Well I have to say that I feel relieved today that the temperatures have dropped slightly. When it gets above 25 degrees I find myself unable to do very much at all and seem to drift rather aimlessly  from one activity to another not settling to anything meaningful until late evening. However, yesterday saw a trip to London to visit the Thomas Becket exhibition at the British Museum. I met a long standing (not old!) friend. We had lunch then wandered round the exhibition marvelling at the various gilded reliquaries, illuminated texts and alabaster panels and reflecting on how, whilst so much changes over 900, years in some ways things are remarkably recognisable, particularly when it comes to questions of power.

In case you do not know the story Thomas Becket was a second generation French immigrant born around 1120 in London. His father was a merchant, not particularly wealthy or powerful. However, Thomas received an education and eventually gained employment as a clerk to the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Theobald. Recognising his talent Theobald suggested Henry II appoint him as Chancellor of England. Becket and Henry became great friends and Becket  enjoyed the delights of wealth giving lavish parties and decorating his home with beautiful furnishings.  When Theobald died Henry thought it might be useful to appoint Becket as Archbishop as it would enable him, Henry, to have greater power over the Church. Interesting that, at the time, you didn’t have to be a priest to be appointed Archbishop!!

However, after his appointment Becket began to change. He gave up his role as Chancellor, against Henry’s wishes and found himself increasingly disagreeing with his King. One of the areas of disagreement was over the trial of men who had taken ‘minor orders’ and were so considered to be ‘clergy’. This amounted to something like one fifth of the male population. Becket and the Church maintained that they should be tried by the Church. Church punishments were considerably more lenient than those imposed by the secular courts. Henry wanted all such trials to be conducted by his courts and argued that the Church was in effect undermining the law of the land. 

Conflict increased and Becket exiled himself to France where he continued to try to undermine the King threatening him with ecclesiastical punishments and excommunicating many of Henry’s advisors.  He really was a thorn in Henry’s side and the story goes that in a fit of frustration Henry expressed a desire to be rid of him. Becket returned to Canterbury where in December 1170 he was assassinated by four knights. After his death he became seen as a martyr and was made a saint in 1173.

To my mind this is essentially the story of a conflict of power between two men and historians may differ in their analysis attributing the role of hero or villain depending on their own particular perspectives and biases. For my money I don’t feel particularly drawn to venerate Thomas Becket!

However, on Thursday evening I watched the Dominic Cummings interview and couldn’t help but see the parallels. We have King Boris the clown with his Etonian heritage and Dom from working stock in the North East but with an incisive intellect.  Whilst each might be claiming that their actions are in the county’s best interest that seems to be entirely secondary to their own need to exert  power.  Cummings seems intent on bringing down the PM and revels in the way in which he has used ‘factual’ data to serve his own Brexit ends.  I find him arrogant and manipulative. I suspect I would have had similar feelings about Thomas Becket!  However, perhaps we have moved forward in that it is very unlikely that if Boris wishes the thorn in his side to be removed that anyone would take a sword to Dom!  And it is extremely unlikely that we will end up with Saint Dominic even if one day people conclude that Brexit really was in the country’s best interest!!  Who knows? Certainly not me.

PS

In the gift shop I could have bought a Becket squeaky duck. How are the mighty fallen!