• Haboru, Hadsereg, osszeomlas Magyarorszag Katonai Reszvetele es Szerepe a Masodik Vilaghaboruban.

      Batonyi, Gabor (2005)
      This article traces the changes in Anglo-Hungarian relations during the Second World War. Both official and clandestine dealings with the Horthy regime are explored, and put in the wider context of the shifting British attitude towards small states. It is argued that British officials came to endorse the fatalistic view of Sir Stafford Cripps that `smaller countries must fall under the sway of highly industrialised and rigidly controlled major powers¿. The Foreign Office was no longer willing to champion national causes in Central Europe; Horthy¿s Hungary was a case in point. Although Britain declared war on Hungary as late as December 1941, and only under strong Soviet pressure, from April 1941 the BBC was explicitly instructed to treat Hungary as an `enemy state¿. This hostile attitude changed in the spring of 1943, when the British government entered into secret negotiations with Regent Horthy and the Kállay government. Paradoxically, the Foreign Office was far more appreciative of any signs of independence and neutrality in Hungarian foreign policy than two years earlier, when such a policy held some promise. Hungary may have been branded as `an enemy country which will have to work her passage home¿, but British agents still played a pivotal role in the attempts by the Horthy regime to change sides in the war. A similar dichotomy can be detected in the British attitude towards the Soviet occupation of the country. Whilst the head of the British Military Mission was instructed to follow the Soviet lead in the Allied Control Commission in Hungary, he was also ordered `to resist any attempt by the Soviet authorities to encroach on Hungarian sovereignty or independence¿. This contradiction was the result of negative memories from the interwar years, when Britain failed to capitalise on her prestige and influence in Central and Eastern Europe.
    • New families? Tradition and change in partnering and relationships

      Duncan, Simon; Phillips, M. (2008)
      The family as a social institution is often said to be undergoing rapid change or even crisis. Commentary in the media and by policy-makers sometimes claims a `breakdown¿ of the family, asserting that intimate ties of loving and caring are becoming more individualised and self-centred, even selfish. Some scholars see this as part of a broader process whereby traditional social ties such as class, religion and family are fading away. Instead, they argue, people are `compelled to choose their own biographies¿ and personal relationships are being individually and actively chosen from a diverse range of possibilities. Statistically speaking, marriage is decreasing in popularity, whilst living alone, cohabitation and births outside marriage are increasing. But what do trends like this mean? Does this mean `family breakdown¿ or, as much in-depth family research has argued, just that the outward form of families is changing but the inner core - the value people attach to their family relationships ¿ remains central? This project tried to answer this question by examining the British public¿s attitude to different family relationships and parenting arrangements. It looked particularly at cohabitation and marriage, partnering, divorce, solo living, living apart together, same sex relationships and friends.
    • Understanding tradition: marital name change in Britain and Norway

      Duncan, Simon; Ellingsæter, A.L.; Carter, J. (Sage, 2020-09)
      Marital surname change is a striking example of the survival of tradition. A practice emerging from patriarchal history has become embedded in an age of de-traditionalisation and women’s emancipation. Is the tradition of women’s marital name change just some sort of inertia or drag, which will slowly disappear as modernity progresses, or does this tradition fulfil more contemporary roles? Are women and men just dupes to tradition, or alternatively do they use tradition to further their aims? We examine how different approaches - individualisation theory, new institutionalism and bricolage - might tackle these questions. This examination is set within a comparative analysis of marital surname change in Britain and Norway, using small qualitative samples. We find that while individualisation and new institutionalism offer partial explanations, bricolage offers a more adaptable viewpoint.