Non-Christmas grandparenting

Christmas is about kids. That’s a commonplace. In our case, that means grandkids. 

In our home, Christmas was for Matilda and Elliott

Not that they actually came to us at Christmas. Here in Spain, there are two important days: Christmas (though Christmas Eve matters rather more than the day itself) and the feast of the kings, 12 days later on 6 January. The grandkids’ parents, Nicky and Sheena, organised things brilliantly, showing up on the 27th of December, two days after Christmas, and leaving on the 6th of January, so we avoided any of the formal Christmas festivities and instead made our own fun on the days we wanted. I took to that particularly well, since my mother, though Jewish, always insisted on celebrating Christmas, and specifically Christmas day. That was a real pain as she wanted us to join her for a restaurant lunch, which is awful in Britain on the 25th of December, with practically everything shut. Non-Christmas celebrations are easier and, by that token, far pleasanter.

Michael, Nicky’s brother and our middle son, had been with us for some days before the others showed up. He and Danielle decided that we needed a Christmas tree for when the grandkids arrived. They popped out to buy one only to discover that the shop we usually go to had sold out. So they got – I should say, Michael got us, as a Christmas present – a tropical fig tree instead. Danielle decorated it just like she would have decorated a standard tree and, I have to say, I liked it as much as any traditional Christmas tree I've seen.

The beauty is that, now that the decorations have been removed, we can continue to enjoy the tree, as an actual tree. It’s a living, breathing, photosynthesising plant. You know the saying about a dog not being just for Christmas? It turns out our Christmas tree isn’t just for Christmas.

Not just for Christmas

Anyway, the curious Christmas tree was well received by the grandkids when they arrived. Though they both informed us with unanswerable firmness, “that’s not a Christmas tree”. Still, true Christmas tree or not, the presence of true Christmas presents underneath it guaranteed it a reception as enthusiastic as we could wished. As I’ve explained, it wasn’t either of the days when kids might receive gifts in Spain, but hey, who needs to fixate on the calendar if there are presents at stake?

Presents really enhance a tree

The presence of Uncle Michael – Michael Michael as they still occasionally call him – also added to their pleasure, so the holiday got off to a fine start.

My first trip out with either of the grandkids, which was on a day when Matilda felt under the weather and so Elliott was coming with me alone, I suggested we go for a ride on the metro. Well, I didn’t use the word ‘metro’. I offered him a ‘chu-chu-bahnele’ trip, since ‘chu-chu-bahnele’, based on the word ‘Bahn’ in Danielle’s Germanic mother tongue, the dialect of Alsace, is what she’s always called trains, with our kids and even with those of other families whose company we’ve had occasion to enjoy. 

Elliott in the chu-chu-bahnele

Of course, the moment Matilda heard that her brother was going on a chu-chu-bahnele, she experienced a miraculous and total recovery from her illness. By then though it was too late. Sheena pronounced from on high, like a High Court judge passing a heavy sentence, that someone who was too ill to do anything like exercise at 9:00, couldn’t possibly have recovered by 10:00. So when Elliott and I left the house, it was with Matilda’s protestations ringing in our ears.

Elliott had found a stick which he apparently felt attached to – at least, it remained attached to his hand all the way down to our local metro station. Said station is in the woods, though, and when we got there I suggested to Elliott that it wasn’t fair to take the stick on the train – sorry, chu-chu-bahnele – and we should throw it back among the trees where a whole lot of other sticks seemed to have congregated, doubtless ready to welcome it back as a long lost friend. Elliott agreed and the solemn ceremony went well, with appropriate expressions of farewell from both of us, as we threw the stick back beyond the tracks.

We then travelled a whole four stops (the perfect length of journey: just long enough to enjoy the pleasure, short enough not to get boring). That left us with only a brief walk (mercifully brief for my shoulders) to our favourite playground. It has a pond with ducks on it as well as the usual collection of swings and slides and climbing frames. Elliott went to great lengths – well, he ran a fairly great length – trying to make friends with a bunch of ducks that had come to shore. They, sadly, responded to his overtures less enthusiastically than he’d hoped.

Unapproachable ducks

But we had plenty of fun all the same. 

The kids also enjoyed playing hide and seek with us. I have to say, though, that I’m not sure that they’re quite as effective as they might like at hiding themselves.

Grandkids hidden?

Not so much, it seems

Matilda has become an expert at what I like to think of as a bum staircase descent. She likes occasionally to sit at the top of the staircase, and then slide down, step by step, on her bum. She seems to enjoy it, which I find curious, since I’m sure it would only leave me with a sore bum.

Bum descent

We’ve become connoisseurs of the various playgrounds within a short bike ride of us, and deepened our familiarity with them on several occasions during this visit. A bike ride followed by a time on swings or slides and then a bike ride home? It seems that’s pretty much an ideal way to spend a morning.

Matilda and Elliott enjoying a visit to the village next door

Our local playground is fun too

Danielle even had the kids working. Child labour, I believe, is somewhat frowned upon these days, but she thought they’d enjoy helping to spread new gravel in the garden where some gaps had opened in the gravel previously laid.

How does that happen, by the way? I mean, it’s not as though gravel evaporates, does it? So how come, after having carefully laid gravel evenly and, if I say so myself, aesthetically, a few months before, bare earth starts to peep through in various places? 

I’d understand it if there were corresponding areas where the gravel is piled up thick. However, I’ve never found any. So the whole thing just remains a mystery.

Hard at work

Anyway, the work went well for a good twenty minutes or so. At that point, the kids joined the ranks of the campaigners against child labour and downed tools. Danielle finished the job later, after they’d gone.

In any case, Elliott still seems to be much more interested in bringing small spadefuls of gravel from the garden and scattering them on the patio instead. That provides the stimulating sensation of walking on pointy bits of stone if ever we go out there in thin-soled footwear. It even introduces an element of exciting suspense as we discover whether we’re going to slip on what is, after all, an ideal skidding surface of loose stone on solid stone.

Even though Matilda and Elliott’s family was leaving on the Day of the Kings, we did manage to get one celebration of the feast in, the day before. This one followed the French tradition, with a special cake (our local bakery, Spanish to the core, does a great ‘galette des rois’, fully up to French standards). There’s a token baked into it which makes the person who finds it king or queen for the day, and this year it was Matilda who won that enviable honour.

Queen Matilda

Then there was the occasion when Elliott came to me with a stick in his hand. I explained to him that this must be the same stick that we’d thrown back amongst its friends at the metro station. It had, no doubt, enjoyed seeing them all again but ultimately decided that it was missing the boy that had shown it so much affection before. Now it had made its way back to him.

A friend to stick by

He seemed a little sceptical but nonetheless satisfied with my explanation. He spent quite a time with the stick. It was clear to me that he was enjoying playing with it, and I saw no evidence that the stick wasn’t enjoying being played with just as much.

So, who knows? Maybe it was the same stick. And who can prove otherwise?

England's shameful conquest of itself

Nearly three decades ago, Danielle and I saw a remarkable production of Shakespeare’s Richard II. Slightly over three decades before that I saw the same play, as a special treat offered to us schoolkids, at a remarkable place: the Minack Theatre in Cornwall, which is outdoors and cut into the rock above a sea cliff. That means you get a stunning view of the sea in the background and gulls occasionally swoop over the stage, which is wonderful.

However, the special treat was neither special nor a treat to me. Because one of the things about the Minack is that we had to sit on seats cut into the granite of the hillside. I guess people who’ve been before bring cushions, but we had no such comfortable accessories. The performance, at least as I remember it, and to be fair I should underline that fourteen-year-olds aren’t the most patient of audiences for classical drama, was slow and tiresome. Well before the play had ended, my backside was telling me that it had been far too long. 

The experience left me anything but well-disposed to the play.

But then came that second and outstanding performance, at the National Theatre in London, in 1995. What made it so outstanding? 

First and foremost, it was the casting of Fiona Shaw in the part of the king. A woman playing a king? It was an inspired choice. I think one of the central concerns of the play is the contrast between the king, seen as effeminate and weak, and the character of his rival, Henry Bolingbroke, strong and manly. One of the things the great directors of Shakespeare can do, with writing of that quality, is turn some of the messages around, so The Merchant of Venice, for instance, becomes the tragedy of Shylock rather than the triumph of Portia, or The Taming of the Shrew turns from a celebration of husbandly authority to teach an uppity wife a salutary lessons, into a shocking presentation of male abuse of a woman whose only offence was to show a little spirit.

Fiona Shaw’s portrayal of Richard showed him as feminine rather than effeminate, while Henry came across as macho, not manly, as a bully, not a figure of strength.

Fiona Shaw as Richard II
For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings

That was breathtaking. But it wasn’t the only aspect of the performance that has stuck with me. One of the great speeches of the play is the dying soliloquy of John of Gaunt, in which he describes England as ‘this royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle’. It’s one of those Shakespeare speeches like ‘To be or not to be’ in Hamlet which has an audience listening to it in silent awe, and I imagine puts massive pressure on the actor to bring new life into what might otherwise come across as clichéd.

Gaunt had just got going and tomblike silence had settled on the place when, suddenly, a mobile phone started ringing somewhere in the audience.

I don’t know whether its owner has recovered from the PTSD with which the experience must have left him. All I know is that Gaunt paused while the owner scrabbled in his pockets with the eyes of the entire audience on him, tracking the phone down to silence it. And then Gaunt went on.

Now the thing about that speech is that it sounds at first as though it’s going to be a hymn to England. Indeed, if it’s ever quoted at all, it’s always just the bit about the ‘sceptred isle’ that gets trotted out. If you go on to the end, though, you find it’s quite the opposite. What Gaunt is saying is that England has been brought low, and its decline is down to corruption and pettifogging officialdom. Above all, it’s something England has done to itself. 

That England that was wont to conquer others  
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

It conquered itself. No one else is to blame. The wound was self-inflicted.

That all came to mind when I came across a recent poll that showed that a clear majority of British voters now understand that Brexit has done the UK harm.

Overall, only 22% still think that Brexit has been good for the economy, while nearly 50% think it has been damaging. Only 9% believe that it has done any good for the National Health Service while over 45% think it has been harmful, which is particularly ironic, since the snake-oil salesmen that championed Brexit, especially Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, promised that it would provide an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. Perhaps more telling still, while many voters backed Brexit not for any high-minded principle, but out of simple xenophobia and against immigration, 53% now believe that Brexit has made it more difficult rather than easier to control British borders.

Brexit, it seems, no longer has any redeeming features for most British electors. And yet who gifted that poisoned chalice to Britain? Why, voters themselves. 

Predominantly English voters.

Well, if the bard’s to be believed, that was upholding a long tradition. England imposing a shameful conquest on itself. Which leaves only one question.

If it inflicted the wound on itself, does it have the spirit, now voters have recognised the mistake, to find its own cure too?