The Wars of the Roses on Screen and in Print

Lancaster and York: The Wars of the Roses (Alison Weir)
From the point of view of a student that has loved the Tudors and the two factions of York and Lancaster for years, this book gives a very in depth view of the beginnings, endings and effects of the Cousins’ War.

Very much like the book by Orlando Figes, it encompasses: the society at the time, the people and the political regime of the time. “The Burgundian chronicler Philippe de Commines thought the English a choleric, earthy, and volatile people, who nevertheless made good, brave soldiers. In fact he regarded their warlike inclinations as one of the chief causes of the Wars of the Roses. If they could not fight the French, he believed, they fought each other.” Using quotes like this, she shows the brutal, violent and warrior-like medieval world and how this warring culture helped fuel the flames of the wars. She shows how the lords needed the people and the people needed the lords; that the factions could not win without the commons people support.

It showed how women also played a key role in the battles and that the world of politics was not so clean cut. Battles were never decisively in one faction’s favour, they were brutal to both sides and people would always sway to the winning side. The book grasped the idea that even though the War of the Roses wasn’t as big of an event as most historians describe, it was still an event that changed English history and showed that: propaganda, the commons and the alliances were key to the various victories. And that even though: “A king was the Lord’s anointed, hallowed at his coronation with holy oil” it could easily be changed by political power.

The White Queen - TV Series (BBC)
Based on Philippa Gregory's novels, this mini-series gives us a romanticised vision of the Wars of the Roses. Although it shows the various events during the wars and the political rivalry between the Woodvilles and the Nevilles, because it is a TV production there are a few glamourised scenes and events that are glossed over.

I believe that it showcases the women in the period very well (mainly because it is based on novels on the three women), but also the show stuck to the women's’ actions and personalities well. It was a very much surrounded around the three women on the show, but it didn’t hesitate to satisfy the male viewers with various gory scenes of warfare.

However, I would have liked there to be a brief view into the history prior to the War of the Roses. Due to this lack of insight into the beginnings of the rivalry between the houses of York and Lancaster, the house of Lancaster was generally show negatively. It did not show the awful reign of Richard II, or the usurpation of Henry IV and his successful descendant Henry V who died young leaving an infant Henry VI as king who with his wife helped catalyse the events of the Cousins’ War. Because of this romanticised view of the Yorkists and King Edward IV, it was made to seem that the Lancasters were destined for loss until the arrival of Henry VII.

The use of witchcraft is pure fiction, however it is a nice touch that relates to the heritage of Elizabeth Woodville and her mother who was supposedly descended from a water goddess. Overall however, the show is a very good modern-day adaptation of the medieval rivalry and does showcase the rise and fall of both York and Lancaster, however it is a romanticised idyll of the wars to satisfy period drama lovers. SL

Cromwell's Second Rise - The 'Wolf Hall' Phenomenon

Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell, in the BBC's upcoming adaptation (source)

With our TV listings this January jam-packed with Tudor dramas and documentaries, and new editions of Mantel’s books hitting the shelves, it seems that Thomas Cromwell is rising as fast and high in 2015 as he did in Henry VIII’s day. Cromwell has had his fair mix of good and bad press in historical dramas (as shown in Tracy Borman’s  recent article here) but it’s Mantel who’s really captured the public’s imagination.

Now, I’m fairly new to all this hullabaloo. His reign was what first got me interested in history, but for a long time, I avoided Henry VIII like the plague, thinking that he’s overrated and very ‘popular history’. It wasn’t Thomas Cromwell, or even Wolf Hall, that brought me back, shame-faced, into the Tudor fanbase, but now that I’m here, I’m buzzing about the upcoming BBC series, based on Mantel’s writings, as much as anyone else.

Discussing her books, Mantel has stated that what she writes is fiction woven around the facts, but that she tries to keep it as accurate as possible. That said, pinpoint historical accuracy is now being plugged as the Unique Selling Point of the BBC series. Both Mantel and director Peter Kaminsky have said that they envisioned it being filmed almost as a documentary from Cromwell’s point of view, and Dr Lucy Worsley has walked away from the set with her only criticism being that Jane Seymour (played by Kate Philipps, image here) is ‘too pretty’. (Dr Worsley’s article is here.) All this historical hype really does beg the question: how much should we trust the series?

I’m willing to take Dr Worsley’s word for it that the practical details are accurate (the costumes, ceremonies, use of cutlery, the state of the lawn, you name it), but having read Wolf Hall and seen both of the RSC productions, and I think it really does depend on the script and how the actors tackle it. Having seen him in various productions, I’m confident that Mark Rylance, playing our scheming Master Secretary, will deliver, and that Mark Gatiss’ Stephen Gardiner will be every bit as scathing and grandiose as the real bishop’s prose. Claire Foy, in her French hoods and stunning gowns, has already won me over as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn.

The problem is, I had the same compliments to make about the RSC production. It was stunningly acted. Yet there was something amiss. Mantel’s books capture the essence of most of the characters brilliantly, with just enough exaggeration to make them memorable. (How else is a casual reader to remember which Thomas is which? One quickly labels Cromwell, Wolsey, More, Howard, Boleyn and Cranmer as Our Tom, Cardinal Tom, Honest Tom, Old Tom, Monseigneur Tom and Quiet Tom.) The problem with the RSC production is that when you take away the subtleties of Mantel’s work, condensing two books into six hours, they quickly become caricatures. Lovely caricatures though they be in some cases, figures like Norfolk, Suffolk and George Boleyn really do draw the short straw. (Poor George always seems to draw the short straw, no matter who writes him. And his wife, for that matter.)

The thing is, the RSC production seems to have been aiming for comedy, in the first play at least. The BBC service isn’t. I worry for characters like Thomas More. His portrayal in the books is certainly no Man of All Seasons, and has drawn a great deal of criticism. I’m no expert on More, but I do like to see one who is less than saintly. In the RSC’s Wolf Hall, he comes across as incredibly harsh and self-centred. In the books, on the other hand, I feel a great deal of sympathy for him. The TV series is likely to bring some of that sympathy across, seeing as Margaret Roper – More’s much-loved daughter, who did not feature in the play – has been cast, but it will largely depend, I think, on the directing.

Ben Miles and John Ramm as Cromwell and More in the RSC's Wolf Hall (source)

On the other hand, I do know a fair bit about Thomas Cranmer, and I find it difficult to fault cautious, candid, politically naïve scholar we see in Mantel’s books. (One thing I will say though, to add to Lucy Worsley’s criticism of the TV casting, I am disheartened to see a bearded Cranmer at Anne Boleyn’s coronation (image here) when the unwritten rule was that good Catholic priests were clean-shaven. Only a minor niggle.) Giles Taylor’s interpretation in the RSC production was certainly endearing, but would probably look incredibly out of place in the BBC drama, and it could be difficult to get Cranmer’s subtle personality across without the aid of Mantel’s prose.

I think this – the removal of Mantel’s prose – is what’s most dangerous about both the RSC and BBC productions. Without the subtleties of her writing, and the brilliant insight we get into Cromwell, her flaws are much easier to notice. The misinterpretations of some of the Boleyns will be that much clearer, and other characters may be reduced to mere shadows, or villains, or saints. This is inevitable with any editing project as large as this, but in a production that has prided itself on its historical accuracy, it does set off a few alarm bells in me.

Where I think the strength of the TV production lies is in Cromwell himself. Rylance has shown himself willing to find the threads of comedy in everything in the past, tragedies included, but I trust him to play this part straight. What we get, therefore, is a Cromwell who still remains mysterious to us, who still begs us to ask whether he looks like a murderer. In Bring Up the Bodies (the book), when Cromwell is playing the ruthless schemer, we know him well enough to consider him as our ruthless schemer, and I think the TV series will help to bring that edge back.

I might post something once all six episodes have aired, but these are my thoughts so far.

Of course, the Tudor hype this January doesn’t begin and end with Wolf Hall. Tomorrow (the 10^th) at 9pm on BBC2 we have David Starkey teaming up with Lucy Worsley to present Britain’s Tudor Treasure: A Night at Hampton Court, to celebrate 500 years of the palace by reconstructing Edward VI’s christening. We also have documentaries later in the month about accidental Tudor deaths and Hans Holbein. Even if you don’t buy into historical fiction and period dramas, there’s still plenty to watch!

V.G

The Musketeers

I’ve been meaning to write this blog for a while and I’ve finally gotten round to it! You lucky, lucky people. 

Now, for the past few weeks, I’ve been watching The Musketeers (which is excellent and on at 9pm tonight on BBC 1) and I have decided to let you all know who they are because I’ve been watching this for ages and I barely know myself. 

I’m back from google-ing.

The Musketeers come from the French historical novel ‘The Three Musketeers’ by Alexandre Dumas in 1844. It is set in the 1600s where D’Artagnan (my favourite from the TV series) meets the three musketeers: Athos, Porthos and Aramis (who I always get confused, but who cares when D’Artagnan’s there). But, anyway even if you didn’t know their names (like me up until five minutes ago), I think everyone knows their motto “all for one and one for all” which was first put forward by D’Artagnan.

And don’t think that Dumas just made these people up, oh no, Dumas did very good research because these ‘musketeers’ were real. They were an “early modern type of infantry soldier equipped with a musket” as stated in my favourite, oh-so-reliable source; Wikipedia. However, there are some differences between what the TV show depicts and what actually happened. For example, in episode four, it shows them acting as body guards/ welcoming the Duke of Savoy, when really the musketeers were one of the lower units of the Royal Guard and would therefore have had little to do with the royal family. On the other hand, they did actually have those blue capes that you see occasionally in some of the episodes, but they had to wear them all the time as part of their uniform which they are obviously lacking in the photo above. 

Overall, even though I am glad I now know all of their names, the only thing I have really achieved is 310 words and an hour of procrastination and counting... So I’m afraid that I’m going to have to leave all of you Musketeer fans here while I go and ‘do homework’ (i.e. even more procrastination).

JG

BBC Tudor Programmes on YouTube

If you missed the excellent season of BBC documentaries on the Tudors that was on over the last few weeks, many of the programmes have made it onto YouTube. There are a few key links below. You may also find the BBC's Tudors page of interest.

• Henry VII: Winter King
• The Last Days of Anne Boleyn
• Henry VIII's Enforcer: The Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell
• William Tyndale: The Most Dangerous Man in England
• The Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England

Plus here are some other programmes

David Starkey's Documentaries:

• The Six Wives of Henry VIII
• Henry VIII: King and Emperor
• The Children of Henry VIII
• Elizabeth

Simon Schama's History of Britain

• A History of Britain: "Burning Convictions" (1500-1558)
• A History of Britain: "The Body of the Queen" (1558-1603)

Other Tudor Programmes

• The Wars of the Roses
• Henry VIII: Patron or Plunderer? Part 1
• Henry VIII: Patron or Plunderer? Part 2 (includes a visit to Nonsuch Park!)
• Time Team: Henry VIII's Lost Palaces (includes Nonsuch Palace)
• The Supersizers go...Elizabethan (concentrating on food from the period)
• The Other Boleyn Girl (BBC version)
• Mary Queen of Scots (The 1971 Film)
• Mary Tudor (Channel 5 "Evil" Series)

Please let us know if any of the links do not work as programmes are often removed from YouTube. Please also tell us if you find anything else of interest and we will add it to the list!

D-Day E-Book

The BBC broadcast over the weekend an excellent documentary on D-Day based as much as possible on first hand accounts from those who were there. You can watch the programmes (before they expire) here and also find lots of helpful content, including a free E-Book (if you own an iPad) with further material and interviews with D-Day veterans.

An Extraordinary Rise to Power

If you're anything like me (which I hope for your sake you're not), you'd have noticed while flicking through the channels recently that there seems to be a new found love of the Tudors when it comes to Television producers. Normally, when I notice a sudden influx of popularity for a period of History, I tell myself I'll watch the educational shows 'later', and instead watch something equally intellectual as 'Made in Chelsea' or 'Waterloo Road'. But, in an occasion as rare as seeing Boris Johnson seem vaguely sane, the other day I decided to plonk myself on the sofa with a nice big bowl of popcorn to watch 'Henry VII:Winter King'. I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised. Of course, it started in true BBC style, with swords being sharpened dramatically and words with little sense appearing on screen in white, before cutting to Thomas Penn docking on the very same Pembrokeshire coast that the winter king himself once trod on. However, after a while of over-dramatics I became glued to the scree,enthralled by a man who seemingly had very little claim to the throne of England, and very little chance of winning it, but against all odds managed to become King of England.

Henry's extraordinary rise to power began on Sunday 7th August 1485, at Milford Haven, and didn't begin as you would probably imagine an invasion would: with loud declarations and fights, with people rushing to the aid of each army. Oh no, the 'invasion' of Henry VII and his small fleet was not really like an invasion at all, and the drama related with said 'invasion' was to come later, at the Battle of Bosworth. Perhaps though, his arrival Britain was fitting for his army - sort of a pick-a-mix of political dissidents and mercenaries, hardly a force fit to storm London. Henry, however, knew this, and chose to slip in unnoticed in order to drum up support in Wales before facing the large army of Richard III, and decided to go north to his stepfather, Lord Stanley, who had told Henry that he would support him in his rise to power. With Lord Stanley's army behind him, Henry's plan was to head for London, but by then Richard III had heard of his plans, and had
begun to move his army to meet Henry's. He had no choice but to turn and fight.

On the morning of 22nd August 1485, Henry advanced his army to meet the much larger army of Richard III, in a battle that was to become famous. Richard, seeing that Henry's forces were fragmented, advanced, and the two men fought nose to nose, Henry's standard bearer being cut down in the battle. It was at this moment that Lord Stanley clinched a win for Henry. He had been waiting, watching the battle as he chose which side to support- he only wished to support a winner- and decided to fight for Henry in a decision that would become fateful for Richard III.

Richard apparently fought bravely, but could not win once Lord Stanley had joined the battle, and was viciously killed. It was this victory that would lead to one of England's most memorable monarchies, and a particularly rich period in our history.

(Update) The Winter King is currently available on YouTube here. There's also a handy BBC page here with links to interesting web pages and radio programmes. Thomas Penn's Book "Winter King: The Dawn of Tudor England" is reviewed here.

Hitler's Charisma

Here is an interesting article on why Hitler was able to appeal to so many German people during the Nazis' rise to power. It links to a BBC2 programme that starts tonight called The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler made by Laurence Rees, who has been responsible for many excellent BBC History programmes.

How We Won the War

BBC2 is showing a rather patriotically titled series called "How We Won the War". It covers ordinary people's experiences of World War 2 from across the country. Here is a link to the episode covering rationing, which includes the programme and some other useful information and links.

You may also find Wartime Farm of interest, which is covering similar subject matter from an agricultural perspective.

Ethiopian Hero of the Korean War

Here is the fascinating story of Mamo Habtewold, who 60 years ago was sent from Ethiopia to fight in the Korean War. He was part of the the Emperor Haile Selassie's bodyguard, and is very proud of his record - at one time he was in a patrol of 15 soldiers who successfully fought off 300 Chinese soldiers.

The BBC World Service has an archive of interviews with people who were eyewitnesses to historic events, from the Battle of Passchendaele in World War One to the murder of Tupac Shakur. You can download and listen to these and many more here.

Andrew Marr's Ambitious History of the World

An ambitious new series began last night attempting to cover the entire history of the world in eight episodes. Clearly it was a very difficult task selecting what to include when you have to cover 90,000 years in a short time, and Andew Marr explains the editing process here. Another article suggests 10 events that should have been included that at first sight may not look that important but have turned out to be incredibly significant, such as the creation of industrial ammonia (essential in fertiliser) and the foundation of double-entry book-keeping...

What do you think should be included in a list of the most significant events in the world history? Please let us know.

PS: If you like this sort of global history, have a look at the British Museum's History of the World in 100 Objects page, and there are some other interesting things here and here.

In Defence of Politics

Nonsuch HP caught this programme on Radio 4 the other night and found it fascinating. Professor Matthew Flinders set out to challenge the public perception of politicians as corrupt and selfish, by arguing that the vast majority of them are extremely hardworking, and are under great pressure to make decisions (and often compromises) on our behalf over very challenging issues.

"Politics succeeds because it generally ensures stability and order:" he writes in an accompanying article, "it avoids anarchy or arbitrary rule...Politicians urgently need to rediscover the moral nerve and capacity to speak with the authority and weight of their predecessors. At the heart of this rediscovery must be the acceptance that the "the first business of government is to govern", as Churchill put it, "which may at times call for the deliberate endurance of unpopularity". "

Politicians such as John Bercow and Tony Blair made contributions in support of his thesis, but not everyone agreed. The Telegraph's Peter Oborne, for example, believes that politicians inevitably become isolated from the world around them and naturally put their own interests first. Strong views indeed - and there will doubtless be more of them over the next two programmes. What is your opinion of all this?

Russia: The Wild East

BBC Radio 4 is ambitiously broadcasting the history of Russia over 50 episodes. Presented by Martin Sixsmith, "Russia: The Wild East" covers 1000 years of Russian history, and has now reached the early 20th Century. Each episode is only 15 minutes long and this morning's episode gave a very clear explanation of the New Economic Policy and its consequences, drawing parallels with the economic reforms of Gorbachev. It is clearly a really useful resource for A2 students beginning their Russia course and it is well worth picking up the most recent episodes on iPlayer while they are still available.

Mao's Famine

On Wednesday the Samuel Johnson Prize, awarded to what is considered to be the best non-fiction book of the year, went to "Mao's Great Famine" by Frank Dikotter. The book explores how up to 45 million people died of hunger between 1958 and 1962 due to the terrible economic mismanagement of the country following Mao's "Great Leap Forward" programme. Dikotter blames Mao personally for this, believing he had little interest in saving the lives of his countrymen. He is quoted as saying, "it is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill." Dikotter has been able to use a Chinese archives not previously accessed by historians to piece together this tragedy. One of the judges said, "This book changed my life - I think differently about the 20th century than I did before...We feel we know who the villains of the 20th century are – Stalin and Hitler. But here, fully 50 years after the event, is something we did not know about. It's a testament to the power of non-fiction, that it can rock you back on your heels."

You can read a review of the book here, and more about the Samuel Johnson Prize here, which was also featured on last night's Culture Show on BBC2.

PS: Here is a list of the previous Samuel Johnson prize winners for those looking for holiday reading (especially personal statement writers!)

2010 Nothing to Envy: Real Lives in North Korea Barbara Demick
2009 Leviathan, or the Whale Philip Hoare
2008 The Suspicions of Mr Whicher Kate Summerscale
2007 Imperial Life in the Emerald City Rajiv Chandrasekaran
2006 1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare James Shapiro
2005 Like a Fiery Elephant Jonathan Coe
2004 Stasiland Anna Funder
2003 Pushkin: A biography T.J. Binyon
2002 Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 Margaret Macmillan
2001 The Third Reich: A New History Michael Burleigh
2000 Berlioz: Servitude and Greatness David Cairns
1999 Stalingrad Antony Beevor

Horrible Histories Returns

The BBC's Horrible Histories has returned for a third series, to much acclaim from the media. The second series won a British Comedy Award, and there are plans to put it on at primetime with Stephen Fry as its host.

This Guardian article examines why it has been so successful - mainly by not underestimating its audience and whether it can be considered as a "proper" history programme? Tristram Hunt, the historian and Labour MP, criticised its "cartoon content", saying "there are more sophisticated, populist ways of getting people involved in history than this." Dan Snow meanwhile agreed that it wasn't a serious look at history, but believed that it gave a good sense of the past and should be praised for "celebrating" history and making it accessible. What do you think? Let us know, and also please pass on any clips that are worth sharing.

PS: The picure above is of Charles II as the "King of Bling". We can also recommend this Historical Masterchef sketch, and fans of The Four Georges will be pleased to know that George IV has released his debut solo single.

From Our Own Correspondent

The BBC's "From Our Own Correspondent" has always been an excellent way to gain a deeper understanding about the culture, politics and society of countries around the world. For example,recent articles have included subjects such as the Russian space programme, the obsession with guns in the USA (written by Justin Webb), and the effects of the foreign media on the North African revolutions, or the use of strange nicknames in the Philippines (recommended!). You can find an archive of all the articles here, and listen to the latest episode or download it as a podcast.

Blog Competition and BBC Style Guide

Many thanks to those students who entered the blog competition this year. The entries were few in number but high in quality! We will publish them shortly, and were pleased that Years 10, 12 and 13 were all represented. We would like to run the competition again, but acknowledge that maybe the Christmas period wasn't the most convenient time. If you have any suggestions on when we should do this, please let us know - maybe the summer?

PS: You may find this writing style guide from the BBC quite helpful for History, Politics or Critical Thinking essays. It has plenty of tips (mainly for journalists) on how to use words clearly and accurately. Here are some examples:
"Historic is a popular word with journalists. It is nice to think that the events we are describing will resonate down the decades, but who are we to judge? Use with great care, and never confuse with historical, which means belonging to history."

"Unique has a unique meaning, and it is that there is only one of something (uni as in unicycle, unicorn or unisex). Nothing can be almost unique.You should be saying distinctive or unusual."

"Draconian is much overused, usually by people with no idea who Draco was. (If asked, say he was an Athenian judge who ruled that the penalty for almost everything should be death.) Try severe or harsh instead."

The First World War from Above

BBC1 showed this evening a fascinating documentary using archive aerial photography from the First World War to show the extent of the destruction created by the conflict. Film footage from an airship showed in close detail how much damage had been wrought both on the battlefields and towns such as Ypres, which was totally devastated and yet still had people on the ground trying to make some sort of a living. The film also touched upon the efforts needed by Royal Flying Corps pilots to take the photographs (their death rates were higher than soldiers in the trenches) and the work of the tunnellers, who set off massive underground explosions (leaving craters still visible today) to try and gain a military advantage. The size of the 29 simultaneous explosions at Messines, near Ypres, was so great it "rattled the teacups in Downing Street". Highly recommended viewing for this Remembrance Week.

PS: More examples of the photography can be seen here and here. The photo at the top of this post shows a German barracks (identified by the British by the flowerbeds the soldiers had dug to amuse themselves) before and after it was shelled.

Russian Plate

The British Museum's "History of the World in 100 Objects" has almost reached its conclusion. Object number 96 was a Russian porcelain plate. It was chosen because it was made in 1901 by the Imperial Porcelain Factory during the last years of the Tsar. However, it wasn't decorated until 1921 when it was, ironically for such an expensive luxury object, painted with symbols celebrating the Communist Revolution of 1917. Furthermore, the plate retained its original imperial seal on the back because the Communist government, strapped for cash during the Civil War, sold most of these plates abroad in order to gain hard currency. The plate therefore symbolises the rapidly shifting currents in Russian society at that time - it is ironic that the factory where it was made was renamed once again after the fall of Communism - and is once again the Imperial Porcelain Factory. You can download the podcast and read the transcript of the programme about the plate, and the 99 other objects that have been chosen, at the BBC website.

The Dambusters

BBC2 showed a programme about the Dambusters on Sunday night. This was the name given to the RAF bombing raid during World War 2 that aimed to destroy German dams (and therefore create massive flooding damage) using special bouncing bombs. The story is well known, particularly because of the 1955 film which celebrated 617 Squadron's achievements. The BBC programme was more reflective. It pointed out some of the factual errors in the film, most of which were designed to make the heroes more sympathetic. In the film Guy Gibson, the squadron leader, is quite easygoing whereas in reality he could be quite aloof and focused on the job. In the film Barnes Wallis, the inventor of the bouncing bomb, comes up with the idea of bombing the dams but faces opposition from the War Office. In reality, the idea had been discussed before war had even begun. The film also gave plenty of time to exploring the effects of the successful destruction of the dams, interviewing Germans who lost their families and houses in the flooding (over 1600 people were killed, many of them allied prisoners of war in labour camps). This tone suggests perhaps that our attitude to events in World War 2 is changing as it moves ever further back into the past and fewer people are alive to remember it (there is now only one remaining veteran Dam Buster). Britain's experience of the war has an important place in our national identity and culture, but a gap of 70 years perhaps allows greater opportunities of a more balanced assessment of its significance.

PS: There is plenty of information about the Dambusters around. Here are two examples. The National Archives has an online exhibition of significant documents here.
PPS: Here is a (genuinely exciting!) 10 minute YouTube clip from the Dambusters Film where they attack the first dam. It is said that George Lucas was inspired by this for the final scenes of Star Wars...

Why Miliband had to go.

There is some good analysis here of why David Milliband decided he should leave frontbench politics - mainly because he felt he would be put under unbearable scrutiny from the media about any perceived differences between him and his brother. You can see his interview with Nick Robinson on the day of his departure in the video above. For an alternative point of view, here is an animated version of the Miliband's rivalry, courtesy of Newsnight and Taiwan's "Apple Daily".