 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / November 2005Factual history of Britain
Hello, First post here. I usually don't think useful to introduce myself at length on newsgroups, but as I think my question is quite original, it would perhaps be best for me to explain why I come to this... So, I'm a french living now in London (hope my english isn't too bad -- and not sounding too american!), and wanting to look a bit more at english history. I'm, I believe, quite learned in french history (especially middle-ages and modern times) -- more than the average french, say -- but I'm afraid that my knowledge of english history does not go further than Henry VIII and his 5 (? 8 ?) wifes, or Cromwell and the beheading of Charles I. Well, a bit further than that, but not so much. So, I'm currently reading "the Oxford history of Britain", by K. O. Morgan, which I find very intersting. But for many things it is much more an *analysis* of british history than the *facts* of british history. Don't get me wrong, I understand that for people having learned that at school, it would be very boring to re-(re-re-...)read about things deeply rooted in english culture, and that an analysis is much more interesting than just a rerun of events. However, I'm sometimes quite lost at various history points where the author directly goes to analysing the consequences without recalling the course of events. So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen? If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at young children!)... In fact, it could be some kind of historic dictionnary more than a linear "story book". All I want is to be able to find easily all the great events and (wo)men of english history in it. Thanks! PS: could you tell me what other british-history ng is there around? I saw soc.history.medieval, but I'm afraid there is too much traffic for me. Are there other ones?  SignatureRémi Moyen > I'm currently reading "the Oxford history of Britain", by K. O. > Morgan, which I find very intersting. But for many things it is much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for > granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen? You really have two requirements, explicitly for a comprehensive history and implicitly for a book so engaging you can read it for pleasure as well. One approach might be to take a pair of authors and compare them. I would specifically recommend (a) the Pelican History of England, a dozen volumes by various authors: just pick a century that interests you most and read that, with one eye on the writer's personality and style; (b) Simon Schama's recent history of Britain (the book of the multi-hour TV series.) You would be unlikely to hit your ideal target first time: but knowing what you do not specially like, and being able to say why, will enrich your next conversation with a librarian or a whole shelf of histories. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> I'm currently reading "the Oxford history of Britain", by K. O. >> Morgan, which I find very intersting. But for many things it is much [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and being able to say why, will enrich your next > conversation with a librarian or a whole shelf of histories. For some reason I don't have the first post in this thread. Forgive me as I am answering it via the first reply. Remi, for one set of books to provide all the facts you might require on such a vast subject is asking too much. Some periods like those before about AD1300 are very short on documents, especially before 1066. Therefore a history of such a period is bound to contain long tracts of analysis, since the data is so scarce and possibly erroneous. With regard to two eras where data is scarce :- I would recommend Peter Salway's "Roman Britain", which may be part of your edition. Many people have written that Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England" is the "Bible" for the period, but I have found a preference for Hodgkin's much earlier work "History of the Anglo-Saxons" because (Vol I) he is so open about the problems of scarcity of reliable data, and lays the problems out in a readable manner. [Of course, Scots and Welsh might object to the use of "England" for Britain.] I cannot comment on Vol II yet. SignatureThur [Answering both posts at once, that'll be shorter.] Thur a écrit : >>You really have two requirements, explicitly for a >>comprehensive history and implicitly for a book so >>engaging you can read it for pleasure as well. Right. I think the second need is more ponctual (I won't reread it very often), while the first one is more basic (I want something I can refer to every time I'll read something where the author didn't detail events so basic for him, but not for me). >>I would specifically recommend (a) the Pelican >>History of England, a dozen volumes by various authors: [...] > Remi, for one set of books to provide all the facts you > might require on such a vast subject is asking too much. Hum, I'm not really looking for something that big! I know it's difficult to cover 2 000 years with details in few pages, but I'll be later going more into the details of periods I prefer: I just want something simple and global to start with. > I would recommend Peter Salway's "Roman Britain", > which may be part of your edition. Yes, it is. I was a bit quick in saying that I was lost all the time. The first chapters, up to the early Tudors, is detailled enough for me (altough the war of the roses is a bit messy -- but I guess that the events were messy, anyway ;-) ). It's more from 1500 onwards that many things are a bit light for me. As an example, I found again a sentence summarizing my problem. In "The Tudor Age", the author (J. Guy) says: "The matrimonial adventures of Henry VIII are too familiar to recount again in detail". Hey, *I*'m not familiar with these! Tell me! :-) Ok, this is not a so good example, as the following of the text is in fact quite detailled about this part (and as it is not per se really important), but I think this illustrate clearly my point. > Many people have written that Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon > England" is the "Bible" for the period, but I have found > a preference for Hodgkin's much earlier work "History of > the Anglo-Saxons" because (Vol I) he is so open about > the problems of scarcity of reliable data, and lays the problems > out in a readable manner. Ok. Saxon history won't probably be my main focus, altough the last century or so cover one of my favorite times in french history. I'll taking good note of your comments. Thanks for all your suggestions! SignatureRémi Moyen > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > me. Are there other ones? > -- '1066 & All That'? :-)) Surreyman a.spencer3 a écrit : >>So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a >>book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for >>granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen? >>If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at >>young children!)... > '1066 & All That'? :-)) I'm probably missing the joke... Is that a real history book, or some kind of parody ? SignatureRémi Moyen > a.spencer3 a écrit : > >>So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a > >>book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for > >>granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen? > >>If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at > >>young children!)... > > '1066 & All That'? :-)) > I'm probably missing the joke... Is that a real history book, or some > kind of parody ? It's the only history book. Its conclusion has been much discussed on this ng recently. ;-) Try reading the Wikipedia entry - especially the last sentence - and note that those of us posting here from here with any true feeling for the subject are probably thinking of the S&Y descriptions of British History as we write our own description... SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > It's the only history book. Its conclusion has been much discussed on this ng > recently. ;-) > Try reading the Wikipedia entry - especially the last sentence - and note that > those of us posting here from here with any true feeling for the subject are > probably thinking of the S&Y descriptions of British History as we write our > own description... Speak for yourself! (Although I was discussing how Britain became "Top Nation" with my World History group today. Sadly, I don't think any of my students got the reference :-( Even worse, only one student understood a blatant refence to the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch a couple of weeks ago. They are just getting too young! I'll be teaching kids born in the '90s in a couple of years - eek!) Cheers, Alex > > It's the only history book. Its conclusion has been much discussed on this ng > > recently. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > They are just getting too young! I'll be teaching kids born in the '90s > in a couple of years - eek!) May the Lord have mercy on thy soul! > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > linear "story book". All I want is to be able to find easily all the > great events and (wo)men of english history in it. If you think that the Morgan book is not narrative enough, then you really will struggle to find a narrative to your taste. You could try supplementing your reading with these: Sean Lang, British History for Dumies, (John Wiley: London, 2003), ISBN: 0764570218, £14.99. Ross Stewart, Teach Yourself the British Monarchy from Henry VIII, (Hodder: London, 2005), ISBN: 0340889276, £8.99. The Oxford Dictionary of British History, (OUP: Oxford, 2004, ISBN: 01986008853, £9.99. Alan and Veronica Palmer, The Pimlico Chronology of British History, (Pimlico: London, 1996), ISBN: 0712673318, £15. There are also some children's enclopaedia that you might find useful. If you live in London, just head into one of the many large shops (Blackwell's or Foyle's in Charing Cross Road, or Waterstones in Piccadilly Circus, for instance), to see what is in stock. The Morgan book is a good introduction to the subject, with each section written by a recognised specialist in the field, and it is relatively recent. I wouldn't bother with Schama, as the TV series was so incresibly disappointing. Ditto Starkey and "Monarchy". My advice would be to start reading more specific books about particular periods/people that interest you. Wander into a bookshop and just dip in. Oh, and keep posting here, as there are precious few posters on the ng dealing with British history. Cheers, Alex > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > recent. I wouldn't bother with Schama, as the TV series was so > incresibly disappointing. Ditto Starkey and "Monarchy". I find Starkey a boring pillock and in addition, the series was so biased towards the monarchy, leaving out relevant facts that would put them in bad light, it was pathetic. When the presenter is boring, it makes you switch channel. Schama wasn't that bad. > My advice would be to start reading more > specific books about particular [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cheers, Alex > Schama wasn't that bad. But the gaps were disappointing. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >>Schama wasn't that bad. > > But the gaps were disappointing. It would have been more palatable had it been called "A History of England". Cheers, Alex > > Schama wasn't that bad. > > But the gaps were disappointing. I thought so too - no mention of Warwick the Kingmaker... Alex Craven a écrit : >> So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a >> book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you think that the Morgan book is not narrative enough, then you > really will struggle to find a narrative to your taste. Yes, I guess so. If someone was to ask me the same thing for french history, I would also have difficulties finding an answer... As a matter of fact, I'm wondering whether I should look at french books: contrary to english ones, they would obviously be focused at readers not familiar with english history! > You could try > supplementing your reading with these: Thanks, references noted. I'll have a look in a book shop. And many thanks also for the other references cited in this thread. > There are also some children's enclopaedia that you might find useful. Hmm... Maybe... But I'm afraid I'll find them too naive. Anyway, I'll take a look at these too. > The Morgan book is a good introduction to the subject, with each section > written by a recognised specialist in the field, and it is relatively > recent. Well, it is really interesting. And, thinking again, the first chapters (roman era, saxon and middle-ages) aren't so bad for what I'm looking after. It's when coming to Tudors and Stuart, and then especially to XVIIIth and XIXth century that I get lost... > My advice > would be to start reading more specific books about particular > periods/people that interest you. Wander into a bookshop and just dip in. I'll also do that, for sure. But I wanted to start with some kind of generic book, in order to get a correct background. > Oh, and keep posting here, as there are precious few posters on the ng > dealing with British history. I guess I'll be asking some more bibliography questions to start with :-) I'll be probably be looking first at either something about late saxon/early norman (I'm quite fond of the installation of feodality in France, so I would like to compare that with England), or the civil war (as this is probably the most "original" period, comparing to what I know). SignatureRémi Moyen A couple of other books that occured to me were: John Cannon (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to British History, (OUP: Oxford, 2002), ISBN: 0198605145, £19.99 - a hefty hardback, which is essentially an encyclopaedia of British history. Norman Davies, The Isles, (Macmillan: Basingstoke, 2000), ISBN: 0333692837, £16.99 - a comprehensive history of the British Isles; not a perfect book, but a fulsome narrative. Cheers, Alex > Alex Craven a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > France, so I would like to compare that with England), or the civil war > (as this is probably the most "original" period, comparing to what I know). In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'. Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in British history". The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords. A bit like Afghanistan is today, only with different weapons. There is more, but not on a Tuesday night perhaps? Cheers Martin > In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'. > Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in > British history". > The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break > down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords. The trouble with that is that we have a French visitor. In fact the trouble with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room is that you have to insult their country. Regularly. Take the ending of the Wars of the Roses. I would contend that it was brought to a close by Richard III at his coronation, bringing together all sides in the struggle, having dealt lightly with those that had plotted against him - and then Henry managed to cobble together an invasion with the support of ... .. the French king! ;-( Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi? SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > > In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room is > that you have to insult their country. Regularly. It can be done politely? Besides, I have a sneaking admiration for Louis XI (the 'Universal Spider'), and our countries have always been 'close' - not only physically.. > Take the ending of the Wars of the Roses. I would contend that it was brought > to a close by Richard III at his coronation, bringing together all sides in > the struggle, having dealt lightly with those that had plotted against him - > and then Henry managed to cobble together an invasion with the support of ... Hmmm... well, you could look at it that way, but I see the WotR as an extension of the wars between Burgundy, Brittany and France in a way - they are interlinked and entwined, as were the leading characters involved. As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took the throne. Richard died - no more Plantagents - game over! > .. the French king! ;-( What, that 'scum of lacky Bretons'? Richard had of course volubly pressed for agression and hostility during his brother's abortive invasion in the 1470's. Louis XI, being a clever fellow, bought him off without bloodshed in a magnifcently sensible bit of diplomacy and strategy. His successor must have seen Richard on the throne as a very serious threat indeed, and quite naturally did his best to get rid of him - and against the odds did. > Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one > mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi? Which one is that, King Louis I? he doesn't get much mention, true. Perhaps it is time! Cheers Martin Martin a écrit : >>>In the meantime, I'll briefly explain 'The Wars of the Roses'. >> >>>Quite rightly, this is often described as "the most complicated period in >>>British history". >>>The quick explanation is that this is what happens when law and order break >>>down, and the country descends into gangsterism under local warlords. Yes, I got that much. I think that, in the principles if not in the events, it is not too different from some points of the hundred years war, when France was effectively splitted between various territorial dukes (during the last years of Charles VI and the first of Charles VII, when the government was in the hands of the brothers/uncles of the king). But I think these "local warlords" aspects fit quite good in the generic tendency of Europe at that time, the rise of huge principalties turning a bit later to modern states (as in Spain, Burgundy, Low Countries -- ok, that's ultimatley the same country ;-) -- and others). That doesn't necessarily help to get the events clear... >>The trouble with that is that we have a French visitor. In fact the trouble >>with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room is >>that you have to insult their country. Regularly. Well, the fun of the thing is that, for a good fistful of centuries, french can do the same with England. Ah, this kind of heathen discussion will keep us warm for the winter, at least :-) > It can be done politely? Besides, I have a sneaking admiration for Louis XI (the > 'Universal Spider'), and our countries have always been 'close' - not only > physically.. A very cunning man indeed! Probably one of the sovereign to have grasped the first the real changes in diplomacy at that time. And that's why he got a so dark reputation: he was doing the same thing than all the kings tried to do half a century later, but that was the exception at his time. > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was crowned on > the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took the throne. Btw, I'm I wrong in saying that Henry Tudor didn't have any more "genealogical" claim to the crown than most part of the english nobility? I mean, high nobles families being closely linked in all kingdom (and even between kingdoms), I guess that, if we look solely at genealogical relationships, there must have been scores of other nobles as near or nearer from the crown, no? (I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...) >>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one >>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi? > > Which one is that, King Louis I? You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-) > he doesn't get much mention, true. Perhaps it > is time! No, I can't say that we hear much of time. As for France, he only reigned 3 years and is between maybe the two most famous kings of the middle-age (Philippe Auguste and Saint Louis). And as for England, well, honnestly, I wasn't sure he even had been crowned before reading an english book. Mostly, we consider his english expedition as, well, a costly and not very successful thing... Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw somewhere that it was not until the XIXth, but would someone now exactly when? SignatureRémi Moyen > Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings > formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw > somewhere that it was not until the XIXth, but would someone now exactly > when? Congress of Vienna I think. So 1815 SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. William Black a écrit : >>Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings >>formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So 1815 Part of the political re-arrangement of Europe, and a nice gesture for the restored Bourbons. That makes sense, yes. Thanks ! SignatureRémi Moyen > Btw, I'm I wrong in saying that Henry Tudor didn't have any more > "genealogical" claim to the crown than most part of the english nobility? > I mean, high nobles families being closely linked in all kingdom (and even > between kingdoms), I guess that, if we look solely at genealogical > relationships, there must have been scores of other nobles as near or > nearer from the crown, no? > (I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...) If you do get to understand it will you please explain it to the rest of us! ;-) Henry Tudor had no claim to the throne except by conquest. He was lower down the list than practically everyone else as he had been specifically debarred. Even without that he needed to get rid of a good few that stood in his way. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > > Btw, I'm I wrong in saying that Henry Tudor didn't have any more > > "genealogical" claim to the crown than most part of the english nobility? > > I mean, high nobles families being closely linked in all kingdom (and > > even between kingdoms), I guess that, if we look solely at genealogical > > relationships, there must have been scores of other nobles as near or > > nearer from the crown, no? > > (I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...) > If you do get to understand it will you please explain it to the rest of > us! ;-) > Henry Tudor had no claim to the throne except by conquest. He was lower > down the list than practically everyone else as he had been specifically > debarred. Even without that he needed to get rid of a good few that stood > in his way. If I have it right Henry was the great grandson of the illegitimate son of a younger son of a king. Effectively nowhere and he (and H8) had to get rid of a fair chunk of those obviously close to the crown and clearly in the line of succession through forced marriage to supporters (and H7 himself), murder, and execution (on flimsiest charges). Anyone who suggests that the princes couldn't have been amongst those murdered by H7 is thinking with closed brain. Richard's son John was executed for being suspected of having received communication from Ireland. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > Martin a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That doesn't necessarily help to get the events clear... Phew! The events were long and complex, with much side changing, treachery and double-dealing. It was a sort of clan/family thing in many ways, but with complications. Put it this way, they were all 'out on their own', and it was as much a matter of survival as ambition and greed - many didn't want to get involved, but had to, old family feuds going back centuries were a part of it, and a ghastly bloodbath ensued as a result. Most of those who died were really mercenaries, either paid to fight or obliged to do so by their local overlords. It wasn't really a 'family' thing either, allegiance to the House of Lancaster or York was secondary to opportunism and safety, no 'principle' was really involved for most. In fact, most of the population seem to have avoided taking sides if they possibly could, and many made elaborate excuses for non-attendance at battles and even at court. > >>The trouble with that is that we have a French visitor. In fact the trouble > >>with practically the whole of English history with a Frenchman in the room is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > french can do the same with England. Ah, this kind of heathen discussion > will keep us warm for the winter, at least :-) As it should... though not as 'warm' as it was a few centuries ago I hope! We are inextricably locked together with France by ancient tradition, and really should accept that by now. > > It can be done politely? Besides, I have a sneaking admiration for Louis XI (the > > 'Universal Spider'), and our countries have always been 'close' - not only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > got a so dark reputation: he was doing the same thing than all the kings > tried to do half a century later, but that was the exception at his time. He was a strange fellow - ahead of his time, but very superstitious too. Not a particularly handsome man, but I would say the cleverest monarch of the fifteenth century without any doubt (the two seldom coincide). His crafty handling of apparently impossible situations was absolutely amazing, and I'm surprised he isn't more famous and admired - the French Machiavelli, and Louis beat him to it by decades! > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was crowned on > > the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took the throne. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > (I'm just trying to see if I understand clearly the situation...) You are right, Henry had a very tenuous and questionable claim to the throne ... mind you, Richard III's was little better! What counts is who wins in the end, that is the bottom line. He was the offspring of a dowager French queen mother and a Welsh upstart, but he made it - and founded a short but mighty dynasty, that produced (IMO) our greatest monarch of all time... so far! > >>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one > >>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi? > > > > Which one is that, King Louis I? > > You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-) Non! This was another... someone say something, I've forgotten the details! (where is Terry Jones when you need him?) > > he doesn't get much mention, true. Perhaps it > > is time! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > english book. Mostly, we consider his english expedition as, well, a > costly and not very successful thing... We haven't had a truly 'English' king since 1066 really, they have all been 'foreign' in some way shape or form... French, Dutch, German.... you name it! > Since you're speaking of this kind of things, when did the english kings > formally abandon claims on the throne of France ? I think I saw > somewhere that it was not until the XIXth, but would someone now exactly > when? Not until surprisingly late I think - someone will know! Cheers Martin > You are right, Henry had a very tenuous and questionable claim to the > throne ... mind you, Richard III's was little better! What counts is who > wins in the end, that is the bottom line. He was the offspring of a dowager > French queen mother and a Welsh upstart, but he made it - and founded a > short but mighty dynasty, that produced (IMO) our greatest monarch of all > time... so far! Nasty, mean, murderous, but, like Bill Gates & co, great at the spin. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > You are right, Henry had a very tenuous and questionable claim to the throne ... > mind you, Richard III's was little better! What counts is who wins in the end, > that is the bottom line. He was the offspring of a dowager French queen mother > and a Welsh upstart, but he made it - and founded a short but mighty dynasty, > that produced (IMO) our greatest monarch of all time... so far! Which one, and why? Cheers, Alex > > You are right, Henry had a very tenuous and questionable claim to the throne ... > > mind you, Richard III's was little better! What counts is who wins in the end, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which one, and why? Queen Elizabeth I. Because she was so clever, capable, successful and overcame the considerable disadvantage of being female. > > > You are right, Henry had a very tenuous and questionable claim to the > > > throne [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Which one, and why? > Queen Elizabeth I. Because she was so clever, capable, successful and > overcame the considerable disadvantage of being female. She also refounded the school I went to. Interestingly whilst I was there for the quattercentenary in 1967 I'm now being pestered for money to celebrate the 500th anniversary in 2009 as they seem to have finally discovered the date of the original founding. If they rename it the King Henry (VII or VIII) Grammar School I shall certainly refuse to contribute. ;-) Now if only they discover a charter dating from 1484 ... ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing Martin a écrit : >>>>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one >>>>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Non! This was another... someone say something, I've forgotten the details! Hum... a Louis, are you sure ? After the normand invasion, I can't see any other Louis being closely involved with the english crown (the divorce of Louis VII with Alienor d'Aquitaine is somehow related, but not in that way ;-) ). Unless you're speaking of a french prince which was not king of France either ? Oh no, wait ! Are you thinking of Louis IV d'Outremer (middle of the Xth century) ? I never thought he might have been king, but given the unstability of kingdoms (in England as well as in France) at that time, that could be -- and as his nickname comes from him living in England at the time he became king of France... SignatureRémi Moyen > Martin a écrit : > >>>>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one > >>>>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Non! This was another... someone say something, I've forgotten the > > details! > Hum... a Louis, are you sure ? > After the normand invasion, I can't see any other Louis being closely > involved with the english crown (the divorce of Louis VII with Alienor > d'Aquitaine is somehow related, but not in that way ;-) ). Unless you're > speaking of a french prince which was not king of France either ? > Oh no, wait ! Are you thinking of Louis IV d'Outremer (middle of the Xth > century) ? I never thought he might have been king, but given the > unstability of kingdoms (in England as well as in France) at that time, > that could be -- and as his nickname comes from him living in England at > the time he became king of France... Louis (1187-1226) VIII of France (1223-6), Louis I of England (1215-17). Usually omitted from English king lists and not mentioned in school histories. Henry III's reign is backdated to draw a veil over the national shame. ;-) SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing Twaddle from a twit. DSH > Louis (1187-1226) VIII of France (1223-6), Louis I of England (1215-17). > Usually omitted from English king lists and not mentioned in school > histories. > Henry III's reign is backdated to draw a veil over the national shame. ;-) > > Martin a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Usually omitted from English king lists and not mentioned in school histories. > Henry III's reign is backdated to draw a veil over the national shame. ;-) Thank you John - that is the one. As I said, where's Terry Jones when you need him? Martin a écrit : >>>>>>>Of course we could always discuss the French English King that no-one >>>>>>>mentions. Do they include him in the French histories, Remi? >>>>>> >>>>>>Which one is that, King Louis I? >>>>> >>>>>You meant king Louis VIII the Lion, of course? ;-) >>Louis (1187-1226) VIII of France (1223-6), Louis I of England (1215-17). >>Usually omitted from English king lists and not mentioned in school histories. >>Henry III's reign is backdated to draw a veil over the national shame. ;-) > > Thank you John - that is the one. As I said, where's Terry Jones when you need > him? Hey, I said him first ! ;-) Anyway, I don't think that's it's really a big loss, either for french of for british history, if we forget about him. Apart from being a symbol of the "interest" of France about England at that time, his english expedition didn't have a huge impact, I believe -- and even as a french king, well, he reigned only for 3 years and is between two much more active kings (Philippe Auguste and Saint Louis). Btw, he gained his nickname of "the lion" during conquest of some parts of Normandy (against the english, of course), I think. SignatureRémi Moyen > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and > took the throne. Not in that order. Henry dated his reign from the day before Bosworth. Also while he did marry Elizabeth, the marriage was after his formal coronation. IIRC Elizabeth was not crowned until the following year. Henry may have married Elizabeth to keep the remaining Yorkists quiet, but he based his claim to the throne on his own ancestry and the judgement of battle. Ken Young > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was > > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yorkists quiet, but he based his claim to the throne on his own > ancestry and the judgement of battle. That is why he did it. It finally united Lancaster and York.... although there is still grumbling to this very day! Richard had to make a public statement denying he intended to marry her after the death of his wife Anne, rumours were abounding (v. naughty, as they were quite closely related). > > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was > > > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > but he based his claim to the throne on his own ancestry and the > > judgement of battle. > That is why he did it. It finally united Lancaster and York.... although > there is still grumbling to this very day! Richard had to make a public > statement denying he intended to marry her after the death of his wife > Anne, rumours were abounding (v. naughty, as they were quite closely > related). Henry married Elizabeth as that gave him a figleaf of legality but stripped his mother-in-law of her possessions and imprisoned her in a nunnery. I doubt the domestic life of Elizabeth was a happy one. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was > > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took > > the throne. > Not in that order. Henry dated his reign from the day before Bosworth. > Also while he did marry Elizabeth, the marriage was after his formal > coronation. IIRC Elizabeth was not crowned until the following year. Henry > may have married Elizabeth to keep the remaining Yorkists quiet, but he > based his claim to the throne on his own ancestry and the judgement of > battle. He needed to get rid of plenty of others before using his ancestry as a claim. He did. Unlike Richard he was a murdering bastard. In backdating his reign he was able to charge Richard's supporters with treason at Bosworth - but Parliament refused to allow him to carry out his intended prosecutions and executions. IIRC that was too late to stop his confiscation of the land and property of those he had so outrageously accused. You might like to note that one of Richard's law improvements was to get rid of improper confiscation from the accused (rather than convicted). The Tudors were to bring back many medieval ideas that Richard had outlawed. And the idea that the Tudors ended the Wars of the Roses rather than Richard is a fallacy of Tudor spin. Richard ended the Wars with compromise and benevolence; the Tudors consolodated their position by murdering their rivals. The Tudor red and white rose is an outrageous lie. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was > > > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and took [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > He needed to get rid of plenty of others before using his ancestry as a > claim. He did. Unlike Richard he was a murdering bastard. Aww John! They were all murdering bastards - it was a qualification for the job. Richard was just as ruthless, but not nearly so clever. Edward IV did his share - even Henry VI did some nasty things, as did his father, and his and... Richard II too. > In backdating his reign he was able to charge Richard's supporters with > treason at Bosworth - but Parliament refused to allow him to carry out his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of improper confiscation from the accused (rather than convicted). The Tudors > were to bring back many medieval ideas that Richard had outlawed. Richard however illegally snaffled half the Warwick inheritance, probably killed Henry VI in person, used his northen henxmen to crush dissent, ordered a man hung drawn and quartered for writing a mildly rude poem about him, took the throne illegally, used a hostage to force the Stanleys to engage, and of course there is the little matter of his nephews.... I make that robbery, theft, obdtructing justice, terrorism, murder, high treason, two counts of infanticide and two of regicide - quite a lot in so few years? Some might say he deserved a death sentaence for that lot! > And the idea that the Tudors ended the Wars of the Roses rather than Richard > is a fallacy of Tudor spin. Richard ended the Wars with compromise and > benevolence; the Tudors consolodated their position by murdering their rivals. > The Tudor red and white rose is an outrageous lie. Yet it was adopted, and Henry did end the Wars of the Roses. Not by uniting the Houses of Lancaster and York perhaps, but by craftily eliminating any opposition by a mixture of murder, taxation and marriage. He had no noble motives of course, but he was a better survivor than Richard, and a far better man for the job of King of England. Ruthlessly efficient rather than just plain ruthless. Cheers Martin > > > > As for 'the end', that was the moment Henry Tudor won the day, was > > > > crowned on the field by Lord Stanley, married Elizabeth of York and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > He needed to get rid of plenty of others before using his ancestry as a > > claim. He did. Unlike Richard he was a murdering bastard. > Aww John! They were all murdering bastards - it was a qualification for the > job. Richard was just as ruthless, but not nearly so clever. Edward IV did > his share - even Henry VI did some nasty things, as did his father, and his > and... Richard II too. So go on. Name Richard's murders. Then name the reforms of the previous reign that he reversed for his own benefit. Then tell me his equivalent of Henry's attempt to make support for their legal king treason. Then count those that committed treason against Richard and were pardoned and compare the list with Henry's. Then count the claimants for the throne alive in Richard's day and murdered by Henry. > > In backdating his reign he was able to charge Richard's supporters with > > treason at Bosworth - but Parliament refused to allow him to carry out [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > convicted). The Tudors were to bring back many medieval ideas that > > Richard had outlawed. > Richard however illegally snaffled half the Warwick inheritance, probably > killed Henry VI in person, used his northen henxmen to crush dissent, > ordered a man hung drawn and quartered for writing a mildly rude poem about > him, took the throne illegally, used a hostage to force the Stanleys to > engage, and of course there is the little matter of his nephews.... > I make that robbery, theft, obdtructing justice, terrorism, murder, high > treason, two counts of infanticide and two of regicide - quite a lot in so > few years? Some might say he deserved a death sentaence for that lot! You have been reading Tudor spin again. Do you believe everything that Georg Bush tells you? I have this bridge that you might be interested in buying ... So start by explaining why Richard might have killed his nephews. > > And the idea that the Tudors ended the Wars of the Roses rather than > > Richard is a fallacy of Tudor spin. Richard ended the Wars with > > compromise and benevolence; the Tudors consolodated their position by > > murdering their rivals. The Tudor red and white rose is an outrageous lie. > Yet it was adopted, and Henry did end the Wars of the Roses. Not by uniting > the Houses of Lancaster and York perhaps, but by craftily eliminating any > opposition by a mixture of murder, taxation and marriage. He had no noble > motives of course, but he was a better survivor than Richard, and a far > better man for the job of King of England. Ruthlessly efficient rather than > just plain ruthless. Ruthlessly efficient at murder rather than attempting an end to war by forgiving his enemies. Henry stole from individuals and stole the country. SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing >Hello, >So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a >book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >linear "story book". All I want is to be able to find easily all the >great events and (wo)men of english history in it. Our Island Story - HE Marshall > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > than Henry VIII and his 5 (? 8 ?) wifes, or Cromwell and the beheading > of Charles I. Well, a bit further than that, but not so much. Sacre Bleu! Have you forgotten the Hundred Years War? :¬) I am xposting to soc.history.medieval which will provide you with plenty of history, and many 'lively' opinions, ideas and... well, you'll see! > So, I'm currently reading "the Oxford history of Britain", by K. O. > Morgan, which I find very intersting. But for many things it is much [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lost at various history points where the author directly goes to > analysing the consequences without recalling the course of events. It depends what you are interested in really, lists of dates and Kings are a vital part of history of course, but so is the development of technology, agriculture and the way social and economic structures changed. To me, the most fascinating part is how thoughts and ideas changed, though they all hang together in the end... which is now I suppose? What are your particular areas of interest I wonder - the subject is so vast, you have to 'start somewhere'? > So, and here comes the reason of this post, would somebody here know a > book which would give me a quick course of events, without taking for > granted that I already know who's who and when did each battle happen? > If possible, not something to naive (ie., not something directed at > young children!)... The Oxford histories are good and reliable, but somewhat dry. Best you think of a particular area of interest perhaps, as most 'decent' books specialise on some particular aspect or period. There is so much - my personal 'field' is the Wars of the Roses', very narrow band in time and location, but it has led me to learn about all sorts of fascinating things in pursuit of it. Others better read and informed than I will hopefully make some good suggestions... where would you like to start? > In fact, it could be some kind of historic dictionnary more than a > linear "story book". All I want is to be able to find easily all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > saw soc.history.medieval, but I'm afraid there is too much traffic for > me. Are there other ones? Too much merde you mean? Not always, it is a valuable resource, you just have to be 'selective'. Votre Anglais est parfait Rémi, in fact, better than the English of many Englishmen! Cheers Martin > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > Cheers > Martin I found the Roy Strong book, "The Story of Britian", an easy and entertaining introduction to English history. The companion book, "The Spirit of of Britian" is more arts oriented, but also worthwhile. JMHO, Eve > I found the Roy Strong book, "The Story of Britian", an easy and > entertaining introduction to English history. Yes, but that also illustrates the problem with the book... Cheers, Alex Well, it is an introduction. A general overview for the uninitiated to whet their appetite. Sometimes such a thing can fill a need. Eve > I found the Roy Strong book, "The Story of Britian", an easy and > entertaining introduction to English history. The companion book, "The > Spirit of of Britian" Is itabout the local distillieries? (As in "'Boston Massacre', the most revolutionary spirit"). :-) >> Votre Anglais est parfait Rémi, in fact, better than the English of many > Englishmen! Washamarrawiyajimmy! Surreyman > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sacre Bleu! Have you forgotten the Hundred Years War? :¬) He is trying to be polite. Should I remind you which posteriors had been kicked as a result of this war? :-) [] Martin a écrit : >>but I'm afraid that my knowledge of english history does not go further >>than Henry VIII and his 5 (? 8 ?) wifes, or Cromwell and the beheading >>of Charles I. Well, a bit further than that, but not so much. > > Sacre Bleu! Have you forgotten the Hundred Years War? :¬) Another poster has given you the true answer for that. :-) Honnestly, as the war was essentially fought for french land, and on french land, I think we get a very biased view of it (like a kind of invasion war...). And Henry V (or was it VI ?) is usually just mentionned "en passant", as a kind of funny sub-event of history. > I am xposting to soc.history.medieval which will provide you with plenty of > history, and many 'lively' opinions, ideas and... well, you'll see! See that... I'll try to read a bit through it. > It depends what you are interested in really, lists of dates and Kings are a > vital part of history of course, but so is the development of technology, > agriculture and the way social and economic structures changed. To me, the most > fascinating part is how thoughts and ideas changed, though they all hang > together in the end... which is now I suppose? Yep, that's also my point of view. But, as I was sometimes thinking when reading french books (there are sometimes fierce discussions about this on french history ng), and as I now know for sure, you need to have a good factual basis before going in this analysis. I mean, you will all the time get reference to events in the course of the study of tendances (at the least as milestones, but also as they are the emerging point of the iceberg, revealing the deepest evolutions). If you don't know (or at least vaguely remind) these events, you'll get the general evolution, but with no anchor point. Impressionism can do wonderful paintings, but Brueghel with all the small details is also nice :-) > What are your particular areas of interest I wonder - the subject is so vast, > you have to 'start somewhere'? As I said elsewhere, I first wanted to have a kind of general big picture. Without much details, but covering all the times. Then I'll probably be digging around the Xth-XIth century (or maybe a bit later), because I like the changes ongoing in France at that time with the onset of feodality, and would like to compare it with England. Then probaly the civil war. More globally, the rise of parlementary power: starting from political situations not so different, France and England in one or two centuries became one a absolute monarchy, the other a parlementary one. I'd like to see how... And finally the XVIIIth century, but more from a diplomatical/military point of view than a social/economic one: the changes of international equilibrium and the violent but still subtile exchanges between Spain, England, France, Low-Countries, Austria, Russia, ... I'm less interested (but still could read any good book) about the "intermediate" periods between these ones (XII to XVIth, mostly). I'm not very interested in early britain history (maybe something simple and short about saxons, but the chapters in the Oxford History that I have is enough for now), nor in XIXth century -- and absolutely not in XXth century (excepted to understand cultural references, but that's more bare facts about various great men than real history). And I'm globally looking for "small" books: I don't read very quick in english and I have to keep pace with my SF, classical french (and now english) and comics collections -- not speaking of work... :-) That means I'm not likely to buy studies of 20 volumes, however intersting they may be (but still I won't falter before books of a few hundreds pages -- I'm not *that* slow to read!). >>PS: could you tell me what other british-history ng is there around? I >>saw soc.history.medieval, but I'm afraid there is too much traffic for >>me. Are there other ones? > > Too much merde you mean? Not always, it is a valuable resource, you just have to > be 'selective'. Yeah, that, and when I step in a newsgroup and see more than 3000 messages, that cut down quickly my enthusiasm. I much prefer smaller groups (more focused). Still, I'll try to browse it quickly. > Votre Anglais est parfait Rémi, in fact, better than the English of many > Englishmen! Merci bien ! :-) SignatureRémi Moyen > Then probaly the civil war. More globally, the rise of parlementary > power: starting from political situations not so different, France and > England in one or two centuries became one a absolute monarchy, the > other a parlementary one. I'd like to see how... That's quite a nineteenth century view (not that many contemporaries don't still hold it). A good, short study of the period is Peter Gaunt's, The British Civil Wars 1637-1651, (Routledge: London, 1997), ISBN: 0415129664, £9.99. Then you could finish the story with the much more interesting (!) period of the republic: try either Austin Woolrych, England without a King, (Routledge: London, 1983), ISBN: 0415104564, £10.99 or Ronald Hutton, The British Republic, 2nd Ed., (Macmillan: Basingstoke, 2000), ISBN: 0333913248, £17.50. Frankly, there are whole forests' worth of books devoted to the mid-seventeenth century, and it is possibly the most contentious period of British history. I suspect that it is as controversial as the French Revolution must be in French historiography, with the key difference that the majority of Britons are blissfully unaware that it happened (beyond "What? Cromwell and stuff?"). Coming back to your original point, try Nick Henshall's The Myth of Absolutism, (Pearson: London, 1992), ISBN: 0582056179, £19.99, for an interesting deconstruction of the idea of absolutism. He compares XVIIth and XVIIIth century France and Britain, with the intention of demonstrating that the idea of absolutism doesn't stand up, but simultaneously demonstrates that the idea of British uniqueness is equally mythical; in fact, both states were very similar. It's aimed at A-level and first year university students (ie students aged 16-19 years old), so it is a very accessible work. Cheers, Alex Alex Craven a écrit : >> Then probaly the civil war. More globally, the rise of parlementary >> power: starting from political situations not so different, France and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's quite a nineteenth century view (not that many contemporaries > don't still hold it). Is it ? Well, that goes to show how few I know of english history :-) > Frankly, there are whole forests' worth of books devoted to the > mid-seventeenth century, and it is possibly the most contentious period > of British history. I suspect that it is as controversial as the French > Revolution must be in French historiography, with the key difference > that the majority of Britons are blissfully unaware that it happened > (beyond "What? Cromwell and stuff?"). I can guess that, seeing the number of various references to it throughout any vaguely history-oriented thing here... Btw, the book I'm reading (Morgan's Oxford history) seems to imply that the real consequences of the civil war and republic were much smaller than their impact on the englich mind (which cannot be said for the french revolution !). I found that quite surprising... > Coming back to your original point, try Nick Henshall's The Myth of > Absolutism, (Pearson: London, 1992) Seems nice. Thanks for the references. (wow, if I get only half of what was advised to me in this thread, I've got enough to read for months! Ah, I asked for, I got it...) SignatureRémi Moyen >Alex Craven a écrit : >>> Then probaly the civil war. More globally, the rise of parlementary [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Is it ? Well, that goes to show how few I know of english history :-) Well, it's the standard twentieth century view too. A book written in 1992 isn't retrospective :-) >> Frankly, there are whole forests' worth of books devoted to the >> mid-seventeenth century, and it is possibly the most contentious period >> of British history. I suspect that it is as controversial as the French >> Revolution must be in French historiography, with the key difference that >> the majority of Britons are blissfully unaware that it happened (beyond >> "What? Cromwell and stuff?"). I'm not quite sure why most Britons should be expected to know more than 'What? Cromwell and stuff?' Indeed that strikes me as quite a sophisticated response :-) >I can guess that, seeing the number of various references to it throughout >any vaguely history-oriented thing here... >Btw, the book I'm reading (Morgan's Oxford history) seems to imply that the >real consequences of the civil war and republic were much smaller than >their impact on the englich mind (which cannot be said for the french >revolution !). I found that quite surprising... That's the problem of so much British general history being written from a London perspective. I suspect that a collection of local history essays about the civil war would give a much stronger sense of change. In the area that I study, the changes were significant because the civil war demolished the fortunes of the two major gentry families - and, from a social perspective, the area became very Quaker. However, probably more significant to the area was the opening up of Ireland to trade and settlement. Big events like civil wars don't seem so big when there are lots of other things going on. The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have ever heard of it! Chris Appalling! Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being far more interested in the Marxist ones? Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution. John Locke was the Godfather of both. You threw out James II, while we threw out his first cousin, four times removed, George III -- and for many of the same reasons. If more Americans and Brits understood the ramifications of that similarity, we'd all be better off -- and have increased Comity of Interests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now THIS is an Intelligent Post by someone who obviously DOES have a Sense of History. Vide infra pro sapientia. DSH > That's the problem of so much British general history being written from a > London perspective. I suspect that a collection of local history essays [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Chris "there are no facts, only interpretations" Nietzsche . > Appalling! > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > Chris > "there are no facts, only interpretations" > > Nietzsche Which by his own definition is not a fact. Jeff > That's the problem of so much British general history being written from a > London perspective. I suspect that a collection of local history essays > about the civil war would give a much stronger sense of change. I'm not sure how far I agree. My thesis was a study of Lancashire during the Commonwealth. In some areas, such as the ecclesiastical hierarchy and religious practice, there was significant change. However, in other respects, much remained the same. Whilst the institutions of county government were purged of suspect individuals, the form and function of local government did not change; indeed, the Commonwealth saw something of a reversion towards the magistracy. Similarly, whilst individuals and their families experienced varied fortunes, there was no real social revolution; power may have shifted down the social ladder in many areas, but this was still a shift within the gentry. Meanwhile, the county responded to the challenges posed by famine, plague, and war in entirely traditional ways; certainly, the people of Lancashire were faced with problems as a result of the wars, but accomodating contingencies as they occur is not the same as change. As I say above, the only tangible and lasting change in English society caused by the mid-seventeenth century, IMO, was the emergence and consolidation of a number of Protestant sects. Even so, these remained insignifant in numbers - even the Quakers only numbered 60,000 in 1660. Nevertheless, the creation of non-conformity as a group of separatist denominations coloured English political and religious experience for a long time to come. > In the area that I study, the changes were significant because the civil war > demolished the fortunes of the two major gentry families - and, from a > social perspective, the area became very Quaker. Where is that? > The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of > the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have > ever heard of it! The students that I teach seem blissfully unaware of the bulk of history, of any nation and any period! Although this is the end of a depressing teaching week... Cheers, Alex That's the fault of your profession -- over the past 50 years or so. "Too late smart." DSH > The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of > the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have > ever heard of it! > The students that I teach seem blissfully unaware of the bulk of history, > of any nation and any period! Although this is the end of a depressing > teaching week... > > Cheers, Alex >>The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of >>the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>of any nation and any period! Although this is the end of a depressing >>teaching week... > That's the fault of your profession -- over the past 50 years or so. > > "Too late smart." I disagree - it is the fault of governments dicking about with education, particularly since the introduction of modular A-levels. I have friends who teach in schools, and who are equally frustrated by the situation, but are tied by the curriculum. Add to that the desparate drive to send everybody to university, which means that many of us teaching at the lower end of the hierarchy are seeing more and more students who do not have the intellectual capacity to to do a degree. I had to explain complicated words like "colonisation" and "fortification" to one of my students, the other day. As one frustrated colleague said to me today, the government has levelled the playing field by removing all of the grass. That said, there are still some highly capable, intelligent and motivated students even as you go down the universities. But, teaching at both Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan, it is becoming painfully apparent that the gap between the two is widening at a very fast rate. The combination of top-up fees and the government's drive to have at least 50% of school-leavers going to university will only widen that gap further, IMO. Cheers, Alex Fair Enough. So you need to vote out the current government and vote one in that is more sensible. Yes, a 50% yield to University is absurd and simply means Lowering The Standards. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is one of the Great Highpoints of British History -- and of World History -- one of Great Britain's Most Important Gifts To The World. If only 10% of your people know about it you are in deep codswallop indeed. But, admit it, many academics in Britain have long viewed the Russian Revolution as far more important than Britain's own Glorious Revolution -- and you pogues have reaped what you have sown in the minds of your students. Teach them more Adam Smith and Edmund Burke and far less Karl Marx and the Webbs. DSH >>>The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of >>>the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Cheers, Alex > But, teaching at both Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan I do hope they timetable staff better than students. I had lectures at the Met ending in Didsbury at 1pm and starting at the Uni at 1.15pm. Lunch in a traffic jam. ;-( SignatureJohn Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing > The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of > the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have > ever heard of it! It's interesting isn't it. I wonder if it's because the perception is that by then 'who's gonna be the king' didn't matter. It's only a couple of decades after the Restoration. In some ways, to modern eyes, it's Charles II who is seen as the anomaly rather than Dutch William. On the three hundredth anniversary it was interesting to note that, despite efforts by the central government to get something started, nothing much happened. Very unlike the various 350th anniversaries of the Civil War and its battles where there were widespread events and things. Perhaps because 'it didn't happen here'. The Glorious Revolution was something that affected politicians, but nobody died, nobody lost their home or livelihood (Except James II anyway) and so nobody really cared. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of >> the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population >> have ever heard of it! Is this really true? If so, it is appalling. Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being far more interested in the Marxist ones? Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution. John Locke was the Intellectual Godfather of both. You threw out James II, while we threw out his first cousin, four times removed, George III -- and for many of the same reasons. If more Americans and Brits understood the ramifications of that similarity, we'd all be better off -- and have increased Comity of Interests. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > >> The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of > >> the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your teachers and professors don't TEACH The Glorious Revolution -- being > far more interested in the Marxist ones? Utter crap, I always wanted Monmouth to win! What do you know, colonial fol! > Our American Revolution is, of course, a son of your Glorious Revolution. > John Locke was the Intellectual Godfather of both. > > You threw out James II, while we threw out his first cousin, four times > removed, George III -- and for many of the same reasons. Both had 'problems'.... how mean! > If more Americans and Brits understood the ramifications of that similarity, > we'd all be better off -- and have increased Comity of Interests. Is this another 'bottoms' thing David? It sounds supiciously like 'commode' old chap, we really don't want that sort of smutty talk besmirching this polite newsgroup thank you very much! Cheers Martin > The real oddity in the British sense of history is the total ignorance of > the Glorious Revolution. I doubt that more than 10% of the population have > ever heard of it! Yes, this one is a source of my permanent confusion. Why such a name? AFAIK, it was neither glorious nor noticeably revolutionary. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message