Martin Daubney Furious Over King Charles’ ‘Insane’ Move to Rename Historic Submarine to Avoid ‘Offending French’

GB News host Martin Daubney has launched a vehement critique against the recent decision to rename the Royal Navy submarine HMS Agincourt, arguing that the move compromises “British heritage.” The submarine initially christened HMS Agincourt, has been renamed HMS Achilles following an intervention by King Charles.

Martin Daubney expressed his discontent on air, questioning the necessity of altering a historically significant name. “Achilles is a name that’s defined by a weakness that was exploited, that’s the point. Achilles was slain because of his only weakness, Agincourt was a plucky display of a minority force slaying a bigger force. Clearly a superior name,” Daubney asserted during his broadcast on GB News.

The renaming decision, reportedly driven by King Charles, comes after concerns that the original name, Agincourt, might offend the French. The £1.5 billion Royal Navy submarine’s new designation, HMS Achilles, has sparked debate over the appropriateness and implications of such a change.

Daubney did not hold back in his criticism of the monarch’s involvement. “Are they really so fragile that they’re offended by hundreds of year-old battles? And more to the point, does our King think it’s worthy of his time to rename vessels because it might twist the nose of Emmanuel Macron?” he questioned, highlighting what he perceives as unnecessary sensitivity towards historical events.

He further argued that addressing French sensibilities should be the responsibility of the British people, not the monarchy. “I think we should rename Agincourt something even more that offends the French,” Daubney added, emphasizing his belief that the name Agincourt holds significant historical value for Britain.

Supporting Daubney’s stance, historian Tony McMahon also voiced his opposition to the renaming. Speaking to GB News, McMahon underscored the importance of the Battle of Agincourt in British history. “The Battle of Agincourt was back in 1415, but the French have got long memories, you see. And basically an English army, a plucky English army defeated a much larger French army,” he explained, reiterating the battle’s cultural and historical significance.

McMahon criticized the choice of Achilles as the new name, drawing parallels to Greek mythology. “The weird thing is he’s changed it to Achilles, and if you know anything about Greek mythology, Achilles, who was a Greek warrior, had a weakness and that was his heel,” he pointed out. He expressed a preference for retaining the original name, stating, “I’d rather be in a submarine called Agincourt, which is going to steam ahead because it’s named after a great battle, than after some great warrior got shot in the ankle.”

The renaming of HMS Agincourt to HMS Achilles has ignited discussions about national identity and the preservation of historical legacy within the Royal Navy. Critics like Daubney and McMahon argue that altering such a storied name undermines the rich heritage and valor associated with Britain’s military history.

Supporters of the renaming might argue that modernization and sensitivity to international relations necessitate such changes. However, the backlash from prominent figures underscores a significant divide in opinions regarding the balance between tradition and contemporary diplomatic considerations.

As the debate continues, the decision to rename HMS Agincourt serves as a focal point for broader discussions on how Britain honors its past while navigating present-day geopolitical landscapes.