It’s been nearly three years since Queen Elizabeth II passed away, marking the end of her record 70-year, 214-day monarchy. Opinions of the Royal Family are as varied as they come, but rarely did Elizabeth find herself at the center of negative sentiment.
That’s not to say, of course, that Elizabeth was one without fault, and now her son and successor to the British throne, King Charles III, has stepped in to fix one of his mother’s oversights. The oversight in question? Renaming a £1.5 billion submarine so that France doesn’t get mad.
According to a source who spoke with the Express, Charles ordered last year for the HMS Agincourt, a Royal Navy submarine currently under construction, to be renamed to the HMS Achilles. The name “Agincourt” is derived from the Battle of Agincourt; a military conflict that occurred in October 1415 that resulted in an English victory over France in the middle of the Hundred Years’ War. Charles’ decision to rename the vessel, according to a source, came from a place of not wanting to upset France.
Six English Navy vessels have taken the name Agincourt in the past; the submarine that will now be known as HMS Achilles would have been the seventh. The battle’s frequent referencing in the Navy is indicative of its wider cultural and national significance in England, so you can imagine how some high-profile British traditionalists are taking the decision.
Indeed, outrage has been the name of the game in some circles. U.K. Parliament member Lee Anderson of the Reform Party remarked “Why don’t we just go the full hog and rename the English Channel the French Channel?” Meanwhile, former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said “Renaming the HMS Agincourt is nothing short of sacrilege. This submarine carries a name that honours a defining moment in British history. Under Labour, woke nonsense is being put ahead of tradition and our Armed Forces’ proud heritage.”
Look, I have no skin in the game, but let’s unpack this a bit frankly. France won the Hundred Years’ War, insofar as there can be a winner in a war, and so glorifying a single — admittedly improbable — victory as a “defining moment in British history” carries a similar energy to showing up at someone’s Lifetime Achievement ceremony and gloating about the parking spot you found on the way there.
More importantly, why are we acting like it’s normal to derive national pride from historic instances of conquest and bloodshed, particularly if it’s an instance of conquest and bloodshed within a literal century of egotistical violence both political and bodily? Why is that something to be proud of?
Now, would the French have cared if Charles had decided to let the Agincourt name go through on this submarine? Hard to say for sure, although they probably have more pressing issues on their hands at the moment. Was Charles’ decision — one that invoked peace and respect in every way that matters — ultimately a good one? Sure, why not?
Still, it’s awfully bold to choose a replacement name like Achilles — the Greek mythological hero who seemed invincible, but quite famously harbored a weak spot that led to his ultimate demise — for a military vessel.
Published: Jan 29, 2025 12:21 pm