What Does Rothermere Mean To Be A Nationalist?

723 Words2 Pages

After casting out the political status quo as worn-out and weak, and characterizing fascism and youthful and strong, it is not surprising that Rothermere places his hopes for the future of Britain squarely on the shoulders of the youthful Blackshirts. Rothermere writes, “at this next vital election Britain’s survival as a Great Power will depend on the existence of a well-organised Party of the Right.” His feelings are quite clear in this regard, he is interlocking the future of the nation with the youth, and the youth with the B.U.F. Perhaps it is his disdain for socialists, perhaps his perceived decline of the empire, or maybe even contempt for the current political elites, Rothermere saw a solution to the problems facing his nation in fascism. …show more content…

Rothermere is quite clearly encouraging the youth and all patriotic Brits to join the B.U.F. and this is his manifesto. This piece is a rallying cry to the youth of Britain to join up with the Blackshirts and in Rothermere’s eyes save the bleak future of the empire. Ending with the direction, “Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, Kings-road, Chelsea, S.W.” While his motives for this support might yet be unclear if one is not to believe what he wrote as his true feelings, it is quite clear that to the public the face of Viscount Rothermere and his Press Empire is squarely in the camp of the …show more content…

It was seemingly clear that the role of the aristocracy and House of Lords in governance had long been called into question but was slowly falling entirely apart. Future Prime Minister and Liberal Party MP, David Lloyd-George said in a speech in 1909, “should 500 men, ordinary men, chosen accidentally from among the unemployed, override the judgment...of millions of people who are engaged in the industry which makes the wealth of the country?” This malcontent with regards to the political power of the aristocracy would surface in legislation shortly thereafter. The 1911 Parliament Act removed the House of Lords’ role in financial legislation and curtailed their veto over ordinary legislation.” Needless to say, the stripping of a historically powerful class of political power and importance would seemingly lead to antagonism, and Pugh wrote, “not surprisingly, as titled families became conscious of their political marginalization, angered by the collapse of agriculture and land values, and fearful of Britain’s retreat from Empire, some of their members embroiled themselves in extremist movements.” This is however only one aspect of the story, as the aristocracy would have a difficult time making a case for radical changes unless there were measurable complaints to be made with regards to the state of the nation and direction of the

Open Document