The Eywood estate at Titley was acquired at the beginning of the 18th century by Edward Harley (1664-1735), the younger brother of Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford, who was Speaker of the House of Commons and later Chancellor of the Exchequer under Queen Anne. Edward was appointed by his brother to the lucrative office of Auditor of the Imprest, and the proceeds of this appointment are said to have funded the building of a new house at Eywood in about 1705. I have not found an 18th century view of the house, although it seems likely that one exists, but it seems probable that the house of this time was a plain five by five bay block of three storeys. The rusticated basement and giant Ionic columns, which decorated the front may also have been original features, or they may have been added later in the 18th century (the house is said to have been ‘much altered’). Inside, there was a fine staircase, with three turned and fluted balusters per step, which survived later alterations to the building. Another fine room was the fully-panelled Oak Room, used latterly as a billiard room, and the house also retained some other plain but handsome fireplaces which were obviously of the 1705 period. 

In 1735 Edward Harley was succeeded by his son, Edward Harley (1699-1755), who succeeded his cousin as 3rd Earl of Oxford in 1741. With the earldom came the Brampton Bryan estate in Herefordshire, the ancient seat of the Harleys, and Eywood seems thereafter to have became a secondary estate of the earls. This did not, however, mean that Eywood was neglected. Either Edward Harley or the 3rd Earl established a landscaped setting for the house, for Bishop Pococke noted on his travels in September 1756 that ‘Lord Oxford has a large house and a fine lawn, with a beautiful piece of water and great woods on the hill over it’, which remained a fair description of the house in later years. Edward Harley (1726-90), 4th Earl of Oxford, brought Capability Brown to Eywood in 1775, but it is far from clear that he made any proposals for the estate, let alone that these were executed. Nonetheless, by 1795 there were three pools at Eywood (two remain) and there are still great stands of woodland in the parkland setting of the house. 

Edward Harley (1773-1848), 5th Earl of Oxford, came of age in 1794, and in that year married Jane Scott, a Hampshire clergyman’s daughter. She was to be the Countess of Oxford with whom Lord Byron had an affair in 1812 (when she was forty and he was 24 and on the rebound from Lady Caroline Lamb). By the time Byron stayed at Eywood in 1812, however, the house had been greatly altered, for Lord Oxford employed Robert Smirke in 1805-07 to enlarge and modernise it. Smirke seems to have turned the early 18th century square block into a courtyard house by adding much longer, three-storey wings to either side of the original house, and a connecting wing joining the ends of the two wings to the north-west. On the main south front, the new wings were stepped back a little from the original block, which with its tall parapet and giant order continued to dominate the appearance of the house. A new entrance was made into the north-east wing, and the ground floor of the main block and this wing were rusticated. Inside, Smirke created new interiors, including a grand new dining room with a screen of columns across one end, a new drawing room, and several other rooms with fine chimneypieces and simple plasterwork, A new pleasure ground was laid out around the house. 

In 1848, Eywood and Brampton Bryan passed to Alfred Harley (1809-53), 6th and last Earl of Oxford. When he died, Brampton Bryan passed to his widow (d. 1877) while Eywood passed to his elder daughter, Lady Langdale. She died in 1872 and after some legal wrangling, Eywood passed to her sister, Lady Charlotte Bacon, the widow of Gen. Anthony Bacon, whose career had encompassed being ‘the finest cavalry officer in the army’, two years imprisonment for debt, an abortive attempt to found a colony in south Australia, and military service under Don Pedro, King of Portugal and Emperor of Brazil. At the time of her inheritance, Lady Charlotte was living in Australia with her children, but she came home and died at Eywood in 1880. Her son, Edward Bacon (b. 1842) sold Eywood to Arthur Walsh (1827-1920), 2nd Baron Ormathwaite, who in turn sold it in 1892 to Charles James Paul Gwyer (1854-1940) and his wife Mary (1862-1950). 

The Gwyers brought in W.O. Milne to remodel the house, which was looking decidedly run-down after half a century of only intermittent occupation. The wings of of the house were reduced from three storeys to two, and the central block was remodelled, removing the giant order and replacing it with bold rustication at the angles of the building and rather chunky window surrounds. The house that resulted was more unified in appearance than before. A large new porch with eclectic detailing was built on the east side, and this is ironically almost the only part of the building to survive today. For after the death of Mrs Gwyer in 1950, the estate was sold to a Mr Vowells, who sold off the farms and demolished the house almost entirely. The house went, it would seem, because it was so large and the owner had no use for it: it appears not to have been in poor condition. The landscaping and the stable block survive, but the porch and some odd stumps of walling are all that remain of the house today. At least one of the chimneypieces from the house was acquired by the Harleys and taken to Brampton Bryan.

• Environment
• Poverty
• Media
• Justice
• 9/11
• War Crimes
• Militarization
• History
• Science

Jean Chrétien: Canadians will never give up the best country in the world to join the U.S.

By Global Research News

Global Research, January 12, 2025

Global and Mail 11 January 2025

Translate WebsiteShqipአማርኛالعربيةՀայերենAzərbaycan diliEuskaraБеларуская моваবাংলাBosanskiБългарскиCatalàCebuanoChichewa简体中文繁體中文CorsuHrvatskiČeština‎DanskNederlandsEnglishEestiFilipinoSuomiFrançaisქართულიDeutschΕλληνικάગુજરાતીKreyol ayisyenHarshen Hausaעִבְרִיתहिन्दीHmongMagyarÍslenskaIgboBahasa IndonesiaItaliano日本語Basa Jawaಕನ್ನಡҚазақ тіліភាសាខ្មែរ한국어كوردی‎КыргызчаພາສາລາວLatviešu valodaLietuvių kalbaМакедонски јазикMalagasyBahasa MelayuമലയാളംMalteseTe Reo MāoriमराठीМонголဗမာစာनेपालीNorsk bokmålپښتوفارسیPolskiPortuguêsਪੰਜਾਬੀRomânăРусскийSamoanСрпски језикSesothoShonaسنڌيසිංහලSlovenčinaSlovenščinaAfsoomaaliEspañolBasa SundaKiswahiliSvenskaТоҷикӣதமிழ்తెలుగుไทยTürkçeУкраїнськаاردوO‘zbekchaTiếng ViệtCymraegisiXhosaיידישYorùbáZulu

 96

 0 15

 

 111

 Our best wishes to Jean Chrétien. Long Live Jean Chrétien

Today is my 91st birthday.

It’s an opportunity to celebrate with family and friends. To look back on the life I’ve had the privilege to lead. And to reflect on how much this country we all love so much has grown and changed over the course of the nine decades I’ve been on this Earth.

This year, I’ve also decided to give myself a birthday present. I’m going to do something in this article that I don’t do very often anymore, and sound off on a big issue affecting the state of the nation and profoundly bothering me and so many other Canadians: The totally unacceptable insults and unprecedented threats to our very sovereignty from U.S. president-elect Donald Trump.

I have two very clear and simple messages.

To Donald Trump, from one old guy to another: Give your head a shake! What could make you think that Canadians would ever give up the best country in the world – and make no mistake, that is what we are – to join the United States?

I can tell you Canadians prize our independence. We love our country. We have built something here that is the envy of the world – when it comes to compassion, understanding, tolerance and finding a way for people of different backgrounds and faiths to live together in harmony.

We’ve also built a strong social safety net – especially with public health care – that we are very proud of. It’s not perfect, but it’s based on the principle that the most vulnerable among us should be protected.

This may not be the “American Way” or “the Trump Way.” But it is the reality I have witnessed and lived my whole long life.

If you think that threatening and insulting us is going to win us over, you really don’t know a thing about us. You don’t know that when it came to fighting in two world wars for freedom, we signed up – both times – years before your country did. We fought and we sacrificed well beyond our numbers.

We also had the guts to say no to your country when it tried to drag us into a completely unjustified and destabilizing war in Iraq.

We built a nation across the most rugged, challenging geography imaginable. And we did it against the odds.

We may look easy-going. Mild-mannered. But make no mistake, we have spine and toughness.

And that leads me to my second message, to all our leaders, federal and provincial, as well as those who are aspiring to lead our country: Start showing that spine and toughness. That’s what Canadians want to see – what they need to see. It’s called leadership. You need to lead. Canadians are ready to follow.

I know the spirit is there. Ever since Mr. Trump’s attacks, every political party is speaking out in favour of Canada. In fact, it is to my great satisfaction that even the Bloc Québécois is defending Canada.

But you don’t win a hockey game by only playing defence. We all know that even when we satisfy one demand, Mr. Trump will come back with another, bigger demand. That’s not diplomacy; it’s blackmail.

We need another approach – one that will break this cycle.

Mr. Trump has accomplished one thing: He has unified Canadians more than we have been ever before! All leaders across our country have united in resolve to defend Canadian interests.

When I came into office as prime minister, Canada faced a national unity crisis. The threat of Quebec separation was very real. We took action to deal with this existential threat in a manner that made Canadians, including Quebeckers, stronger, more united and even prouder of Canadian values.

Now there is another existential threat. And we once again need to reduce our vulnerability. That is the challenge for this generation of political leaders.

And you won’t accomplish it by using the same old approaches. Just like we did 30 years ago, we need a Plan B for 2025.

Yes, telling the Americans we are their best friends and closest trading partner is good. So is lobbying hard in Washington and the state capitals, pointing out that tariffs will hurt the American economy too. So are retaliatory tariffs – when you are attacked, you have to defend yourself.

But we also have to play offence. Let’s tell Mr. Trump that we too have border issues with the United States. Canada has tough gun control legislation, but illegal guns are pouring in from the U.S. We need to tell him that we expect the United States to act to reduce the number of guns crossing into Canada.

We also want to protect the Arctic. But the United States refuses to recognize the Northwest Passage, insisting that it is an international waterway, even though it flows through the Canadian Arctic as Canadian waters. We need the United States to recognize the Northwest Passage as being Canadian waters.

We also need to reduce Canada’s vulnerability in the first place. We need to be stronger. There are more trade barriers between provinces than between Canada and the United States. Let’s launch a national project to get rid of those barriers! And let’s strengthen the ties that bind this vast nation together through projects such as real national energy grid.

We also have to understand that Mr. Trump isn’t just threatening us; he’s also targeting a growing list of other countries, as well as the European Union itself, and he is just getting started. Canada should quickly convene a meeting of the leaders of Denmark, Panama, Mexico, as well as with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to formulate a plan for fighting back these threats.

Every time that Mr. Trump opens his mouth, he creates new allies for all of us. So let’s get organized! To fight back against a big, powerful bully, you need strength in numbers.

The whole point is not to wait in dread for Donald Trump’s next blow. It’s to build a country and an international community that can withstand those blows.

Canadians know me. They know I am an optimist. That I am practical. And that I always speak my mind. I made my share of mistakes over a long career, but I never for a moment doubted the decency of my fellow Canadians – or of my political opponents.

The current and future generations of political leaders should remember they are not each other’s enemies – they are opponents. Nobody ever loved the cut-and-thrust of politics more than me, but I always understood that each of us was trying to make a positive contribution to make our community or country a better place.

That spirit is more important now than ever, as we address this new challenge. Our leaders should keep that in mind.

I am 91 today and blessed with good health. I am ready at the ramparts to help defend the independence of our country as I have done all my life.

Vive le Canada!

Jean Chrétien 

Jean Chrétien served as the 20th prime minister of Canada from 1993 to 2003.

The original source of this article is Global and Mail

Copyright © Global Research News, Global and Mail , 2025

Guernica, located in Basque country, was a place of particular importance to the Republicans. Although the city had no military significance, it was symbolic of the Basque culture. On April 26, 1937, Hitler’s German Condor Legion bombed the city for three hours, acting in support of General Franco. Twenty five bomber planes bombed the town with 100,000 pounds of explosives, and twenty more planes hunted down citizens trying to flee the scene. It is thought that the majority of citizens were trapped in the center of the town, as it was market day, and they were unable to escape as the roads and bridges surrounding them had been destroyed. The majority of men were at war, so most of the 1,600 townspeople injured or killed were women and children. 

News of the attack reached Paris on May 1, 1937. As a supporter of the Republicans, Picasso was horrified by the news and began work on the preliminary sketches that would become the Guernica mural. In the 1940s, a German officer would see a photograph of Guernica in Picasso’s apartment and ask, “Did you do that?”, to which Picasso replied, “No. You did.”

In Guernica, we can see six human figures – four women, a man, and a child – as well as a horse and a bull. The scene is frenzied, lit only by a lamp bulb bursting with light over all of the chaos. 

To the left of the painting, a bull whose side has been pierced by a dagger looms over a devastated mother, wailing as she holds her dead child in her arms. A horse brays as it tramples a fallen man, whose right arm has been severed from his body. In his dismembered hand he holds a shattered sword, and we can see a flower blooming from his clenched fist. Two ghostly figures float eerily toward the center of the piece, one holding a gas lamp to examine the turmoil in front of her. At the right of the painting, we can see a figure screaming, engulfed in flames.   

Guernica is painted in a monochromatic palette, using a technique known as grisaille. Picasso had a paint specially created for Guernica in order to use the least amount of gloss possible and emulate the immediacy of wartime photography. Despite the immense size of Guernica, it only took Picasso a month and a half to complete, ready to be exhibited in the Spanish Pavilion of the Paris World Fair. 

Speaking about Guernica, Picasso stated: 

“My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. In the picture I am painting, which I shall call Guernica, I am expressing my horror of the military caste which is now plundering Spain into an ocean of misery and death.” 

Symbolism of Guernica 

Picasso never publicly confirmed any of the interpretations of Guernica, and its meaning has been hotly debated ever since its creation. Here, Singulart breaks down the elements of the piece along with their possible symbolism. 

www.singulart.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H25224_Guernica_Ruinen-300×220.jpg 300w, www.singulart.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H25224_Guernica_Ruinen-768×562.jpg 768w” sizes=”(max-width: 761px) 100vw, 761px” style=”box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; max-width: 100%; display: block; border: 0px; vertical-align: bottom; outline: 0px !important;” apple-inline=”yes” id=”C9326565-BAC3-4A26-9843-672B599DDD88″ src=”https://alanskeoch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H25224_Guernica_Ruinen.jpg”>

It is believed that the bull, with its dispassionate, expressionless face, could symbolize Franco. However, as a bull is a symbol for virility, the stab wounds of the bull could symbolize that man is fractured, that humanity in general is in trouble. It has also been theorized that the bull could be an emblem of Spanish culture, as Picasso had referenced bullfighting in previous paintings (this would also account for the stab wounds on the bull). 

The mother and child at the left of the painting could be a reference to Madonna and child, or more specifically a symbol of pieta. Pieta, or pity, is a trope that has been seen in countless artworks, referencing Mary carrying Jesus’s dead body in her arms after he was taken down from the cross. 

The horse is the center of the painting; our eye is immediately drawn to its panicked, hysterical expression. It is generally believed that the horse symbolizes the Guernican people, with the arrow piercing the horse’s side adding to this conclusion. It is interesting to note that early sketches of the horse, hidden on this canvas by layers of paint and revisions, portrayed it with a downward expression, as if admitting defeat. Here, in the final version, the horse has been struck and in pain but remains defiant until its last moments. 

The only male figure in this painting can be seen under the horse, screaming in pain as the horse tramples his dismembered body. Only the upper half of his body is visible, with the rest lost in the swirling chaos surrounding him. While one of his hands shows signs of the stigmata, another Biblical reference, a white flower grows out of the broken sword in the other hand, which could symbolize hope after destruction. 

The lamp that hangs overhead, illuminating the scene, could be interpreted as a bomb dropping. However, some critics have argued that it represents the eye of God. It has also been suggested that the lamp represents the notion of technology being used to propel evil, shining a spotlight on the dark side of modern technology. 

Historians have debated the meaning of the three women on the right side of the painting. It has been suggested that the women represent the three fates, as seen in Greek mythology, or that they could depict the three martyred virgins of early Christianity. They could also be a reflection of Picasso’s personal life, portraying his wife and two lovers. 

Picasso was deliberately obtuse about the meaning of Guernica, which is partly why it has been so thoroughly discussed and debated since its creation. He stated, “It isn’t up to the painter to define the symbols… The public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they understand them.”

Terrific article John…can I send it forward to my Episodes with credit to Pete McMartin?