Year of Anniversaries

This is a year of significant anniversaries in English history. In 1215 King John was presented with Magna Carta, or the Great Charter, by barons who were in rebellion against him. He repudiated it soon enough, claiming that his oaths were sworn under duress and therefore not binding. The barons were interested only in their own grievances, not those of the whole population, and it is debated whether the charter contained anything new, or was just a statement of what the barons believed to be established custom which the king was ignoring.

Nevertheless, Magna Carta has come to be seen as an important step in the evolution of the English, later British, constitution, and of limitation of the power of the monarchy. Its most famous clauses guaranteed free and fair access to justice for all free men:

'No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.'

This year is also the 750th anniversary of Simon de Montfort summoning the knights of the shire and the burgesses of the towns to Parliament for the first time - the origin of the House of Commons. Again, de Montfort was a baron in rebellion against the king, then Henry III, and probably more interested in his own grievances than in long term constitutional reform. But like Magna Carta, de Montfort’s action has taken on a much greater significance than was intended at the time.

This year is the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt, in which a small English army led by Henry V defeated a much larger French force. Henry V’s position in France could not be maintained under Henry VI. The greatest long term consequences of the victory at Agincourt were the opportunity it provided for Shakespeare to write some rousing speeches and the marriage of Henry V to the French princess Catherine de Valois. Her second marriage produced the Tudor dynasty, which had such an impact on English history.

It is also the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, which finally broke the power of Napoleon. Although it was not appreciated at the time, the battle ended the long series of wars between Britain and France.

These are the anniversaries surrounding which there are events, books and articles and television programmes. But they are not the only anniversaries this year which are worth noting.

In 1065, Edward the Confessor’s Abbey of St Peter’s at Thorney Island was consecrated - the West Minster.

1315 was the start of the Great Famine which continued into the 1320s. Climate change brought cold, wet summers and bad harvests causing high prices and food shortages.

In 1715 James Edward Stuart, the 'Old Pretender', led a rebellion aimed at deposing the Hanoverian George I and replacing the Stuarts on the throne.

In 1765, HMS Victory was launched at Chatham Dockyard.

Several significant events happened in 1865. Among others, Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary, died. He had dominated British foreign policy for more than thirty years. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson qualified as Britain’s first woman doctor. And Crossness Pumping Station opened. It was part of Joseph Bazalgette’s sewage system which had a major impact on the health of London.

In 1615 Pleasance Caporne, widow, of Brimpton in Berkshire, died. So did William Keate, a weaver of Newbury in Berkshire and Thomas Segrave, a yeoman of Helpringham in Lincolnshire. They are not famous. We do not know if they were exceptionally good or clever people or if they performed any heroic acts. But they lived and died and possibly have descendants who are alive today.

While it’s right to remember the great achievements, the events that had a national and long lasting impact, we should also remember the millions who have made their own contributions to their communities and to the life of the nation, over millennia.

1066 And All That

At this time of year many young people are waiting for the results of their public examinations. A uniform system of examinations for school pupils was established a little less than a hundred years ago. The School Certificate, taken at the age of fifteen or sixteen, and the Higher Certificate, taken at seventeen or eighteen, were introduced in 1917.

Only a minority of pupils sat these exams. The school leaving age was raised from twelve to fourteen in 1918. Not all children had access to secondary education, and not all of those who did followed a curriculum which led to School Certificate. In 1919, the first year in which the exam was held, 28,000 pupils were entered for the School Certificate. In 1950, the last year in which it was held, 99,900 took the exam.

From 1951 School Certificate was replaced by O [Ordinary] Levels and A [Advanced] Levels. O Levels were themselves replaced by GCSEs in 1988.

There are longstanding debates about the comparative rigour of School Certificate, O Levels and GCSEs. School Certificate was certainly more demanding in one respect. A candidate had to pass six subjects at one sitting in order to achieve the certificate. Commercial subjects as well as the more traditional academic subjects were taken.

Course content and teaching methods have also been much discussed. Here is the School Certificate English History paper from March 1932.

Oxford Local Examinations

School Certificate

Thursday, March 17, 1932, from 10.45 A.M to 1 P.M

English History, 55 B.C. – 1904 A.D. 

[Answer FIVE questions. Questions may be chosen from ONE Section only, or from any TWO.

Credit will be given for SIMPLE sketch-maps whenever they are appropriate.]

SECTION 1 (55 B.C. – 1485 A.D.]

1. Give an account of the rise and development of the kingdom of Northumbria, pointing out its importance in English history.

2. Explain carefully the importance of the following : –
(a) The withdrawal of the Roman legions.
(b) The battle of Deorham.
(c) The battle of Ethandune
(d) The payment of Danegeld

3. What were the causes of the anarchy in the reign of Stephen? State what steps Henry II took to restore the country to law and order.

4. Compare the career of Simon de Montfort with that of Thomas of Lancaster.

5. Show how by legislation or other means Edward I increased the royal power over (a) the barons (b) the Church.

6. Trace the course of the Hundred Years’ War during the reign of Edward III. How far was he successful in that war?

7. Either (a) Write an account of the Black Death and show how it affected the interests of the feudal landlords and their labourers. Or (b) Explain fully what is meant by the statement that Wycliffe was ‘the Morning Star of the Reformation.’

8. Choosing either Henry IV or Edward IV explain why he had to fight (a) to get the throne (b) to keep it.

SECTION II (1485 – 1660)

9. Explain and discuss one of the following topics :–
(a) The Tudor despotism.
(b) The Revival of Learning.

10. Account for :–
(a) The fall from power of the Protector Somerset.
(b) The failure of Wyatt’s rebellion.

11. What were the main difficulties that faced Elizabeth at the beginning of her reign? Show to what extent and by what means she overcame them.

12. What do you know of the maritime exploits of Englishmen during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I?

13. Give an account of the foreign policy of (a) Henry VIII (b) James I. In what ways were their policies similar?

14. Show what led to the following and how they affected the fortune of Charles I :–
(a) The Ship-Money case.
(b) The Solemn League and Covenant.

15. Write an account of the main incidents after the battle of Naseby that led finally to the execution of Charles I.

16. What are the claims of Oliver Cromwell to greatness?

SECTION III (1660 – 1792)

17. Charles II promised liberty to tender consciences. How far was this promise fulfilled during his reign?

18. James II was not unpopular at hs accession: three years later he lost his throne for lack of support. Account for these two facts.

19. Give a short account of Marlborough’s campaigns on the Continent.

20. Point out the main difficulties in the way of the Union of England and Scotland. Show how the difficulties were overcome, and give the main terms of agreement in 1707.

21. There were both advantages and disadvantages for the country in the Whig domination during the first half of the eighteenth century. Give some account of these.

22. Illustrate the importance of British sea power in the Seven Years’ War.

23. Discuss two of the following topics :–
(a) The work of Warren Hastings in India.
(b) The career and importance of John Wesley.
(c) Conditions in Ireland in the eighteenth century.

24. How far had either Pitt or Burke shown himself to be a great statesman before the French Revolution?

SECTION IV (1792 – 1904)

25. Describe and estimate the importance of three of the chief reforms carried out in the first half of the nineteenth century. Which had the most far reaching effects? Give reasons for your view.

26. Show how Napoleon tried to ruin (a) Great Britain’s trade and (b) her Eastern Empire. Account for his failure to achieve these two objects.

27. Give a short account of three of the following :–
(a) The Luddites.
(b) The Manchester Massacres.
(c) The Six Acts.
(d) The Cato Street Conspiracy.

28. Describe and discuss the importance of either (a) Canning’s foreign policy or (b) Gladstone’s domestic reforms.

29. Discuss the following topics :–
(a) The reason for Britain’s entry into the Crimean War.
(b) The attitude of Britain to the American Civil War

30. Show the importance of (a) Lord Durham (b) Cecil Rhodes, in the history of the British Empire.

31. Compare Peel and Disraeli as party leaders.

32. Explain and indicate the importance of :–
(a) The repeal of the Combination Act in 1825.
(b) The Reform Act of 1867.
(c) Mr Balfour’s Education Act of 1902.

The Justice of the Peace

Today there are local elections in many places in England. This is relatively recent. County Councils were created by the Local Government Act of 1888. Town councils elected by ratepayers were set up under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835.

Before 1888 most county administration was carried on by Justices of the Peace.  The office evolved through the Middle Ages, but was formally established by legislation in 1361. Justices were appointed by the sovereign. Their role was not salaried, but they were entitled to claim some expenses.

Justices of the Peace were not drawn from the great noble families. This was largely because in the late medieval and Tudor periods royal policy was to diminish, wherever possible, the power and influence of the nobility. Additionally, a great nobleman would be likely to move between the court and his estates in various parts of the country, while a Justice of the Peace needed to be settled in one area in order to be effective.

By the sixteenth century J.P.s were appointed from among the middling sorts of county gentry. They were not necessarily very wealthy but needed to have sufficient education and time to spare from their own affairs to carry out the role effectively. Not all men who were appointed were active as J.P.s, but a conscientious gentleman might spend several days a month on Justice's affairs, more at certain times of the year and in certain circumstances.

As local government developed in the Tudor period Justices of the Peace acquired more and more responsibilities. A county might have a hundred or more Justices. Each would have county wide powers and responsibilities but would also pay special attention to affairs in his own home area.

In addition to dealing with criminal matters, as and when required by legislation they oversaw the administration of the Poor Law, the repair and maintenance of highways, and apprenticeships; regulated markets and fairs and weights and measures; fixed prices, especially of corn and bread; licensed theatres, alehouses, dissenters' meeting houses, gamekeepers and corndealers; maintained the county gaol; maintained bridges in the county; appointed, or confirmed the appointment of, various local officials, and dealt with matters relating to bastardy, among other things.

The 1580s were a critical decade for national security. William Lambarde, a J.P. in Kent, assisted the Lord Lieutenant with the muster. He also mediated in disputes about the beacon watch.  In the difficult decade of the 1590s, when there were near famine conditions due to bad harvests, Lambarde and others toured the county ensuring that farmers were taking their corn to market and selling it at fair prices, rather than holding it back hoping that prices would rise further.

Four times a year Justices of the Peace attended the Quarter Sessions, usually held in the county town. The Sessions dealt with criminal cases, as well as civil and administrative matters. Not all Justices attended every sessions, but for those who did, it could be a social occasion and an opportunity for gentlemen to meet to discuss politics and other matters not directly related to Justice's business.

Local government could not have operated and law and order could not have been maintained without the Justices of the Peace. Many gentlemen held other offices, in addition to that of Justice. They gave their time to this work as well as managing their own estates and family affairs. They knew their counties intimately and in their own home areas would have known everyone at all levels of society. They and their work deserve to be remembered.

For the apparel oft proclaims the man II

A historical novelist might often have a reason to describe women's clothing. A girl might be dressing for her first ball, or a woman might be buying clothes before travelling to a new job or to visit some long lost relatives. Such scenes help to establish the setting and reveal something about the character.

A writer is less likely to go into detail about men's dress, but it's still necessary to know whether a male character would have been wearing hose or breeches or trousers.

Men's hairstyles in the past also varied as much as women's.  When were wigs worn? Samuel Pepys started wearing one in the autumn of 1663, having his own hair cut off. The King and the Duke of York started wearing them about the same time, so Pepys seems to have been at the forefront of fashion. Not everybody wore a wig, however; Pepys' contemporary and fellow diarist  John Evelyn appears to have worn his own hair.

Styles changed, but wigs were worn throughout the eighteenth century. They were often stolen or knocked off in fights. Hair powder was also used, by men and women. William Pitt the Younger's Hair Powder Duty, introduced in 1795, is said to have ended the practice of wearing powdered hair or wigs. It survives now only in the legal profession.

Then there is facial hair. Beards were in fashion in the Elizabethan period and into the early seventeenth century. Facial hair did not become popular again until the Victorian era. Then it seemed that anything went; beards, moustaches, side whiskers, all luxuriantly grown. Hair products for men were advertised along with those for women.

When writing historical fiction, especially romance, one has to consider what a modern reader might find attractive in a hero.  A  neatly trimmed beard would be acceptable to most people.

A man's own hair, short or long, is fine. A man's own hair, powdered and tied back for a formal occasion, might also be attractive. The very elaborate wigs of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the facial hair of the Victorian era are less likely to appeal to a modern reader.

In the 1870s, when my current work in progress is set, one of the male characters, whom my heroine finds attractive, almost certainly would have been wearing side whiskers. When introducing him, I avoided the issue by not mentioning whether he was clean shaven. As long as readers don't imagine him with a beard, which he definitely would not have been wearing, they are free to think of him as they please.

Work in Progress

Looking at what I've written, what I'm currently writing, and what I plan to write, it's apparent that I'm unable to write anything that doesn't have a crime in it somewhere, even if the crime is only incidental to the main plot. Crime can be a useful plot device, of course, to push characters apart, or bring them together, in dramatic or dangerous circumstances.

Without wanting to give too much away, I've also noted that other types of event seem to recur in my writing. The events in question are often based on real life incidents, but I'm looking at ways to do things differently in future work.

I also have  a habit of choosing names beginning with A for my main characters. I don't know why that is, it's not a case of starting at the beginning of the alphabet and working through until I find a name I like. Some character names have been changed, or will be before that particular book gets anywhere near publication.

I'm currently preparing a third novel for publication on Kindle. I'm not sure what genre this one falls into. There is no romance. It's crime/mystery with the main action of solving the mystery taking place in the present day (or very recent past, for reasons that will be apparent when it's published!) But the mystery is  related to historical events and there are flashbacks to events in the past. Something like Kate Ellis's Wesley  Peterson books, but not exactly...

This one is much more plot driven and I do find I'm missing the opportunity for more in depth character exploration that comes with writing romance, but I have nothing to lose by experimenting at this stage.

One of the requirements for a successful e-publishing career is to publish a lot of books. Some successful authors produce many thousands of words a day. I can't emulate them, for technical reasons; they are very fast typists, and they write directly onto the computer.

I am not a fast typist (I never learned to touch type) and I prefer to write my first drafts with pen and paper. Writing directly onto the computer causes my writing to become very stilted. The consequence is, though, that however many words I might put down on paper each day, at some point I have to stop and type them all up.

Some writers dictate to secretaries, rather than do their own typing. Barbara Cartland was one who did so. In fiction, so did Harriet Vane - and Harriet's Miss Bracey seems to have offered editorial advice, too.

Of course, writers nowadays, with computers with word processing software that can save documents and spellcheck and wordcount and cut and paste, have things much easier than writers in the past.  I taught myself to  type when I was, I think, about twelve, on an ancient typewriter like this one:

This was not, I would like to stress, state of the art at the time I learned to type. It had been thrown out by someone somewhere, and somehow found its way to my family. I later graduated to a modern portable and then to a portable electric typewriter. Edits, or errors that couldn't be fixed with Tippex (which I'm surprised to find is still on the market), meant retyping the whole page, or even the whole chapter. Multiple copies required the use of carbon paper.

Then, in (I think) 1988 I moved on to an Amstrad PCW 8256. Alan Sugar brought home computing (or at least home word processing) within the reach of writers, lecturers and research students in the UK.

Modern writers should spare a thought for prolific writers in the past, such  as Charles Dickens  or Anthony Trollope. Before the invention of typewriters they had no choice but to write everything by hand.

Identity theft?

How far should a novelist go in researching the names she gives her characters? Of course character names should be appropriate for the time and place the book is set.  Should a novelist investigate any further?

Recently, I was reading a review of a romance novel set in London in the 1830s. The hero was the Duke of Lennox. Lennox is a real Scottish dukedom that has been around, on and off, since the sixteenth century. The present line descends from an illegitimate son of Charles II. The holder of the title at the time the novel was set was the fifth duke, who had served with Wellington in the Peninsular campaign and subsequently entered politics. The character in the novel was not him.

Another time, I came across a Regency romance in which the hero was Philip Stanhope. There was a real Philip Stanhope. Several of them, in fact. Stanhope was the family name of the earls of Chesterfield and the earls Stanhope. Four earls of Chesterfield and three earls Stanhope were called Philip.

Philip, fourth Earl of Chesterfield (1694-1773) is best known for his letters to his son.

Philip, fourth Earl Stanhope (1781-1855) was a somewhat eccentric, well travelled man - characteristics he shared with his much more famous half-sister, Lady Hester Stanhope. But again, the character in the novel was not him.

The Stanhopes who entered politics did not rise to very high office, but they were well connected with those who did. Lady Hester's maternal grandfather was William Pitt the Elder, first Earl of Chatham. Her maternal uncle was William Pitt the Younger. Until his death she lived with him and acted as hostess for him, as he was unmarried.

The third Earl Stanhope's second wife, Louisa Grenville, was stepmother to Lady Hester and mother to the fourth earl. She was niece to one Prime Minister, George Grenville, and cousin to another, William Grenville.

Dukedoms and earldoms are unique; they can only be held by one person at a time. A writer cannot, therefore, say that her character just happens to have the same name as a real life aristocrat. None of this information is hard to find, especially when someone is already researching the period.

These people may not have been especially great or heroic or distinguished, but they lived their lives and had their achievements. Novelists have plenty of names to choose from. Why take one away from a real person?

Who rules the waves?

There were frequent references to King Canute during the recent flooding, but how many journalists properly understood the moral of the story?

The story of Canute, or Cnut, and the waves was first recorded by the chronicler Henry of Huntingdon a hundred years or so after Canute's reign.

When he was at the height of his ascendancy, he ordered his chair to be placed on the sea shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide 'You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no-one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master.'

But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king's feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried 'Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and sea bey eternal laws.'

Thereafter King Cnut never wore the golden crown, but placed it on the image of the Crucified Lord, in eternal praise of God the great king. 


Canute was a king of England, but he was not an English king. He was Danish, already king of Denmark when he succeeded to the English throne. He became king of England after the disastrous reign of Ethelred Unraed and the untimely death of Ethelred's son Edmund Ironside, a proven warrior who might have been an effective ruler.

Edmund's brother and sons were young, and Canute was in England with an army and a fleet. He was able to impose his rule on England with the support of people in the east of the country who were of Danish origin, descendants of the Danes who had been settling there since the second half of the ninth century. The Danish influence is still very evident in the place names and dialect of the region.

Canute reigned until 1035, bringing some much needed stability to the government of England.

Climate change?

The weather has eased for now, although it will be weeks and months before all the water is back where it's supposed to be and repairs to homes and businesses have been carried out.

We have had storms and floods before, of course. The most serious in living memory were those of 1953. The most destructive was probably the Great Storm of 1703, when, in addition to loss of life and damage to property on land, the Royal Navy lost thirteen ships and almost two thousand officers and men.

The Somerset Levels, the Fens,  Romney Marsh,  the Thames side lands of Kent and Essex, are all on land which has been reclaimed, either by natural processes or the efforts of man. As such they have always been susceptible to flooding. In the thirteenth century repeated storms broke through the sea defences in Romney Marsh and swept away the town of Winchelsea. The present town was founded on  a new site by Edward I about 1290.

 A Great Breach was opened on the Thames shore near Woolwich in 1531. This was not repaired until the seventeenth century.

Even in normal years low lying land might be under water for much of the winter, resulting in rich pasture  in spring.

Landlords had to spend heavily on flood defences. In 1293-94 the Priory of Christ Church, Canterbury, landlords in Romney Marsh, spent over £100 on repairing and improving defences.

The most sustained period of bad weather in English history was probably that which began in 1314-15 and continued for about ten years. Following a poor harvest in 1314, a very wet winter and spring prevented ploughing and sowing in 1315. Such crops as were planted rotted in the fields due to continuing wet weather. The same happened in 1316. In some places grain prices were four or five times what they normally were - at a time when a very high proportion of labouring families' incomes was spent on bread. Alternate floods and drought caused bad harvests up to 1327, while cattle disease wiped out large numbers of cattle, including the oxen needed for ploughing.

These conditions affected the whole of western Europe. It is estimated that ten to fifteen per cent of the population may have died of hunger, with the impact being greater in some areas than others.

The 1310s are identified as the beginning of the Little Ice Age, which by some reckonings continued to the late nineteenth century.  Perhaps now, seven hundred years later, we are seeing the start of another.

"I am ready to meet my Maker."

"Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."

Today, 30th January, is the fiftieth anniversary of the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill. His granddaughter Emma Soames remembers the occasion.





I watched it on television. There was the ceremonial that we do so well. The rousing singing of The Battle Hymn of the Republic in St Paul's.






But for me the most poignant moment was the crane drivers' salute as the launch Havengore pulled away from Tower Pier.

'Mentioned in Domesday'

Many people take pride in the fact that their town or village is mentioned in the Domesday Book, compiled in 1086. However, that is not necessarily a sign of exceptional  antiquity, and neither does the lack of a mention in Domesday mean that a place did not exist then. Many, if not most, English settlements had been established before 1066; many had been established centuries before. The earliest written records of English settlements date from the seventh century. Some of the settlements themselves might have originated, and been given their names, in the late fifth or sixth centuries.

Celtic, Latin, Anglo Saxon, Danish or Norwegian and Norman French have all contributed to the making of English place names.  Thames, Derwent and Avon are all of Celtic origin. Chester, caster and cester all derive from the Latin castra, meaning a military camp.

Ham, ton, ley, stead, wich and wold are a few of the elements used by the Anglo Saxons in naming their settlements. They had many words to describe hills, woods, valleys and farmland.    

In the regions settled by Vikings - the East Midlands and the north of England - many place names are of Scandinavian origin. There - and nowhere else - are the bys, the thorpes and the thwaites. A gate is a street, not an entry way, in areas where Danes settled. Old Norse words for features in the landscape such as beck, fell and gill are found in the north west.  

All place names have meanings, even if some of those meanings have been lost over time. They can tell us who the original settlers were, about the landscape or what the land was used for.  A writer creating a fictional town or village as a setting for a novel might want to check the origin and meaning of the name he or she invents for it. That way the writer can avoid making the mistake the BBC made. While they are quite right to use Wyvern as the name of a fictional county in the south west of England, they are hopelessly wrong in using Holby as the name of a fictional city there.
  

'God bless us, every one!'

I was trying to think of some English writing about Christmas that is not Dickens. Then I remembered that I haven't yet posted about the fact that this year is the four hundredth anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible.

The King James Bible was a translation into English of the original Greek texts. There could not have been a better time to commission it. The English language was experiencing its greatest flowering; Shakespeare's The Tempest was first performed in 1611.

The Bible translation was not the work of one man; there was a committee of about fifty scholars. It was not a new translation; it drew heavily on earlier work such as that of  Wycliff and Tyndale.

It is the most widely published text in the English language. It has given us a great number of phrases and sayings. Until quite recently, almost every English person would have had some familiarity with it.

And it has the greatest piece of writing about Christmas in English.

Gospel of St Luke, Chapter Two

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
And this [shall be] a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.　

This sceptred isle...

... This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall
Or as a moat defensive to a house...

I've been dipping into Vanished Kingdoms, a new book by Norman Davies. Dr Davies writes about states which once existed in Europe, but which have now disappeared, remembered only by a few European history specialists. The kingdom of Montenegro was absorbed by Serbia, against the wishes of its government and people, at the end of the Great War. The republic of Carpatho-Ukraine declared its independence from Czechoslovakia in March 1939, only to be invaded by Hungary the next day.

The book reinforces my belief that we do not fully appreciate the difference that being an island has made to our history. We have in many respects been more fortunate than the 'less happier lands' referred to by Shakespeare. There are things we take for granted which people on mainland Europe have never been able to.

We cannot be invaded overland; we have never woken up to find the forces of a hostile nation massing on our frontiers.

Our borders will not change after a war, and again after the next war, and after the one after that. In Central Europe in the twentieth century, someone could have been born in the Hapsburg Empire under the Emperor Franz Josef, spent his boyhood and adolescence in Poland, lived under Nazi and Soviet rule and died in Ukraine - all without leaving his home town. 

The names of our towns and cities will not be changed to reflect the prevailing political ideology, or the language of the current ruling majority. (Streoneshalh became Whitby and Northworthy became Derby, but that was over a thousand years ago.)

For a thousand years up to the twentieth century, we could be sure that in any war other than a civil war, the fighting would take place somewhere else. We would not have bands of mercenaries roaming the country. Our towns would not be pillaged, our crops ruined and our people left starving.

In England, we take for granted that we have a system of law and government that has evolved continuously over 1500 years. It has not been overturned by conquest or revolution.

And in England we have written records going back almost as long. We assume that those records were kept (mostly) by Englishmen, (mostly) in English. We wrote the history of our own country, in our own language; unlike other European peoples, whose records were kept and whose history was written by a controlling or occupying people in a language other than their own; or whose records might have been destroyed in war, or never kept at all.

Being an island has shaped our history, the way we see ourselves, and the way we relate to others. We need to remember that fact when we try to understand ourselves, and also when we try to understand other nations and their histories.

How to teach history?

‘History [is] little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.’

‘If history were taught in the form of stories, it would never be forgotten.’

‘Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.’

The history teaching debate seems to have resurfaced in some areas. According to one blogger, 'schools history instils in students very little sense of what history is really about, and very few of the skills for university history ....  History is about interpretive skills and understanding other cultures.... The real, socially and culturally valuable skills of history proper can be taught regardless of the place or  period under study.'

So what matters, it seems, is not actually teaching about the past, but teaching some undefined 'skills' for which the student may or may not have a use in the future. But surely skills are useless without knowledge and context?  One would not, presumably, teach someone the skills to perform heart surgery without first teaching him or her human anatomy? Or the skills to rewire a house without teaching about electricity?  Why should it be any different for history?

It is true that in order to study history at university one does need analytical and critical skills. But the majority of people who study history at school will not go on to study it at university. Many will not even study it to the age of eighteen. Is it appropriate, therefore, to use the limited time available to teach skills that many students will never actually need, rather than to give them knowledge which will help them understand the world in which they live?

Should not the purpose of history in schools be to teach students how we came to be where we are today? That is, to teach them about the origins of our landscape, our language, our monarchy, our legal system, our parliamentary system, our Commonwealth, and may other aspects of daily life?

The idea of teaching history as a continuous narrative is also decried by some. Under the National Curriculum in schools, and with the modular approach favoured by some universities,  it is possible to go through thirteen years of school and three years of university specialising in history without studying the complete political, social and economic history of Britain.

Yet one cannot properly study historical topics and eras in isolation. One cannot understand the Second World War without studying the First. One cannot understand the causes of the First World War without going back at least as far as 1815, and arguably as far back as the ninth century. One cannot understand Henry VIII’s conflict with the Pope without looking at relations between the English monarchy and the Papacy as far back as the time of William the Conqueror. And so on.

This debate has been going on for some years and shows no sign of being resolved in the near future. It is possible that the end result will be that, as there is now a generation of English teachers who cannot punctuate, because they themselves were never taught how, there may in future be a generation of history teachers who do not know any history, because they were never taught any.

You learn something every day -

I was thinking of using the name Verity for a woman character in the Victorian period.  I searched for it in the 1881 Census to see how commonly used it was.

The search returned twenty eight people who had Verity as a given name. Twenty two of them were men.

Verity is a surname; there was a Yorkshire cricketer called Hedley Verity. Most, if not all, of the male Veritys were probably named after a Mr Verity of their parents' acquaintance.

Three of the six women had Verity as their second given name, not their first. They too might have been named after someone with the surname Verity.

Which leaves three girls or women alive in 1881 whose parents might have chosen the name Verity intending it to mean 'Truth'.  If I use it for my character I'll be giving her a name that was very unusual at the time, and most people, on hearing it, would probably think she was a man.  Which is a bit too much of a cliche to use as a plot point.

One difficulty with choosing a name for a Victorian-era character is that the Victorians loved short forms or pet forms of names. The Queen's three eldest children were known as Vicky, Bertie and Affie.  I don't want my character to be Kate or Lizzie or Nellie, but realistically, if her name was Katherine or Elizabeth or Ellen (or Helen or Elinor), that's what her friends would call her. So I want a name that could plausibly have been given to a girl born on the mid 1850s that can't easily be shortened or otherwise altered.

'It put Liverpool on the map.'

What did?

Liverpool FC's tremendous run of success under Bill Shankly, Bob Paisley and Kenny Dalglish, three Scotsmen who made a significant contribution to sport in England?

The Cavern Club, where the Mersey Sound originated, where the Beatles began their careers, changing the face of pop culture and setting the tone for the Swinging Sixties?

Was it the Liverpool to Manchester Railway, the first railway line built to connect two major cities and the first purpose built passenger railway (famous also for what happened to the government minister William Huskisson on the opening day)?

Or was it the Port of Liverpool and its trade? In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries millions of bales of cotton were imported through Liverpool, feeding the cotton mills of Lancashire, which along with coal and iron formed the basis for the nation's industrial power. Liverpool was also one of the principal tobacco ports.

Liverpool was also the principal English port involved in the Triangular Trade, shipping enslaved people from West Africa to North America and the Caribbean.

The Port of Liverpool played a vital role in the Second World War, being the destination of many of the merchant shipping convoys which brought vital supplies from America and elsewhere. The city was heavily bombed in an attempt to disrupt the work of the port.

No, it was none of those things that 'put Liverpool on the map'. It was a soap opera.

At the risk of sounding like a Grumpy Old Woman, this is the kind of trivialisation that sees celebrities and fictional characters given equal status to people with real achievements to their credit. It shows a lack of historical perspective; nothing beyond the memory of the person speaking counts. In public votes for the Top 100 of anything, results are always overloaded with recent examples, whatever their relative merit.

Present day ways of thinking and doing things are always superior to the past. Or, alternatively, people in the past always thought exactly the same as people in the present day. In historical fiction, characters who don't share modern values are often presented unsympathetically. The context in which people in the past thought and acted is not considered.

Television presenters reinforce these attitudes by suggesting, for example, that people in the 1920s and 1930s had poor quality of life because they did not have washing machines, televisions and computers. Whereas many people moving in to their new houses with bathrooms and inside toilets, with access to radio and the cinema, considered themselves to have a much better standard of living than their parents and their grandparents.

The first thing a history teacher, or a writer of historical fiction, must convey is that things were different in the past.  Most people were not stupid or ignorant or cruel. Most of them did the best they could with what they had and what they knew.

And if we are talking tv, for my generation, this was the show that 'put Liverpool on the map'. And this was the song. 

'Our white hawthorn tree'

The title is from a poem by Siegfried Sassoon.

‘The hawthorn is the oldest of the English hedgerow trees, for it gets its name from the Old English word haga, ‘a hedge’ or ‘an enclosure‘, and it was used from Saxon times onwards to make impenetrable fences…. For a brief spell in early summer it is the most beautiful of all the Midland trees, with its continuous miles of white may-blossom glimmering as far as the eye can see….

'In the Midland fields on [May the eighteenth] these miles of snowy hedges reach perfection, so dense and far reaching that the entire atmosphere is saturated with the bitter-sweet smell whichever way the summer wind is blowing. From the hedgerow trees near and far come the calls of countless cuckoos, and the lesser sound of an infinite number of small birds.’

So wrote W. G. Hoskins in his seminal book, The Making of the English Landscape.

Hedgerows have always been part of the English countryside. Some are over a thousand years old, marking boundaries that were determined in the Anglo Saxon period. Today, some of those same hedgerows mark the limits of a parish or county, instead of the bounds of a thegn's estate.

Some hedgerows are recorded in charters of the eighth, ninth or tenth centuries. For others, there is no written evidence of their origin, but there are techniques that can be used to estimate their age.

Sometimes narrow strips of woodland between fields or alongside roads are all that is left of a much larger tract of woodland which was cleared at some time in the past to meet increasing demand for agricultural land.

In the Midlands, many hedgerows date from the eighteenth or early nineteenth century, planted when the landscape was redrawn as a result of Parliamentary Enclosure.



In the past century, many hedgerows were removed, in order to make fields larger and farming more efficient. Now, the importance of hedgerows is recognised and they are being recorded, protected and maintained.

Saints, students and spin

Hagiography, or the lives of saints, was a popular literary genre in the Anglo Saxon and mediaeval periods. The life of a saint might be written to educate readers about the facts of his or her life, to present an example of spirituality for people to follow, or to promote the cult of a particular saint to encourage visitors to his or her shrine.

Saints’ lives were normally written in Latin, and only later translated into English. This is an English translation of the life of St Richard of Chichester (1197-1253), who is believed to have studied at Oxford:

‘Such was his love of learning that he cared little or nothing for food or raiment. For, as he was wont to relate, he and two companions who lodged in the same chamber had only their tunics, and one gown between them, and each of them had a miserable pallet. When one, therefore, went out with the gown to hear a lecture,, the others sat in their room, and so they went forth alternately. Bread and a little wine and pottage sufficed for their food. Their poverty never allowed them to eat meat or fish except on a Sunday or some solemn holy day, or else in the presence of companions or friends. Yet he has often told me how he never afterwards, in all his days, led such a pleasant and enjoyable life.’

Take out the first sentence and this could be a description of student life at any time. ‘Such was his love of learning…’ suggests to the reader that there was something exceptional about this particular student, that the poverty of this stage of his life foreshadows his later saintliness.

Newspaper articles use words and phrases in a similar way to set up expectations in the reader about the person they are reading about. We are told that someone is ‘unemployed’ or ‘public school educated’, regardless of whether this information is actually relevant to the story.

Queen Elizabeth I, who knew a thing or two about spin, took the technique one step further, setting up expectations:

I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman -

Then taking her audience by surprise:

But I have the heart and stomach of a king.

Novelists can use similar techniques to set up, and then confound, readers’ expectations.

Pomp and Circumstance

Nowadays, royal and ceremonial occasions are an opportunity for some pageantry and public celebration.

However, much of the ceremonial dates from pre-literate times, and had a specific purpose.


If there would be no written record of an event, or none that would be easily accessible, it was important that it was witnessed by as many people as possible, whether it was a coronation, a wedding, or a legal transaction such as a transfer of land.

Not all royal weddings have been public, however. It is not certain when and where Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn.

James, Duke of York, brother of Charles II, married Anne Hyde secretly in 1660. Her father Edward Hyde, later Earl of Clarendon, was so mortified by her presumption in marrying so far above her station (and so concerned that his enemies would believe that he had engineered the marriage) that he said

‘He would turn her out of the house, as a strumpet, to shift for herself, and would never see her again … he had much rather that his daughter should be the duke’s whore than his wife.’

Pageantry was a demonstration of power, to intimidate enemies and rivals. In 933, as he was preparing to launch an invasion of Scotland, King Athelstan held a court at Winchester attended by four Welsh princes, twelve earls and a large number of thegns.

The whole force moved north and just over a week later another court was held at Nottingham. The intention must have been to make the Scots aware that a powerful force was approaching. 

Keeping a lavish household with feasting and almsgiving was a way of displaying wealth and attracting followers. When carried to excess by a nobleman, it could be seen as a challenge to the king’s authority. In 1468 the Earl of Warwick 

‘Was always held in great favour by the commons of this land because of the exceedingly great household which he kept daily in every region wherever he stayed or passed the night. And when he came to London he held such a household that six oxen were eaten at a breakfast and every tavern was full of his meat; for anybody who had any acquaintance in his household could have as much boiled and roast meat as he could carry on a long dagger.’ 
Ultimately it did the earl no good, of course; he was killed at the Battle of Barnet in 1471.

Now, who is invited to major events and who is not can still carry some significance. There is still protocol governing precedence, dress and conduct. But in general, royal occasions are family events shared with the nation and Commonwealth. 　

England and Saint George

23 April is St George’s day, the feast of the patron saint of England. English people might mark the day by wearing a red rose. The flag of St George might be flown.


St George was known in Anglo Saxon England. Churches were dedicated to him. He was referred to by Bede, writing in the first half of the eighth century. Versions of his legend were circulating in the eleventh century.


St George became better known in Western Europe from the time of the First Crusade at the end of the eleventh century. It’s thought that the cross of St George began to be used by the English at the time of Richard I (the Lionheart), 1189-1199.

Edward III took St George as the patron saint of the Order of the Garter, which he founded in 1348. The arms of St George were borne by Edward III’s ships, and by his men, fighting in the Hundred Years’ War. The red cross of St George was flown by ships of the Royal Navy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Shakespeare popularised the national connection with St George in Henry V: 'Cry God for Harry, England and Saint George'. 23 April is also celebrated as Shakespeare's birthday, although there’s no evidence that he was actually born on that day. It’s deduced from the fact that he was baptised on 26 April.

The story of St George’s fight with the dragon is believed to date from the twelfth or thirteenth century. It was printed in English by William Caxton in 1483-84 and was retold in ballads and cheap popular fiction from the sixteenth century.

St George, according to fiction ‘never failed of carrying off the Prize at Tilts and Tournaments, quell’d Monsters, overcame Gyants, and slaughtered Beasts’, including the ‘horrid Aegyptian Dragon’.

The story of St George was also being performed as a play from the early sixteenth century, if not before. Printed play books were available. Villages grouped together to bear the expenses of production.

The plays, stories and ballads about St George contributed to the evolution of the Mummers' Play, in which St George is one of the characters.




The play is still part of English folk tradition. Every region developed its own version of the play, which is traditionally performed at Christmas, on May Day and on other feast days and local celebrations.

Royal traditions: ceremony and superstition

21 April is the Queen's birthday. This year it is also Maundy Thursday. On this day the sovereign traditionally attends a church service after which she gives out purses of money to elderly men and women. There are as many recipients of Maundy money of each gender as there are years in the sovereign's age - so this year, there will be 85 men and 85 women.


Members of the royal family are believed to have been involved in the Maundy Thursday ceremonies since at least the thirteenth century. In the past gifts of money and food were given to people in need. Now the specially minted coins are given to men and women who have served the church or their communities, as a way of honouring them.

Another tradition associated with the sovereign is the belief that the King's touch would cure scrofula, otherwise known as 'The King's Evil'.  In England this belief is thought to date from the reign of Edward the Confessor, who reigned from 1042 to 1066.

Charles II is said to have touched more than 90,000 sufferers during his reign (1660-1685). The tradition was last observed in the reign of Queen Anne, 1702-1714.