"God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the King!"
- "God Save The King" (alternatively, "God Save The Queen"), adopted as the national anthem of the United Kingdom in 1745
Throughout the English-speaking world, people are fascinated by the British monarchy. Although the institution has very little power today, Americans still follow its every move, as though we had never fought a revolution against it. Despite all of this interest, there has sometimes been a trend in recent years - amongst historians, at least - to try and focus on what happened to "ordinary people" in history, and focus less on the traditional subjects of "politics and the military." For example, Ken Burns once said that the history of the United States is usually told as "a series of presidential administrations punctuated by wars," and that all other aspects of American history - including those dealing with ordinary people - are given short shrift, or even lost entirely. There is truth in this claim, and there is value in focusing on the lives of ordinary people - and on other celebrities from other areas. Why, then, do we focus so much on powerful political leaders? Why do we continue to be fascinated by the lives of kings and queens, when the "common man" is held up as the "greater ideal" for an enlightened democracy?
Queen Victoria
Why do we sometimes ignore the "ordinary people" of history?
I think part of it might be that the lives of ordinary people are usually not as well-documented as the lives of the rich and powerful. Thus, a dig by archaeologists that unearths details of an ordinary person's life doesn't get as much fame and sexiness as those that unearth details of a major monarch's life. For example, most people would rather hear more about Julius Caesar and his generals, than about the ordinary men and women that made up the empire he ruled. The same is true of American presidents and generals. But besides the fact that the lives of ordinary people are not as well-documented, there is another reason that historians focus so much on politics and the military (including monarchy). This is that the lives of ordinary people are affected quite extensively by what genius - or moron - is in power at the moment. For the history of most countries of the world, this necessarily entails a thorough examination of kings, queens, and royal families - on the monarchs and dynasties who are in charge at any given time. These kings are not just studied because historians are fans of royalty and juicy court gossip, although there is plenty of that. Rather, it is because the history of entire countries depends on these things, and on the "royal soap operas" that are so often found at the center of power.
Queen Elizabeth the First
Why do we focus so much on kings and queens, even today?
It's easy to dismiss these things as trivial and insignificant - as "royal soap operas," and nothing more. It's easy to bemoan the fact that historians' focus on these things always means less focus on something else, such as the lives of ordinary people. But the fate of countries depends greatly on whether a particular king gets married, divorces his wife (as Henry the Eighth did), or strengthens his relationship with a particular country by marrying into its royal family. It depends greatly on whether a particular queen is seen as unfaithful to her husband, and divorced or executed because of it (and whether it's perceived to be just). And it depends greatly on whether a particular king has a male heir or a female heir - or any heir at all, for that matter. The fate of countries can depend much on whether a particular king converts to a particular religion and shows its adherents favor, or whether he has a good relationship with a particular church and its leaders, or perhaps is hostile and persecuting to some other religion - perhaps even one that was previously popular and in charge of things. The fate of countries can depend much on whether the next guy in line for the throne has the same religion as his predecessor, or whether he is a devotee of some other religion that may be radically different. And the fate of countries can depend much on whether the king's religion is popular amongst his country's neighbors, or whether other kings dislike it enough to go to war over it, and ally with other countries whose kings share their faith. (Indeed, this really happened in previous centuries.)
King Henry the Eighth
Are its stories more than just "royal soap operas"?
If the reader will pardon me for some other arguments about the importance of monarchy, a country's fate depends greatly on how and when the current king dies (and who's next in line for the throne). It depends much on whether this same king dies of disease (or some other natural cause), or whether he gets suspiciously murdered by a rival - or some other disgruntled subject. If so, who gets blamed for this murder is important, and so is whether it starts a civil (or even foreign) war, when certain parties are blamed for it. A country's fate depends greatly on whether the royal family is quarreling with another family (perhaps a contender for the throne), or whether it is hostile to the king of a different country - and if so, who wins any wars that might result from this, and which kings get deposed because they lose a war against a foreign invader. It might seem like "royal soap operas" and nothing more, but you can learn a lot about a country by studying its monarchy (if it has one); and learning the (often juicy) details of every major thing that has ever happened in their lives. Even presidents and prime ministers can have great effects on people's lives, and so politicians are studied by historians of every country, ancient and modern. The fate of empires shouldn't depend so much on these people's lives, if I may be allowed an opinion; but like it or not, it usually does anyway. In either case, historians simply cannot afford to ignore it.
King Charles the First
How does this series compare to others on similar subjects?
So with my defense of this topic completed, I will now spend some time reviewing this documentary itself. It may be the finest presentation of English royal history that has ever yet been made for television. I should mention that it does overlap somewhat with Simon Schama's "A History of Britain," and it probably isn't as good as Schama at covering the political history of England. However, David Starkey focuses exclusively on the royal family of England, so it would seem to be in a slightly different category here (albeit a very related one). Both documentaries cover English political history, it is true; but the exclusive focus on the royal family has its advantages at times, making it more comprehensive in this regard, since it actually covers every monarch. Simon Schama covers other things as well (such as the Black Death), but mentioned that he did not want to try to cover every monarch in English history - something that he said was "madness." Thus, David Starkey helps to fill in some of the gaps in the royal history that Simon Schama was forced to omit in his series. Thus, it allows him to talk about lesser-known monarchs that are not often covered elsewhere. It also helps that David Starkey's "Monarchy" is over 17 hours long, making it some two hours longer than the Simon Schama series. This allows it to cover more as well.
King John, the man vilified as "Prince John" in the Robin Hood legends
What makes British history so different from other countries' histories?
David Starkey also presents an important thesis in this series, which is the idea that the success of England came from political and economic liberty. England had many restrictions on the power of monarchs that other countries didn't have. Thus, they had less power to interfere with their people's liberty. To be sure, there was more opposition to royal power in Britain than there was in other countries of that time - or most other times, before or since. The events leading up to the Magna Carta in 1215 (which restricted the power of kings) set in motion a chain of events leading to the eventual creation of the British Parliament. This was an event that began a long tradition of separation of powers in Britain, which continues to be important to the present day. As Montesquieu observed, this may be at least part of the reason for the success of the British model. David Starkey makes the argument here that in the British mind, the limitations on the power of kings were part of the definition of monarchy. When Oliver Cromwell later dethroned King Charles the First, he boldly claimed the title of "Lord Protector" for himself. He defended it by noting that this office was somewhat different from a king. The people actually agreed with him, but not for the reasons you might expect. They considered kings to be less powerful than Oliver Cromwell's office of "Lord Protector." Thus, they fought to replace Mr. Cromwell with a restored version of the British monarchy, but made sure to impose new limitations upon that power that reinforced their definition of this concept. (The British monarchy has very little power today, as I noted earlier. It is a textbook example of a "constitutional monarchy." This is a legacy of constitutional reforms from the British past, which continue to have effects today.)
Oliver Cromwell
Conclusion: This is the definitive television history of the British monarchy
With all of these things, David Starkey's "Monarchy" has a lot to offer, and may be the definitive television history of the subject. Feelings about the institution itself would seem to vary somewhat (depending on who you talk to), but many would seem to agree that it is a fascinating subject, which has done much to shape the institutions of the English-speaking countries.
Footnote to this blog post:
The French philosopher Montesquieu once said that there was but "one nation" in the world that had "for the direct end of its constitution political liberty." This nation, according to Montesquieu, was England. (Source: "The Spirit of Laws" (1748), Book XI, Chapter 5)
David Starkey's "Monarchy" DVD at Amazon
Also available as part of the "David Starkey Collection"
If you liked this post, you might also like:
A review of "The Wars of the Roses: A Bloody Crown"
A review of David Starkey's "Henry VIII: Mind of a Tyrant"
A review of David Starkey's "The Six Wives of Henry VIII"
A review of David Starkey's "Elizabeth" (Queen Elizabeth the First)
A review of "The Stuarts & The Stuarts in Exile" (BBC)
A review of "Queen Victoria's Empire" (PBS Empires)
Part of a series about
British history
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment