Peter Frankopan (3:16)

I'm Peter Frankerpen.

Afwa Harsh (3:17)

I'm AFWA Hersh.

Peter Frankopan (3:19)

And this is Legacy, the show that looks at the most extraordinary people, places and ideas and asks how and why they matter. Today.

Afwa Harsh (3:38)

This is England and beyond St. George's flag. Today.

Peter Frankopan (3:47)

We talked about how important St. George is in English history and then in British history. But St. George, you start to find him being celebrated in lots of other parts of the world connected to colonialism, Right?

Afwa Harsh (3:59)

Especially North America. And actually, one of the things that I found fascinating, digging into the history of the flag and the mythology around the flag, is that actually, you know, we were talking about how it kind of lost traction in England after the Reformation, and then with the English flag being absorbed into the Union Jack. But meanwhile, as English people are colonizing North America, that is becoming the site of a surprising new resurgence in patriotic feelings around the flag. And it is ironic because these people aren't in England, Peter.

Peter Frankopan (4:32)

No, but the connections with St. George have always had a sort of semi colonial context. I mean, I don't think that there's too much to argue about the fact that the Crusades are themselves a kind of prime example of early colonialism, particularly a long way from home. Empires often expand. You do find Roman empires and Roman peoples living a long way apart from each other. But the principle of the Crusades is you have a place far from home where people go and serve their king and God in difficult conditions where the local populations might be trying to kill you. They have different faiths, different beliefs, you eat different things. It's quite hostile from a disease environment point of view. And so I suppose not that strange that ideas that have seeded and have been used and trialled and shaped beforehand start to get applied. Because that's how the colonizing world sees itself. That they're bringing civilization and Christianity and commerce and those all link into colonialism and ideas to do with the Crusades.

Afwa Harsh (5:29)

And in terms of the kind of colonizer psychology, and this is something that I've written about a lot. I think nostalgia is a really important ingredient. You know, people who are away from the country, they identify with the culture that they believe is superior. Their kind of in different parts of the world, trying to spread that culture, assert its dominance on others, they often internally experience this real nostalgia. And they famously are often the ones who preserve the culture of the imperial heartland in this kind of aspect. You know, while Englishness is busy evolving and changing with the times, it's always the people in the colonies, in the further flung parts of empire, who want to cling on to this romanticized, imagined pure Englishness. And, you know, we see that with the way that British colonialists behaved in India, in Africa, in the Caribbean. And it's definitely the case in North America that these colonialists who are descended from England or who want to claim this descent from England. You know, we can talk another time about the kind of caste system among white American colonialists and the idea that those who can trace their descent to the Mayflower are kind of, you know, the top of the social strata. But they are really interested in preserving the idea of St. George, the holiday of St. George's Day. And actually, as it's foundering in England, it's alive and well with this American revival.

Peter Frankopan (6:54)

That American. I suppose it's not that surprising here, is it? I mean, that you would look for those symbols and those. And you'd emphasize those connections, and you'd want to think about what you're missing in the bar, the land, and how you're sort of performing an act of service and devotion. That sort of, in a funny way, makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, that's what you'd expect to happen.

Afwa Harsh (7:12)

It is what you'd expect to happen. I mean, there's a kind of, like, white supremacist element that I think is. I would never describe as inevitable because it just seems so extreme to me. But, you know, these ideas about nostalgia and pride in Englishness were, from the outset, in the Americas, connected with the idea of the superiority of the white race. And not just the white race, because, of course, North America is experiencing immigration from all over Europe. But the idea that those from, quote, Anglo Saxon Stock, because this is the way that people described it, have this kind of monopoly over civilization. So in the 1890s you get the Royal Society of St George, founded in America, and it has a specific mandate to strengthen and maintain the sentiment of race and English patriotism. This isn't me projecting a kind of anti racist lens onto it. This is really how people see it at the time. Later in the 20th century, you get figures like Winston Churchill giving speeches at annual dinners emphasizing English England's greatness. And England's greatness in this era is inextricably linked with ideas about patriotism, imperialism, militarism, masculinity and whiteness. They're all bound up in this concept.

Peter Frankopan (8:23)

Well, Churchill, you know, the idea of looking for a contemporary St. George who, rather than slaying a dragon, would propose a roundtable conference and with it make a trade agreement, be photographed with a dragon, as we're going to see, that's not the last time that a frontline British politician tries to invoke patriotism, national identities, I guess, throwing in a bit of Christian blessings too. But those symbols of the Cross and St. George's Cross, they're distributed incredibly widely. I suppose part of it is also they're very simple. You know, it's single color and it's the sign of a cross. So these symbols are not difficult to draw in art. And maybe that's also why they're sort of pervasive, they're easy to replicate in.

Afwa Harsh (9:06)

Spite of all that. Peter, Even after the Second World War, the celebration of St. George's Day goes into decline again. And I guess now in the mid 20th century, we're in this period of decolonisation, the kind of glorious moment of victory in the Second World War is giving way to the reality of the 20th century, where Britain is on its knees with debt, immigration is changing and challenging ideas of what Englishness means. And there is this sense that it's not necessarily as socially acceptable to proudly triumph English patriotism anymore and that there is actually a lot to be ashamed of in that history. I personally would say that that is a very incomplete project and that England has done very little, relatively speaking, to really acknowledge the kind of full dimension of that history. But if you look at the popularity of St. George's Day, you can definitely see a kind of decline in its visibility in the late 20th century.

Peter Frankopan (10:03)

But, you know, Royal Navy ships that they put out to sea will typically fly the Ensign of St. George. So it's there. I think what's different is that the ways in which people express ideas about national identities. And typically we've all got used. Until very recently, typically we got used to the idea that that tends to happen at other things like sporting occasions and specifically football. Actually, you know, you don't see many flags at cricket events. You don't really see them at athletics, you don't see them at the races, horse racing. It's something that's particularly about football, where you're being asked to choose your identity. And I guess before football matches, between clubs, there are these enormous football flags. But people are kind of looking for something to adhere to or to join. And so football has been a sort of driver of some of those reasons why those identities and those images have become more visible. I think they've always been there. I just think that for all sorts of different reasons, those questions about who we are, where do we fit in, what are our legacies, have become particularly pointed because of lots of more under the surface ideas. So, for example, when England got to the semi finals of euro in 1996, if only Gaza had managed to connect to that ball as it went across the. Anyway, I think that the idea of waving flags was seen in a very different way to how it is today. It was seen as relatively benign. I don't know what your experience would be at that time and whether that's just the sort of way that I would have seen it as a football fan and being blind to the ideas about how different minority groups would perhaps take a look at it. But there seemed to be an expression of a reasonably straightforward identity that was more or less harmless because as soon as the football tournament ended, you put the flag away and then waited for another four years to bring it back out again.

Afwa Harsh (11:47)

Okay, I have a real theory about this.

Peter Frankopan (11:49)

Yeah.

Afwa Harsh (11:49)

So in the later 20th century, there was this kind of rejuvenation of Britishness. You know, I'm thinking about New Labour in 1997 and I remember that moment where it became cool again, you know, Cool Britannia and Oasis, of whom I was never a great fan, but, you know, whatever. That moment that, like Brit pop was a global phenomenon, we had this new labor government that seemed to have great ideas. There was so much optimism. It was an embrace of multiculturalism, you know, a move away from the racism of the Windrush era. And the time when, you know, immigrants like my Ghanaian family came to this country and found it really overtly hostile in many ways, gave way to this embrace. Like, we're a multicultural society and all, all the amazing things we've created because of that and that was very centered around the Union Jack. It was Britannia. It was Britishness. It was. Remember the Spice Girls, Geri Hallowell wearing her Union Jack dress. And I never really got this until Brexit happened, you know, 20 years after that. But I remember a woman in Essex talking about Brexit and saying to a reporter who asked her how she said she was voting Brexit. And the reporter said, how do you feel about your Britishness? And she said, no, no, no, no, no. I'm English. I'm not British. Britishness is for those people from the Commonwealth. We're the English and we're a race. And, you know, that really resonated with me because I've heard other stories of black people who've introduced themselves as English and been told, no, no, no, you're black British, but you're not English. Englishness is an ethnicity. And I think that's really true. I think there's this sense that if you trace your lineage from the British Isles, right, you are a member of a nation. There are four of them, but, you know, you're English, Welsh, Scottish, or from Northern Ireland. This idea that Britishness was something invented for the Empire, you know, my mother, when she was born in what was then the Gold coast, because it was still a British colony, was born a British protected person. That was her official status, and that gave you access to Britain. You were part of this imperial family. But a sense that Britishness was invented for those black and brown people in the Empire, whereas at home in the British Isles, your identity was from one of the nations, and that was tied to an idea about whiteness. And I think you can see the legacy of that today, because I have never, ever felt comfortable around the England flag. And as a child, I could never tell you why. You know, I couldn't articulate what it was. The Union Jack was something we all rallied together around the Olympics, and it was super multicultural. And, you know, then new labor made it cool. But England flag was something else. It felt like a more tribal identity, that someone like me, despite my Britishness being an English identity, because I've never lived anywhere else in Britain other than England, but that I don't get to include myself in that. And it's constructed in a way that excludes me. And I don't think that's ever changed. And, you know, you're right. The thing that has changed is that when England's done well at football, and, you know, that's the thing about football, right? When it's the Olympics, it's the UK when it's football, it's England or one of the other nations. We have rallied around the England flag at big football tournaments, but it's always been a thing. It's always been accompanied by, wow, does this mean it's safe for ethnic minorities to fly the England flag? It's always a question in a way that I don't think it has been with the Union Jack. So sorry, that was a very long winded way of saying, I think there is a kind of still a racial dimension to what is regarded as Englishness. And that is one of the reasons that the flag remains something to this day that people descended from immigration feel uncomfortable around. And you're seeing that right now because this year, with the raising the colors and all this DIY patriotism, people putting up England flags, there are lots of incidents where it has been intended as an act of hostility towards immigration, where it has been associated with the far right, rather than just being a harmless expression of being proud to be English.

Peter Frankopan (15:49)

I wonder what changed. And, you know, I just want to be clear that it's not the fault of football or football fans or the football team, but I think it's just as an expression of where you see that flag. But I mean, Even just over 10 years ago, the Telegraph, which, you know, pretty conservative, center right newspaper, had a headline saying, debatable.

Afwa Harsh (16:09)

I would say it used to be center right. I don't know if it's in the center of anything anymore.

Peter Frankopan (16:13)

Okay, but it's not on the sort. It's not center left, is it?

Afwa Harsh (16:15)

No, no, no, no, no, no.

Peter Frankopan (16:16)

But in 2012, a Telegraph headline said that a quarter of the English population considered St. George's flag to be a racist symbol and one that had been, quote, irreparably tainted by racism and xenophobia and a retreat to cruel nostalgia that often been appropriated by far right politics and white supremacy since the Second World War. Now, I suspect that those numbers have really changed. I mean, maybe. Maybe they've become much more polarized. But I wonder why the English flag has become so. Or the flag of St. George has become such a sort of cipher for division in society. What is it that that came from? What was it that sparked it? Because I don't recognize that from 20 or 30 years ago, or am I wrong? And it was just always there. And I never noticed it because I didn't ask the right questions.

Afwa Harsh (17:01)

I mean, when I talk to people who are black or Asian, who are 10, 20 years older than me, they tell me of seeing the England Flag as associated with genuine terror. I mean, being chased by people with baseball bats and beaten up and, you know, it being a symbol that often accompanied real violence. Not to say that everyone who flew on was violent and racist, but that it was more directly associated with that kind of racist violence. You know, to answer your question, I think that a lot of this is coming from anxiety and insecurity. You know, there's lots of research that as the world becomes more globalized, it might seem counterintuitive, but people actually hunker down on more localized native identities. This kind of native nationalism that we're seeing all over Europe, actually in large parts of the world, is kind of a response to the insecurities of globalized capital, of insecure labor, of a declining living standards, you know, this huge gap opening up between the rich and poor. And we don't really have solutions to those problems. You know, that's before we even get into AI kind of wiping out whole areas of the workforce. We haven't had any leaders who have answers to that. So instead what we're seeing politicians offer people are these ways of demonizing the visible other, whether that's the religious other or the racial other. And that's, you know, the kind of rise of the far right that we're seeing. And I think because the England flag has never exercised its demons, the ones I described as being slightly uncomfortably bound up in the decline of empire and this anxiety about what Englishness is, you know, if you go to Scotland and you ask a Scottish person what Scottishness is, they're going to tell you about Scottish culture, Scottish food, Scottish music, Scottish folklore, language, places. There's a kind of way in which that's not tainted by race, you know, and I've heard Sikh people in Scotland describe themselves as Scottish, and black people in Scotland describe themselves, themselves as Scottish. In England, it's different. I don't hear black people describe themselves as English. They will describe themselves as British and they'll often hyphenate it Black British. So I think that this idea that Englishness is more affected by the decline of empire, that white English people struggle to tell you what Englishness is in a way that if you're Welsh or Scottish, I think you have a narrative about your identity that is disconnected from empire or immigration, and it's more inclusive. So I think that there are some deep rooted problems in Englishness, and I think that's been made it really fertile ground for the far right to exploit. And so in my view, I think there are some very like legitimate anxieties that English people have. But I think that blaming immigration or people of different racial backgrounds is a complete distraction and doesn't actually offer any answers to the big questions they're facing.

Peter Frankopan (19:52)

But it is also ambiguous and ambivalent. I mean, we've had Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, pushing back against the idea about the flag being having negative symbolisms and suggesting that actually because of St. George's origins, his history, actually it's an ideal way of presenting cosmopolitanism and diversity. And, you know, you see political parties not always promoting St. George in ways that are negative. Sometimes, again, those ideas about inclusivity and people like Billy Bragg, who's on the left, advocating that we should be reclaiming ideas about St. George. There are ways in which you can redress this, but I think you're right. Afro, you're talking very eloquently about the anxiety of absence. Tell us a bit about that. What are those anxieties of Englishness, or. You mentioned loss of empire and adjusting to the real world. You know, I guess that that famous line that Theresa May said, if you're a citizen of everywhere, you're a citizen of nowhere. And pushing back against ideas of globalization, of migration, that somehow life has become more difficult here in the UK and therefore we need to be very worried about people coming here. And the way we show our identity is through symbols and flags. I mean, is it to do with. With anxieties? Is that. Is that why this has become a way of dividing populations, too, in politics?

Afwa Harsh (21:08)

I think England has been at the heart of empire and colonization. You know, I mean, the other nations in the UK were essentially colonized by the English at some point. And I think it's much easier for those who've been colonized to forge an identity that's maybe had a history of oppression and then resurgence. And it's this kind of pride of overcoming adversity and staying true to who you are. The English don't have that. You know, they had an empire. They don't have an empire anymore. There's all of this guilt and shame that's never been dealt with, and it's now kind of curdled into a backlash, like, why should we be ashamed of who we are? And it's not sustainable. You can't have a national identity that's built on shame or regret. You also can't have a national identity that's built on the loss of something. You know, it needs to have substance. It needs to have cultural content that's real and meaningful. And I don't think that can be imposed from the top down. You know, I don't think despite his good intentions, the mayor of London can tell people like, you should be proud of this, or Billy Bragg can tell people, this is for you. It has to kind of come from an authentic sense of connection. And that just hasn't happened. I think, you know, one of the symbols of Englishness is actually the royals, even though in theory, I mean, not in theory, they are officially the monarchs of not just the United Kingdom, but many of the Commonwealth countries that still have them as head of state. But it's definitely in England that that's most keenly clung to because it's one of the few tangible things that Englishness has, apart from the St. George's flag. And so people need symbols for their identity and they need substance and they need things they can feel proud of. All people need that in their culture. And I think that in the absence of that in England, people are turning to something else and they're actually uniting over a shared hostility to others. And that is a very, very dangerous foundation for any sense of communal identity.

Peter Frankopan (23:06)

Okay, so I want to talk about that when we come back and also to understand why we have frontline politicians, including the Prime Minister, talking about their own veneration for the flag of St. George and what you make of that. So join us in a minute.

Hannah Burner (23:29)

This is Hannah Burner from Giggly Squad. Opill is the first over the counter daily birth control pill available in the us. Let's be real, getting a birth control prescription is not always easy and it's so much admin. In fact, about a third of women face barriers to access prescription birth control. Between scheduling appointments, missing work class or just trying to exist, it's a lot. But now Opill is putting birth control in our control. Opill is a daily birth control that's FDA approved, full prescription strength and estrogen free and 98% effective when used as directed. Grab it online or at most major retailers. No prescription or doctor's appointment needed. So if you're thinking about birth control, check out OPILL to see if it's right for you. Use code giggly for 25% off your first month of opill at OK p-I l l.com that's code giggly. P-I l l.com birth control in your control. We love to see it.

Peter Frankopan (24:34)

I mean always. What's interesting when we have discussions about Englishness is that I'm obsessive etymologists. I always want to know where words come from and English means we're descended from the Angles, who are a group of people who came from basically northern Europe, Denmark, northern Germany. And so although Englishness, means is often used to mean this is our island, actually we're referring to people who came here from elsewhere. And in fact, the Britons who were here first are the ones who got booted out or pushed eastwards, northwards or out altogether. So, you know, and even, you know, the Normans conquered England in 1066. And we don't really talk about the Normans as being a fundamental way in which laws, institutions, all these things happen, too. So there's a very selective editing of how we think about these symbols, these labels and so on. So when we say I'm proud to be English, what you're really saying is, I'm proud to be from a place that wasn't originally here, but it's okay for me to be here. But other people who follow my footsteps, it's not okay. But I know you think, afwa, that we've spoken about this before, that flags are really important signs of belonging and of where people come from and what they do and solidarities. Right.

Afwa Harsh (25:39)

I mean, I don't think they inherently have to be, but I do think in the way that the modern world's been constructed, you know, the first thing that a nation gaining or fighting or winning independence from empire does is create its own flag. You know, it's a way of expressing sovereignty, of expressing identity, in trying to build a cohesive identity. Often for countries that, you know, are assimilating many different ethnic groups and languages and religions, they're. They. They need to build something people can buy into. And flags have become a language with which people do that. And I really understand that. And actually, for me, one of my frustrations is I think if you critique Englishness or Britishness, people assume that you're trying to deny them the right to feel proud of their country or to have something to latch onto. And actually, you know, someone like me, whose ancestors were colonized by the British, it's because of the pain of what was taken in that colonization, in our own identities, that we critique Britishness. You know, it's actually coming from a place of knowing, maybe better than anyone, how important it is to have your cultural integrity and your history and your memory and your symbols. So I think that I can completely see why English people want to fly the flag and be proud of it. But the problem is, having not dealt with the underlying issues that make Englishness a very fragile identity. It just gets so easily co opted into a project that is something organized by the far right, that is orchestrated by violent criminals, that is trying to signal to immigrants or people who aren't even immigrants, but British, but you know, visibly from minority backgrounds that you're not welcome here. We want our country back. These are things, you know, as I'm speaking, that you're actually hearing on the streets right now.

Peter Frankopan (27:23)

I mean, what's interesting, I've done lots of work on formation of states, the formation of empires, and there's a very interesting idea about ultrasociability. So you need outside threats that make groups put their differences to one side and to agree that despite whatever difference they might have, or religion, language, et cetera, et cetera, it's worth their while all grouping together to fight. So external pressures are really helpful in creating identities. And sometimes those could be manufactured, sometimes they could be artificially done, but those symbols, they become really important. What do you have that's non contentious? What do you have that you have in common? And flags that are like in battles, they're to show where the rest of your team is. They show who's on your side. So again, going back to football, there's a reason you play in the same strip as your teammates, because you can see who they are. So you pass the ball to the right person or the wrong one. So these symbols are not necessarily in themselves difficult and disingenuous. They're rallying points. They can be places where you find ways of gathering your strength against really serious threats. And so I do think that those changing circumstances, economically, the shifts of power, whether it's to the east or wherever it might be, those technological revolutions that we're going through, the anxieties around climate change, lead to a world where people suddenly feel threatened by lots of different kinds of things in places like Britain. And therefore the need to look for symbols, the need to identify outside stresses and pressures, the fear of violence, the fear of threats, is something that provides a glue that can be incredibly powerful. I guess a question I have for you, Alfa, is do those impulses always have to be negative? Are there ways in which solidarity can be helpful? Like, I don't know, in the Second World War, for example, when everyone's trying to pull together, et cetera, by and large, is the way in which people feel that they're under pressure and need to consolidate. Does that have to have a negative downside?

Afwa Harsh (29:14)

See, this I think goes to the root of the problem. It's interesting mentioning the Second World War. This is what somebody commented on my substack He's a Ghanaian professor called Daniel Osekis. And he said, I think of my own family who fought in Burma in the Second World War. For a nation that did not treat them as equals, their sacrifice was met with neglect. I think of my childhood in the 1970s, when the Union Jack and St George's Cross were often the property of the National Front and BNP warnings for black and Asian families to tread carefully. I think of John Barnes scoring a miraculous goal against Brazil in the Maracana only to come home to a flag protest. The pattern is clear. Recognition offered in moments of utility withdrawn when it comes to belonging. So to answer your question, yes, of course it makes sense for people to rally around common symbols, but if you don't address the inequality at the heart of those identities, then it will still manifest. It's not a true rallying together. It's kind of exploiting people when you need their labor only to then betray them after whatever you've rallied around is over. Which is exactly what happened in the Second World War. People from all over the Empire came together under the Union Jack to fight against the Axis powers. And then after the war was done, they weren't given their pensions, they were promised, they weren't given the decolonisation they wanted, they weren't treated equally, they weren't even allowed to take part in the Armistice Day or VE Day celebration. So, you know, I think that you can never really build something positive around a symbol. If you haven't done the work of healing what's wrong with the message underlying it. And this is something someone else said that really resonated with me, which I think is so well put. I am not anti flag, but if it is to fly for me too, it must be an invitation, not a warning. For now, I still feel I am dwelling in a colonial present. I didn't write that, but I wish I had because I think it nails it from my perspective.

Peter Frankopan (31:06)

I wonder what you think. Afro. We know we've had a Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer's spokesman, saying that he loves flying the flag of St. George. We put English flags up all around down the street every time the England football team, men and women's are out trying to win games. Starmer says he's a great supporter of flags. He's got a St. George's flag in his flat in Downing Street. A very encouraging of flags. He said, I think they're patriotic and they're a great symbol of our nation. And then we had. She was at the time Home Secretary, currently Now, Foreign Secretary, by the time this comes out, there might have been another change, but, you know, Yvette Cooper saying, I think it's good for us to feel proud of our flags of the Union Jacks. In fact, she mentions rather than the flag of St. George, but to be really proud of our British values that underpin that, I think, about fairness, about decency, about togetherness, about coming together. And I wonder whether that is all a way of trying to deflect and saying, as long as we all close our eyes and say a prayer, everything's going to be okay. But, you know, again, Yvette Cooper says, I have to confess, I'm not just the St. George's flag. I'm. I have St. George's bunting. I also have Union Jack bunting, which is currently still hanging over my garden shed. I don't know whether you've got Union Jacks dotted around the House or.

Afwa Harsh (32:15)

I'm trying really hard not to roll my eyes because I know we're on camera. I mean, does it help for people.

Peter Frankopan (32:20)

For politicians to say that? Do you think it makes it. It devalues it by making it sound ridiculous?

Afwa Harsh (32:25)

Maybe it would if it sounded authentic. I mean, that just sounds like virtue signaling to the right, you know, and that's the problem with our political leadership, that there's no courage. They. You constantly get the feeling they're saying what they think people want to hear rather than what's true. And, you know, my message to the political class, they should listen to this podcast. Because you don't make the England flag something to be proud of by telling people we should be proud of it. You make it something to be proud of by addressing the underlying issues that have made it a symbol of hostility for so many of us, people who are English and British. So, you know, instead of having the imagination or the courage or the honesty to do that, are admittedly harder work, but very necessary work, of asking, what is it about this symbol that is alienating people? They just say, you should be proud of this. The end. And it's very disillusioning. And I think it's one reason that people are feeling a bit pessimistic, that even after we're doing all this work articulating what has gone wrong with Englishness, the message doesn't seem to be going through. And people are waving the flag because they have real grievances with big structural issues about their future, which are very genuine. You know, they are worried about their economic security. They're worried about what jobs their kids will do. They're worried about their housing and, you know, struggling to make ends meet. And that often manifests in something that doesn't actually present the solutions. And instead of having that real conversation, we're just kind of arguing over a flag, which I think is a little bit reductive. Having said that, I think the history of the flag is really interesting, and that's why I'm really glad we're discussing it, because I didn't grow up hearing these kind of conversations, and I felt this instinctive fear of the St. George's flag in the way it was being used. But I wouldn't have been able to articulate any of the things we've discussed in this podcast. So my hope is that by doing this work together, Peter, and I love doing it with you, we're helping give other people a language with which to actually have this more meaningful conversation about these symbols and. And how we could actually envisage a future where we could join in them as people who share a national identity rather than feeling divided and often, in my case, physically threatened.

Peter Frankopan (34:36)

Well, as someone who works on late antiquity, early Christianity, cult, St. George, the Crusades, and other things, I mean, I wonder if we could bring St. George down from the clouds, whether he's with his dragon or not, to ask him what he thought about the way which he'd been weaponized for discussions not about Christianity or about martyrdom or sacrifice, or of his standing up for his Christian beliefs, but how it's become a sort of symbol of people wanting to show that they. Some of them, to show that they're uncomfortable about the modern world and the changes it's going through, or whether, in fact, St. George is probably quite a good example because he lived through a time of enormous change, of economic compression, of rising challenges and pressures. And so, funnily enough, St. George is quite a good example of someone who had to work out who he was, had to work out how to lead by example. And one of the fundamental things I think that is really important about the story of St. George is ultimately that he was a Christian. And those ideas about compassion, about kindness, about generosity, about looking after the poor, are things that can get very easily lost in discussions today where we seem to be turning our backs on the people who might need our help the most. So it was ever really about a flag, like you say, Alfred, it's a joy to do these with you, and I've learned so much listening to you and talking to you, but it's really about what it really means to be English. In the 21st century.

Afwa Harsh (35:56)

On a very basic level, my question is if the people who were waving England flags most enthusiastically right now bumped into St. George, I mean, if he came to England right now, how would they respond to a Greek Palestinian migrant from Turkey? I just suspect that the greatest of ironies, they would not welcome him with open arms. And so that, in a way is the kind of biggest quirk of the story of St. George, that he's come to be used as a symbol by the people who would actually probably be most hostile towards him.

Peter Frankopan (36:30)

So that was the second part of our two part series on St. George's flag. Legacy is hosted by me, Peter Frankopan.

Afwa Harsh (36:39)

And me, Afwa Harsh.

Peter Frankopan (36:40)

We will see you soon.

Hannah Burner (36:59)

This is Hannah Burner from Giggly Squad. Opill is the first over the counter daily birth control pill available in the us. Let's be real, getting a birth control prescription is not always easy and it's so much admin. In fact, about a third of women face barriers to access prescription birth control. Between scheduling appointments, missing work class or just trying to exist, it's a lot. But now Opill is putting birth control in our control. Opill is a daily birth control that's FDA approved, full prescription strength and estrogen free and 98% effective when used as directed. Grab it online or at most major retailers. No prescription or doctor's appointment needed. So if you're thinking about birth control, check out OPILL to see if it's right for you. Use code giggly for 25% off your first month of opill at O-P-I l l dot com. That's code giggly p I l l dot com birth control and your control. We love to see it.