian for the sake of being Indian, the Asian actresses are not there to tick a box, their culture affects and informs their characters. That is the mark of good representation.

Thanks for reading!

Vaisakhi: A Brief History

harpalkhambay's avatarKhambay's Words, Words, Words

Vaisakhi is a festival observed by both Sikhs and Hindus in the Panjab. The festival is usually celebrated on the 13th of April, although in some years it has been celebrated on the 14th. Vaisakhi is a harvest festival for the people of Northern India, and for Hindus, Vaisakhi marks the beginning of the solar New Year. As well as cultural importance, the festival also carries religious significance for Sikhs. Guru Gobind Singh was crowned the tenth Sikh Guru on the 29th of March 1676. He was crowned following the martyrdom of the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Teg Bahadur Singh, who was killed by Emperor Aurangzeb for refusing to convert to Islam. Vaisakhi marks the anniversary in which Guru Gobind Singh formed the Khalsa, on the 13th of April 1699. On this day, Guru Gobind Singh asked Sikhs to gather at Shri Anandpur Sahib and…

View original post 479 more words

‘Wuthering Heights’ at the National Theatre: An Analysis

Emily Brontë’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ is famously hard to adapt, in part because of the non-linear narrative and the nature of the protagonists. While the book has legions of fans, including myself, it is not difficult to understand why people would find Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff irritating, and why readers would find the narrative, and therefore book in general, difficult to get into. I feel like this is where Emma Rice’s adaptation of ‘Wuthering Heights’ both succeeds and fails.

Beginning with the narrative, Rice makes a bold, but good move, in cutting out the character of Nelly Dean, and replacing her with the character of ‘the Moor,’ (Nandi Bhebhe) which can be compared to a Greek chorus. Through song and dance, ‘the Moor’ tells Lockwood the story of the Heights. Critics often refer to the landscape as its own character, and one that influences all other action within the novel. Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s own volatility and wide nature reflect the untameable landscape. Just like Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s own connection with each other, they also share an unbreakable relationship with the land, first living on it and then returning to it in death. Rice takes this idea and personifies the landscape, making their connection even more tangible and explicit. This move also cuts the character of Nelly Dean and the many problems that she brings, namely her unreliability as a narrator.

The play is also quite good as continually demonstrating the otherness of the inhabitants of ‘Wuthering Heights.’ At the beginning Lockwood is seen struggling to fight against the harsh winds of the Moors, in a somewhat comical scene… but more on comedy later. Heathcliff, Hareton and Cathy Linton enter the scene, and are unaffected by the harshness of the weather. Immediately, the audience is aware that these characters are of a different breed to Lockwood, quite literally, as children of the Moors and of Yorkshire in general. The ghost of Catherine Earnshaw is seen in the background, at times wailing and screaming to imitate the harshness of the weather. In death, been subsumed by the landscape, physically, as she is buried within the Earth, and spiritually as her actions and movements reflect the harsh landscape.

While these points were all good, I did however think that Catherine Earnshaw was a weak link in the production. Not because of Lucy McComick’s acting ability but probably how she was directed. The dialogue was pretty faithful to the book, and in the book Catherine can be pretty unlikeable. It is up to the director and actress to find the subtlety, nuance and vulnerability in Catherine, as without that, the audience will not root for her. There was much screaming and wailing, which dampened the parts of the book where Catherine is supposed to be screaming and wailing, namely when she is losing her grip on reality towards the end of her life. By having her scream and wail pretty much all of the time, the impact of her final moments is lost… as she has been behaving this way all throughout the play.

When Catherine returned from Thrushcross Grange after being bitten by Skulker, she was dressed in a huge gown with big, puffy sleeves. It was like something out of a pantomime, and the whole performance was very camp. She seemed like a petulant child imitating maturity, when in the book it is made clear that she has matured, and is not as fierce as she was before. It was just all a bit jarring – but camping up her sense of newfound propriety, it just felt quite fake and unconvincing. When in the book, it is convincing to a degree… as she does change, as reflected when she chastises Heathcliff for his appearance. What is good though, is how she observes all the action for the remainder of the play – Catherine is always present, just as she is always present for Heathcliff.

Heathcliff, played by Ash Hunter, has some interesting additions. A line that stood out was when he was referred to as ‘black granite.’ Rice chose to portray Heathcliff as black, picking up on some of the hints of the novel. The idea of granite also links to Heathcliff resembling the ‘eternal rocks beneath’ as Cathy explains in her ‘I am Heathcliff’ speech. We also get to see Heathcliff’s childhood briefly in Liverpool, in which he is played by a puppet. It’s another good way of othering him from the other cast members. Despite this, he remains fairly the same throughout the play. There is no kind of crescendo, to his rage and anger which was building throughout the first half. He broods constantly, but never quite flips. In cutting his death scene, and the days leading up to it robbed Hunter of some good material to work with, as Heathcliff becomes increasingly volatile, yet vulnerable in his last few days. I feel like in most adaptations, and the book, Heathcliff becomes crueller and more volatile as the story progresses… and I did not see much progression. Heathcliff always seemed quite broody and restrained.

The play did try to mark the difference between characters through the use of comedy. The Linton’s and Frances are key examples, the former being overly pompous and the latter appearing as a somewhat dim-witted. These characterisations were used well, especially as they were minor characters. Frances was not around for long, and her overly feminine nature was used to mark her difference between Catherine. Although initially comedic, Isabella is later seen as a sympathetic figure, after her marriage to Heathcliff.

It is Linton Heathcliff (Katy Owen) that commits the crime of becoming too pantomime and therefore irritating. In a play that is inherently dark, it is incredibly jarring to watch a character for the entirety of the second half trying, and in my opinion failing, to be funny, through the use of short, snappy lines and physicality. Linton is sympathetic in the book, he is not a clown, and he is treated horribly by Heathcliff and forced to subject Cathy Linton to imprisonment. In the play, he is an irritating whose death could not come soon enough… and even this death was incredibly dragged out. He dominates the shorter second half, to the point at which Heathcliff’s death scene is not even witnessed properly but mentioned in passing by the Moor. Linton’s role should have been dramatically reduced, and it is partly his fault that the second half lost its way.

The play also ends like a rom com, with Hareton appearing in a pinny having just baked a Victoria sponge. Yes, Cathy softens him, but again, this jump is so jarring… and unnecessary. There are petals falling on the stage, and singing, the focus totally shifting from the previous generation. The play is rife with tonal extremes creating an overall feeling of tonal imbalance.

The structuring of the play also does not help this, as at the beginning we are given a lot of exposition about how all the characters are related. Why? Show don’t tell. It surely would be easier for the audience to just watch than to have all characters thrown at them, especially characters who all share similar names. The first half is longer than the second and ends with Cathy’s death. Surely the natural break is when Cathy and Edgar get married, as three years pass? This would allow a bit of time to digest what we have seen – it would make the time lapse more visceral, instead it happens straight away. It also robs the second half of having a better structure, and having more plot points to work with, as all we get is Linton ranting for most of the time.

The play definitely has good moments, and really inventive ideas, but I feel like structure and some of the key characterisations let it down.

Thanks for reading!

‘A Doll’s House’ and ‘The Merchant’s Tale’: Hidden Truths Will Always Be Revealed

In ‘A Doll’s House’ and ‘The Merchant’s Tale,’ secrets drive the plot forward, and their reveal occurs at the climax of each respective work. A hidden truth can be interpreted as a known secret that it kept secret deliberately, which makes the reader question why, and for whose benefit. When discussing truth and secrecy in these two texts one must also debate the impact of the revelations of such information, and their impact on the narrative. When looking at these texts it is fair to say that the truth is always revealed.

In Chaucer’s ‘The Merchant’s Tale’ and Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House,’ the reveal of May’s adultery and Nora’s secret loan form the basis of the climax of each text. In this respect, one can argue that the truth is always revealed, as the deception of the female protagonists is clearly unmasked, unfortunately for them. For Nora, the reveal that it was she who “saved Torvald’s life” is a surprise to Mrs Linde as well as the audience, who are quickly made aware that such an act was illegal in 1879. In the Victorian era, women and men were expected to operate in separate spheres, the woman being primarily concerned with the home, and the husband dealing with finance and business. Nora’s exits her own sphere by taking out the loan, and signing “papa’s name there” illegally. This emphasises the seriousness of the loan, and the need for it to remain secret, especially as Nora notes that Helmer would not want to “owe” anything to her. However, through the intervention of Krogstad and his “letter” Helmer learns of the loan, despite Nora’s protests against Krogstad’s plans. This demonstrates that the truth will always be revealed. May’s clandestine affair with Damyan is exposed when Januarie’s “sighte” is restored by Pluto. Although Nora kept her secret for the good and health of her husband, May’s secrecy appears selfish as she wishes to indulge in sexual pleasure. Perhaps one can sympathise with her from this perspective after her unpleasant wedding night with Januarie. Despite their different motivations, the reveal of the transgressions of Nora and May demonstrate that hidden truths are always revealed.

One must also assess the fallouts of the revelations within both texts to ascertain the writers’ approach to truth and secrecy. When looking at May, one could debate whether her deception is even revealed, as she manages to convince Januarie that what she did was to restore his sight. She notes that he has no “parfit sighte,” and that he who “misconcyveth, he misdemeth.” After Januarie’s revelation that he does genuinely care for her, perhaps he ignores her adultery, or is convinced that there is none. His act of stroking her “wombe” may demonstrate his acknowledgement of his illegitimate heir, or his obliviousness to her affair altogether. It was worse for a woman to have an affair, as her illegitimate child would not have the same family blood as her husband. When discussing the ending of the fabliau, it could be argued that truths are not always fully exposed, if we are to believe that May convinced Januarie that she was not unfaithful. From this perspective, it could be argued that writers note that the protagonists get their most desired outcome when the truth is revealed. If Januarie is acknowledging an illegitimate heir, May’s clandestine affair with Damyan may continue, effectively giving her what she wants. It should be noted that the greatest lies told in both texts come from women, which is perhaps inspired by the biblical figure of Eve and her eating of the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. Eve too fulfills the same function in Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost.’ This emphasies the severity of their defeat, as women were seen to be “creatures of an organised tyranny of men,” as argued by Eleanor Marx. This view argues that women were subservient to men, implying that their deception carries greater ramifications as it was not expected of them to rebel against man. There is no debate as to whether Nora’s secret remains ambiguous, as it is detailed in Krogstad’s letter as “delicately” as possible. Nora too realises what she wants after her deception is revealed, perhaps implying that when truth is revealed, it is so for the better.

Helmer’s reaction to the IOU makes Nora realises that there are no “miracles,” and this prompts her to realise that she is more than Helmer’s “songbird.” Nora’s wish, that Helmer would be able to “bear the burden” for them both fails to materialise, making her truly understand the man she married, and their marriage. She notes that she has just had “fun” and that her and Helmer had never exchanged a “serious word on a serious subject.” Nora realises that she is “first and foremost a human being,” and that she must get “some” experience of the world. Michael Meyer notes that the play explores everybody’s need “to find out the kind of person he or she really is, and to strive to become that person.” Before becoming that person, Nora must discover who she is, and the revelation of truth about the IOU prompts her to see her unrealized truth. This truth cannot be classed as one that is hidden purpose, but one that develops and is realised towards the end of act three. This can be likened to Holman Hunt’s painting ‘The Awakening Consciousness’ in which a woman struggles to break free of her husband’s grasp while gazing out of the window. It is conceivable to think that like Nora, this figure realises her own entrapment and wishes to break free. Nora only realises this with the revealing of her secret, leading the reader to believe that revelations of truth benefit those who are harbouring it. Nora gains her chance to discover who she is, through the revelation of her deception.

It is ironic that both females were so reluctant to give up their secrets despite the positive impact that it had, or could possibly have, on their lives. The revealing of their secrets allows the women to get what they want, although it is not they who give their secrets away. If it were their choice, hidden truths would have remained unrevealed, as it is external forces that forced their hands. Krogstad notes that he has the “means” to make Nora reveal her secrets, and does so despite her protests. Pluto’s gifting of Januarie’s “sighte” also reveals May’s adultery. It is interesting to note that although women hold these secrets over their husbands, which grant them a degree of power, it is other men that undo them and cause their downfall. Perhaps this can be linked to the words of Mary Wollstonecraft, who notes that women only want “power over themselves.” May and Nora lack that power as their deception is unveiled by male external forces that dominate them. From a feminist perspective, it could be argued that men are oppressing women, and not allowing them to make decisions for themselves. When discussing truth and secrecy, perhaps the writers of these novels are more negative towards women who harbour secrets, and require a man to do the moral, just thing of unveiling the truth. This demonstrates that men, perhaps, are the morally superior figures in these stories, as the women are portrayed as liars. Martin Steven’s agrees noting that Chaucer’s tale shows the “deceitfulness of women.” This could link in particular, to Chaucer’s own view of marriage. Chaucer’s sister in law was the wife of wealthy knight John of Gaunt, and it was rumoured that Chaucer’s wife was having an affair with Gaunt. Perhaps Chaucer’s own unhappy marriage inspired the character of May, the deceitful, adulterous wife.

Although these truths seemingly have a positive outcome, in both texts revelations of love and passion have the opposite affect. Chaucer’s fabliau is a satire of courtly love, an idea that Chaucer understood well after his translating of the French Romantic text of ‘The Romance of the Rose.’ Instead of completing a daring act of love, Damyan instead writes a note using a pen he “borwe” and secretly hands it to May. The fact that he had to borrow the pen emphasises how unequipped he is for the role of courtly lover. David L Shores notes that this acts as a “condemnation of courtly love convention,” arguing that Damyan displays no conventional aspects of the courtly lover. Damyan’s confession, that he is possessed with “Venus fyr” ultimately paves the way for the rest of the tale, and the birth of May’s secret. In this respect again, hidden truths appear always to be revealed, as can be seen in Damyan’s confession of love and the whole affair at the end of the tale. The difference here is that Damyan’s confession has a negative impact, most notably on the character of Januarie, who is being cuckolded.

Dr Rank too harbours his love and desire for Nora, and the revealing of this truth does not have a positive impact on his beloved. After declaring that he is ready to serve her, “body and soul,” Nora backs away declaring that it was “quite unnecessary.” This confession is a selfish one, as Rank has been harbouring this love for years. In this respect, again, hidden truths are always revealed, even if they are not well received. Despite this reveal, the details of Nora and Rank’s secret conversation in act three remain a secret, and act as a farewell between Nora and Rank, when she supplies him with the “light.” Such light could mean Nora herself and her spirit, which has sustained Rank for so long. In the case of Dr Rank, although some truths remain undeciphered, such as his conversation with Nora, his greatest secret is truly revealed.

Both Januarie and Helmer have an internal moral blindness to their own situations and failings. Januarie’s sexual prowess is revealed to be a fantasy by May, who claimed that his “laboureth” was not “worth a bene.” The façade of Januarie’s love making is revealed to the reader, and to May. Although this may not fall into the category of a hidden truth, as Januarie accepts it as truth and is oblivious to any other interpretation. Januarie is physically turned “blynd” by Pluto, and it is during this period that Januarie begins to realise his own failings. He notes that he is “jalos,” but that May should not take any notice. Januarie is humbled by the experience of being blind, and it appears that this is the only time that he can see clearly. It is ironic that during this time May is with the “lechour in the tree.” Throughout the poem the reader see’s the extravagant, virile image of the “Knyght” fall away, as he too acknowledges his own failings.

Unlike Janurie, Helmer displays this blindness throughout the play, and it does not falter. When Nora reveals her “duty to herself” Helmer combats this by arguing that she is firstly “a wife and mother.” Helmer shows no empathy and understanding towards her situation, much in contrast to Januarie and his wife. Helmer keeps denying and arguing with Nora, despite the audience’s agreement with her. When declaring that Helmer and her father have done a great “wrong” to her, Helmer notes that it was these two people hat loved her “most in the world.” Raymond Williams see’s the marriage of Helmer and Nora as “anti-romantic,” due to Helmer’s lack of empathy towards Nora and her situation. Although Nora reveals her true feelings to Helmer, following his learning of the IOU, he personally does not accept the truth, leaving one to question whether Nora’s truth is fully revealed. Or, like May’s adultery, one could argue that Helmer and Januarie’s understanding of the truth is somewhat ambiguous and may not be as clear cut as a fully understood revelation. It is at this point that Nora realizes she must leave, as Helmer does not understand her at all.    Nora’s deception, May’s adultery, Rank’s love and Januarie’s inadequacy are all examples of hidden and suppressed truths that have been revealed in these two texts. It is clear that in some of these examples, the truth has benefitted the characters that have been deceiving, like Nora, who realizes what she wants to achieve in her life. Januarie’s ambiguity at the end of ‘The Merchant’s Tale’ may also reveal that May has been allowed to continue her clandestine affair with Damyan. In these two texts, hidden truths are mostly revealed, albeit by external factors at time.

Thanks for reading!

Bhangraland is open! An interview with children’s author Kiran Lyall

Ready my interview with children’s book author Kiran Lyall here!

#WorldBookDay

https://www.funjabituition.com/post/bhangraland-is-open-an-interview-with-author-kiran-lyall

Read more about the history of Bhangra here:

Bhangra: A Brief History

Thanks for reading!

Were there major changes in the role of Parliament from 1529 to 1588?

It can be argued that until 1529, the monarch only rarely summoned parliament, and it appears that their main function was to grant taxation to fund wars. Parliament had only met four times between 1509 and 1529 for this reason. It is only from 1529 that one can see that Parliament met much more frequently, as Henry needed their aid to break with the Roman Catholic Church, during the Reformation. From this point, the influence and power of Parliament began to dramatically increase. Parliament appeared to be more involved, and more assertive, implying that there were major changes in the role of Parliament in the years 1529 to 1588, as they appeared to enable religious and financial change in England, making them a useful tool for the reigning monarch.

There were major changes in the role of Parliament from 1529 to 1588, beginning with the meeting of the Reformation Parliament in 1529. To secure his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and take full control of his country, Henry decided to break with the Catholic Church in Rome, a seven-year struggle in which the action of parliament was vital. It is in this instance that the role of parliament can be seen to change dramatically when concerning religion. Royal Supremacy was eventually achieved in 1534, with Henry adding “Supreme Head” to his title the following year. A series of parliament acts enabled this, beginning with the significant Dispensations Act in 1534. This followed the First Act of Annates in 1532, which reduced all payments to Rome to five percent; leading to the Dispensations Act, which formally forbade all payments to Rome. This act made it clear to Henry and Cromwell that events were moving in the direction in which they intended, and that, in England, the role and presence of Rome was being reduced significantly. The Act of the Payment of the First Fruits stated that taxes that went to Rome when one was appointed a clerical position now went to Henry, and through this act of parliament, by 1536 Henry was receiving fifty-one thousand, seven hundred pounds. Financially, the Catholic Church in Rome was isolated from England, and now what only remained was the declaration of Henry’s supremacy. It was through the second parliament Act of Supremacy in November 1534 that Henry was granted caesaropapism. This meant that Henry was now in charge of land and the church. In the following months the role of the Pope was denounced, showing that there were major changes in the role of parliament during the Reformation as the acts they passed restricted the financial burden Catholicism opposed on England, and the role of the Pope in relation to religion. It can be seen that parliament’s role greatly changed in this respect, as they became concerned with matters in Rome as well as in England, and it was they who granted Henry Royal Supremacy, finally giving him the power that he had longed for. The events of the 1530’s also led to the idea of ‘king-in-parliament.’ This was the idea that the most powerful force in the country was the King when he acted with parliament, as opposed to him acting alone. The idea restricted Henry to an extent, as without working with parliament, his power decreased. This demonstrates how dramatically the role of parliament changed, as after securing the break with Rome, the King was seen to hold less power without the help of parliament. Parliament had initially been unequal to the monarch, but now it appeared equal if not more important, as without parliament’s support, Henry did not have full control over the Church or his country. The Reformation also increased parliamentary power for the long term, as it was only through parliament acts that previous laws, regarding the Reformation, could be reversed by Mary I. Throughout her reign (1553 to 1558) parliament was again used to change the religious status of England, as she reversed the religious changes that Henry VIII and Edward VI made in 1553 and 1554. Her aim was to restore England to Catholicism and back to Rome. Beginning with the meeting of the Reformation Parliament, the role of Parliament majorly changed, as politicians became far more concerned with matters of religion, and made decisions that affected England on a large, and global, scale. The growing power and influence of Parliament led to politicians becoming more assertive and, in their eyes, authoritative, particularly under Elizabeth I. After Sir Francis Walsingham discovered the Babington Plot in 1586, Parliament gathered a case against Mary Queen of Scots. It was discovered that a group of Catholics, led by Anthony Babington and John Ballard, planned to assassinate Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne. In this case, Parliament had a great influence over the indecisive Elizabeth, and Cecil forced her to sign the death warrant of her cousin, Mary. It was dispatched without Elizabeth’s permission, highlighting the audacity of those in Parliament, as they had defied the wish of the reigning monarch, demonstrating that their role had greatly changed, as here they took action without Elizabeth’s consent, even though she had always tried to use her royal prerogative as a means to restrict Parliament’s power. As well as their power, Cecil believed he had a great enough authority to dispatch the warrant highlighting the major changes in the role of parliament. Parliament’s role greatly increased in the early 1530’s, due to their prolific role in the religious matters of England, which gave them a greater importance and responsibility than in previous years. Parliament’s granting of Henry’s Royal Supremacy gave them great power and position, as without their help England would not have broken with Rome. This led to them having a greater sense of authority. For parliament, their success continued as people began to see Henry as less powerful without the aid of parliament. This greater sense of authority led to the assertive Parliament of Elizabeth I throughout her reign, as demonstrated by the way in which Mary Queen of Scots was dealt with in 1587. This bolder approach from Parliament stemmed from their heightened importance and role, beginning with the inauguration of the Reformation Parliament in 1529, as here the role of parliament changed majorly, due to their heavy involvement with religion and the break with Rome, leading to their increased power. 

However, it could be argued that there were not major changes in the role of parliament in the years 1529 to 1588, as there were only moderate ones. It appeared that over the course of Henry VIII’s reign, and at the start of Edward VI’s, parliament was used to alter and change the line of succession. There were three Succession Acts in March 1554, June 1536 and July 1543. After both being declared bastards, and being removed from the line of succession, Mary and Elizabeth were returned to it in 1543. Parliament was relied upon to alter the line of succession as Henry wished, and this can be seen as a moderate change in the role of Parliament as the decisions that were made did not grant Henry as much control as his Royal Supremacy. Parliament’s role changed, in the context of succession, due to the frequent changing of it. Parliament’s continuing assertiveness throughout the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I led to conflict within the Parliament of Elizabeth I. In 1563 and 1566, the issue of succession was raised against Elizabeth’s wishes, as the issue had to be debated. This can be seen as a change in Parliament, as in previous years such an issue would not have been raised and challenged without permission of the monarch. However, as Parliament felt authoritative enough to incite the discussion, it can be decided that the role and status of Parliament had increased, due to the important role it had played in matters, such as the Reformation. Their discussion would have been unimaginable during Henry’s reign. Elizabeth did not respond well to their intervention, and sought to restrict Parliament. She suggested that they only discussed matters of ‘commonweal,’ which were matters concerning common good and the country. This led to the Freedom of Speech conflict, causing tension between Elizabeth and the House of Commons. In comparison, Henry’s Supremacy was a major change in the role of Parliament as they had the power to bestow such great authority on him, which does not compare to alterations to the succession, as it did not increase the authority of Henry and Parliament as much as the Reformation had, making this a moderate change. Also, despite the assertiveness of her parliament, Elizabeth was still in charge, unlike the Reformation when it was mainly Parliament alone that secured the break with Rome and gave Henry Supremacy, making this also a moderate change. This would lead to the conclusion that there were only moderate changes in the role of Parliament. 

On the contrary, it could be argued that there were only minimal changes in the role of Parliament between 1529 and 1588. Although Parliament was well utilised to break with Rome, it can be argued that even in this instance, this was achieved primarily through financial alterations made by Parliament. Before the summoning of the Reformation Parliament, Parliament was infrequently called to grant taxation, in order to fund wars. Parliament’s attacks on Rome initially began by reducing the amount of money that was sent to Rome by England, implying that although the task at hand was much greater, Parliament still approached the matter from a similar financial perspective, citing the minimal changes in their role, beginning with the first Act of Annates in 1532. The first actions of Parliament were purely based on matters to do with money, as they first sought to limit the amount of money Rome received from England. The Dispensations Act cut off all payments in 1534, and it was only in this year that ideas about Royal Supremacy began to take shape. It was the preamble of Cromwell’s draft of the Act of Restraint of Appeals in April 1533 that originally outlined Henry and Cromwell’s initial vision of Supremacy. It was this act that prevented Catherine appealing to the Pope. As the idea of Supremacy only began to form four years after the original Reformation Parliament was called, it can be argued that the role of Parliament changed minimally, as during the Reformation they were primarily concerned with matters to do with money. It could even be argued that Royal Supremacy was not part of Henry’s original plan and vision, but it was Cromwell’s initiative that brought the subject to discussion, further emphasising the idea that Parliament had planned to formally break with Rome in an economical sense, by reducing the amount of money they received from England. Parliament continued to debate over financial matters, such as the ‘First Fruit and Tenths’ bill in 1555, which kept the House sitting until three ‘o’ clock in the afternoon, which as seen to be abnormally late. Although this bill intended to change the decisions of Henry VIII, by returning money to the Church, it reinforces the idea that majority of changes and topics that were debated in Parliament were based on money, implying that the role of parliament changed minimally, as before, during and after, the Reformation parliament primarily concerned itself with financial matters. 

It is highly accurate to say that there were major changes in the role of Parliament in 1529 to 1588, due to their large role in the religious matters of England. The increased power of Parliament stems mainly from their role in the Reformation, and securing the separation from the Roman Catholic Church. Henry’s great reliance on Parliament in this period gave parliament a greater sense of power, as without their support, Henry would not have been able to secure his divorce and the reform he also desired. These events led parliament to have a greater authority which then allowed them to challenge following monarchs on matters such as Mary Queen of Scots’ execution in 1588. The Reformation appears to be the pinnacle of Parliament’s power, as it was during this time that the idea of the ‘king-in-parliament’ came into being, suggesting that without the aid of parliament, Henry was less powerful, emphasising the fundamentality of parliament. As parliament were essential to him and were greatly needed, one can see that the role of Parliament majorly changed in the years 1529 to 1588, due to their essential role played in the Reformation. 

Thanks for reading!