British origins
 

We Merkins have a definite point when our nation was founded, and who the father of our country was: July 4, 1776 and George Washington.

When was England, or the UK, founded, and was there one person who you consider to be the father of your nation? I got to thinking cuz I wuz reading about the war of the roses t'other day.

I'll let a proper historian answer this properly.
Of course.

But to my mind; no.
Sorry.
Apart from the fact that England and the UK are very very different entities, there is no recognisable beginning to these countries. They go back before our recorded history.

Limey lives on an island with remains of many old settlements. Stone Age I think, but she can correct me.

Personally I've seen Stone Age, Iron Age, Bronze Age and Roman remains here. In fact Roman walls are present in many of our big cities. Bath has a spa which was originally Roman and restored sympathetically. You can walk city walls quite easily in many places, or Hadrian's Wall of course, built to keep the warlike tribes of Brittania out of Roman Britain.

Dana might talk about the Magna Carta.
Others about 1066.
Or even the death of Elizabeth I which joined England with Scotland (a link they are trying to sever. Go on then! See if you can manage free prescriptions and student fees without us! Bye-bye, bye-bye...)
Same with Wales (same for me anyway - they get free prescriptions!!!). They joined us after Llywelyn ap Gruffydd died. Owain Glyndŵr made a bit of an effort in the 1400s, but it came to nothing.

But every schoolkid knows Edward I smashed the Welsh. Shame. Apart from them being quite uppity I am very fond of them. I have no reason to claim Celtic blood, but I wish I could.

So, personally, I can't think of a real "start date".
I look forward to more learned people giving their opinions.
I adore history, but am no scholar.

British Orgies?
 

Where do I sign up?

For British Orgasms?
 

Sign at the dotted line


---------------------

American history is a little messed up too. We celebrate Independence day, but obviously there were people who were here before then. You can go all the way back to Jamestown, and many people consider that the beginnings of our nation, but St. Augustine Florida was already a bustling town when the Jamestown settlers first arrived.

Well... Depends whether you're talking about England, the UK, or Britain.

Mostly I think we tend to think of 'England' as a political entity, or state, beginning with Alfred the Great, but in reality I believe the first king of a unified England was his grandson Athelstan, early in the 10th century.

There are many 'start points' for England. Bede was probably the first to refer to us as 'English' when he named his work The Ecclesiastical History of the English People. (Historia Ecclesiastica Gens Anglorum) There was not a unified English state at this point, but a collection of kingdoms. They were however culturally distinct from the 'British' or Celtic peoples, so even before there was an England, there was an 'English' paradigm.

By the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066, England was one of the wealthiest and longest established thrones and ruling dynasties in Europe. It was also one of the most organised states of its day in terms of record keeping, taxation, the election of monarchs etc. Kings of England had far more power over their kingdom than most other monarchs, including the French king. William was a Duke before he invaded: England made him a king.

You could say at that point the nature of England changed. Whereas before much of it had held a kind of *thinks* almost federal independence along regional lines, William's ruling style was much more hands on and absolute. The vast majority of property and power changed hands at that time, with the ruling class almost completely replaced. The English state as we understand it now, could be said to have been born then.

In terms of where we place our start as an English people, I think most of us see it as having begun prior to the Norman Conquest. Most people probably don't have a clear idea of when and how, but they will place the beginnings of England much earlier than 1066, and into the 'Dark Ages'.

As far as 'Britain' is concerned there are two answers to that. We see our beginnings stretch back past Yorvik and Watling Street, Stone Henge and Mays How. Cheddar Man was dated at 10,000 years old, but the genetic markers he left can still be found in high numbers around the Cheddar area. I feel just as strong a connection to the Britons who built the great hill forts after Rome abandoned them, as I do to the Saxon mercenaries that overran them. And yet, at the same time, the people I relate strongest to are the Anglo-Saxons. I see the beginnings of my culture with them. But they are all my ancestors. We're too mixed up by now to be coy about it.

But 'British' as a national identity is very modern. It draws in imagery from all the above, but it is only a little older than America as an identity.

Yup.
.... told you.

But he was always a bastard.

lol

True.

I went back to edit and ended up writing way more than I'd intended, Should have done a separate post :P

Oh, and just as an info point for the Merkins: Watling Street is an ancient road, first paved by the Romans, but mostly following a track which had already been in use for centuries. . Later in our history it was used as the demarkation for the Danelaw, a part of the country ruled by the Danish under the Treaty of Wentmor, Wedmore?, can't remember, will have to google. Most of the road is still in use today.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...reet_route.jpg

Early English history is a maze of twisty passages. So is the development of the English language. :)

Been reading this amzing book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion's_Seed
IT's thick enough to stun an ox, but fascinating. Here's the text of the link, but it is easier to read and has active links at wikipedia

Thanks, Dana.

Am I right that Great Britain is the name of the entire island, England is the part of the island, a "country", not including Scotland and Wales, and The U.K. is the "country" that includes England, Scotland, and Wales? We tend to use them interchangeably.

@ Pete: *nods*

That's why we don't tend to have a fixed date in mind for our beginnings. So much is unknown. History and myth intermix. Camelot and Arthur as real in their way to us as Cnut and Richard the Lionheart.

It fascinates me it really does. One of my favourite historical periods. The names alone send a shiver down my spine. The Wulfingas, royal dynasty of East Anglia; Offa, King of the Mercians and builder of a great earthworks known as Offa's Dyke; and the poor lost kingdom of Elmet, where a British dynasty held out against the saxon invaders long after most of their kind had been overun or pushed to the fringes. Where I live now.

It's funny, because before dealing with Merkins I was always proud to be part of a mongrel race. But of course we are so rooted to our little island, with no qualms about mixed ancestry from 1000 years ago. I forget that other countries (esp Australia, America and France) have people who have left the lands of their birth much more recently. Especially from Africa and the Indian sub-continent.
It passes close to us.

In fact I know a racist joke based on the roads:
Why did the Romans build such straight roads?
So the fucking Pakis couldn't build corner shops.

Hahahahahahahahahaha....

Like they weren't foreigners themselves.

It's a little confusing to be honest. 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' mean almost the same thing but carry different connotations and come from different political designations.

Geographically: from wiki

But, politically:

Spex got it pretty much right though.

For example the longest river in the British Isles is not in the UK, or in Great Britain.
Quiz fiends and pedants take note!

And the UK competes separately in the Eurovision Song Contest to Ireland (Eire).
And their currency is the Euro as opposed to their old currency the Punt.
The United Kingdom all use the Pound (Sterling) even if it does look different in Scotland. Seriously - they print their own bank notes.

Note on the song contest - Jedward came EIGHTH! Out of the whole of Europe! Streets ahead of Blue. Beggars belief. I did type a whole post about this, but lost it when the Cellar went down, and was too frustrated by the contest to retype. I'm still quite cross.

You say Europe, I say cross.

Anyway, listen to the scholars, not the cross people.

Y'know, it's funny, I was thinking about this very thing the other day :p

I've been watching Camelot, the new series by Starz, and completely loving it. One of the things I love about it is that it is the same story it has always been, just told a little differently. Much of it is derived from the 15th-century Morte d'Arthur, but tales of Arthur go back so much further. Many of the names in these tales wold have been recognisable to someone living here in the 7th century.

I love that we still tell ourselves these tales.

right. This isnt my fault. Talking about this stuff has put me in a camelot mood and that's just the way it is...so I am officially hijacking this thread for a brief Camelot interlude...

In the episode The Lady of the Lake, the programme gives a very different telling of this famous part of the legend. There are two clips. One shows what happens, and the second shows how it is told.

First clip: Merlin has travelled to a great sword maker to ask him to make a sword for the new king. He arrives just as the swordmaker is completing his most perfect sword, the zenith of his craft. But Merlin has a vision that shows the swordmaker killing Arthur with the sword, and so is adamant that the he will not go anywhere near his king. They argue and it turns into a fight, and Merlin, who tries to avoid using magic because of the cost it exacts loses control and kills the swordmaker.

But the swordmaker has a daughter, called Excalibur, who witnesses her father's death:



Merlin leaves the scene, guiltridden. Later in the episode he returns to Camelot, and presents Arthur with his new sword, and tells the following story: (overlaid on the death scene in this clip)

This is just all so great!

Dana - Ted Hughes wrote a book about the Celtic holdouts in your area "The Remains of Elmet" - have you read it?

He hailed from your area as I'm sure you know. :)

eta: it's a book of poems.

I haven't actually. I'll look that up, thanks!

Wow! What an interesting way to start my morning. I have read some history of England and find it very intriguing. I started off in high school with Thomas Costain's series of books on the the Plantagenets. I even wrote an honors paper on the question of Richard III and the events on Bosworth Field.

I think it's a shame that US high schools teach almost nothing about the history of what is the ancestorial home for many of us. English history is fascinating and well worth a trip to Amazon or the library to find out more.

Dana, do you have any suggestions on which books provide the best over view of English history?

Side note - when I lived in Leicester my local cheap pub was The Last Plantagenet. We called it the Plant or the Last Plant.

In was in honour of Richard III of course.
Getting a third class degree is "getting a Richard".

I haven't really read any overview books of English history per se, so probably not the best to advise on that. I can suggest some good overviews of particular periods though.

There's a really good book that looks at the period from the end of Roman Britain, to the Norman Conquest, called The Anglo-Saxons, by James campbell, Peter Wormauld and another guy whose name escapes me now. it's more of a cultural investigation than anything though.

My personal favourites for the Anglo-Saxon period are all pretty out of date now. Anything by Michael Wood is accessible and interesting. He's a brilliant historian with a real passion for his subject. He's branched into various areas, but Anglo-Saxon England and the period after the invasion are where he made his name. He's also done some magnificent history documentaries about the period.

For the period after the invasion, I'd say Bartlett's 'England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225. The close of this period is arguably when we became 'English' again, and our monarchs began to identify themselves as Native English (after the loss of French lands under John).

My personal favourite for the history of the Anglo-Saxons is very, very out of date: Sir Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, first published in 1943 (I think) and revised several times. The edition I read was the 1967 revision. It was one of the first serious history text books I read from start to finish, long before I ever decided to go and study it. I'd got it as a free gift from a book club years before and never done more than looked at the maps (with all the anglo-saxon names). Felt like an achievement to read the whole thing.

It's way off base on a few things (we now know thanks to modern techniques like dna studies and the explosion of archeology) but it's a bloody good read. He treats his subject with care and compassion and occasional humour. A classic text of the period. I have enormous affection for it.

Probably the best overall history would be Simon Schama's History of Britain in three volumes. I haven't read it, but I liked the tv series it came from.

Oh, see you've gone and done it again. I've gone off on a Michael Woods youtube mission...

Clip time. One of my favourite ever documentary series. Collectively known as In Search of the Dark Ages, it's a collection of standalone documentaries about various real or imagined (in the case of Arthur) 'Dark Age' figures that forms a broad history of dark age Britain. Looks really dated now lol. Woods is still a brilliant presenter though. This is the first of them: In Search of Offa, the first English 'king' I think. (remember I mentioned him earlier?) which aired in the late 70s.








This guy is why I fell in love with history :p

I read them. Very very good. I didn't retain all the detail, but they filled in many gaps, some I didn't know I had.
Lost them in my move from Leicester to London though :(

PS - Never ask a student a question on their chosen subject unless you are prepared for proper education.

PPS - reread the thread and had used the word "scholar" far too many times. I rarely get the chance you0 see, and I do like it. Have changed it in this thread, in case the repetition police get me.

Super-pedants (not me!) argue that it's not a fair competition as the Shannon flows through at least three sizable loughs, Lough Derg alone is about 25 miles long, more than the difference with the Severn.

Or even the death of Elizabeth I which joined England with Scotland (a link they are trying to sever. Go on then! See if you can manage free prescriptions and student fees without us! Bye-bye, bye-bye...)


Tut tut Sundae you're sounding like a Daily Wail reader, still like most of the English people i know you still can't get your head around devolution can you?
It's a block grant Scotland gets, to spend on how the Scottish Government and the Scottish people through the elected process decide on what is their priority.we're not naughty schoolchildren spending out pocket money on sweeties,Scots contribute as well, we pay tax and national insurance into the pot.
Read this and be educated

http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/myth.html :mad2:

@ Dana - thanks! I knew I could count on you. I have added your suggestions to my "to read" list.

Actually I am interested in politics and I think I do understand devolution. I don't like Alex Salmond but I have a gut reaction to many forms of Nationalism. Were I Scottish I might feel differently, as they are a left leaning Party and I don't really have an argument with their politics in general.
Of course I know that Scots pay too, and that money you pay in is spent in the way your elected representatives choose. It was a light-hearted comment. I have extreme free-prescription and free-University envy.
It was reasonably interesting. For something over 20 years old.
Didn 't really tell me anything startling.

Am I educated now? :)

You got me with that one though. Really made me laugh. Yes, that is the attitude of papers like the Hate Mail. Still a bit miffed you classed me as a reader though. I think that's the first time anyone has said that to me! I don't mind being lumped in with the other ignorant English people you know, but I do have some standards!

I actually have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about coming from Bucks. It's fine living back here, but when I lived elsewhere I cringed when the question "Where do you come from?" came up. I could see people reassessing me because I was born and brought up in a "rich" county. It bugged me that people assumed I must live on my own land, probably have electric gates and a swimming pool and watch polo at the weekend. Nice work if you can get it I suppose.

This thread starts with an ambiguity.

Are you talking about the history of your country - conceived of as a geographic entity - or of your nation - conceived of as a political &/or social entity.

For the USA, the nation pretty clearly started with Washington and friends in 1776. The (human) history of the country is at least 11,000 years.

For The Poms, it is much more complicated. The human history of the British Isles is much longer - so long that the question of what actually counts as human arises. The nation of "England" might go back to Alfred the Great, or perhaps to William the Conqueror, or even - if nations are truly united by a shared language and body of cultural literature - to Chaucer.
Britain, a strange grouping of different peoples, formed politically after Elizabeth I, and really only formed culturally in the 1800s with the romantic movement who largely invented a shared mythology.

Australia? Humans for at least 40,000 years, European settlement in Sydney in 1788; six states federated in 1901 with the guidance of some chap named Parkes who had a very impressive beard. We had a national cricket team by 1877, though. And they beat the poms. :D

Everyone had an impressive beard in 1901. Even the women.
Don't you be getting all uppity.

The first time I'd ever heard of the Norman Conquest was in a Monty Python song. I was a teenager.

Only three years you really need to know.

1066
1666
1966

Easy.

found it.

Not so much a geographic entity, I think. I was thinking the entity that you consider to be your nation.

Ah, but if you want real historical data, you have to look to Newman and Baddiel.

I think we're straying off the topic a little though.

Oh that's fucking bizarre. I was watching the History Today skits this morning!

(This post was brought to you by Lazy-Arse Procrastination Inc. and the letter Tea)


One of my professors during my undergrad course reminde dme of these two. He pronounced 'questionnaire' as 'kestionaire'


Rob Newman was on my list of allowed celeb affairs when I was with J :p Such a shame they couldn't get on.



[eta] 'and that's your bedtime that is. That's your bedtime on a Friday night'

Heard DB on Richard Bacon just the other day.
To compensate for my problem with faces, I do have an excellent ear for voices. Even if I say so myself.

I only put the radio on because I was having a poo and it serves the dual purpose of masking the noise and alerting the 'rents that the toilet is occupied. I realised who it was immediately (see above) and retired to my room to listen to the rest of the interview. I love 5 Live for everything except sport :)

He is back in contact with Rob and they get on well these days. Not best buds. Probably not as close as Gary Barlow and Robbie Williams. But getting on when they meet up. No plans to work together though. At all.

Oh and DB was on Bacon to promote his new book, which I will definitely read at some point. But he spoke about everything but. I find this is generally the case with his really good guests (by which I mean the ones I really like). Excellent radio. Rubbish promotion.

Excellent thread! Thanks Dana, Sundae & the others. I'm trying to take in as much info about Britain as I can although sadly I forget most of it. I remember though reading a book about British furniture (and fringing on architecture too) about 30 years ago. Starting from wattle and daub and ending, I think, in the 19th century. It's the small things that give you an idea of the life and culture.
Just on the finishing pages of this from an earlier trawl through Oxfams

Attachment 32618

(short stories about people, not about London landmarks).

And started on these from this week's Oxfam booty:

Attachment 32619 Attachment 32620

I love the English language (BE) and learning about its etymology :)

Classes 3 and 4 made wattle and daub fences last term. They looked marvellous. To start with. But they took a heck of a lot of work. Which was part of the point of the lessons of course.

I think it's a great way to connect children to history. I want them to build a Wicker Man next year :)

PS - cool books! My local Oxfam only tends to have bestsellers people want to discard; Jodi Picault et al. Although when I volunteered at Save the Children I admit I skimmed the best ones before they reached the shelves. I paid the going price for them though! Trust me, no child starved through my actions.