A review of the BBC’s “The Plantagenets”

“No scutage nor aid [i.e. forms of medieval taxation] shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom [which is the beginning of Parliament], except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London.”

– English translation of Magna Carta (1215), originally written in Medieval Latin, which was forcibly signed by King John, one of the Plantagenet kings

Backstabbings, assassinations, and civil wars: The story of Britain’s bloodiest dynasty

“The story of the Plantagenets,” says the box for this DVD, “is the real Game of Thrones.” Although I’ve not seen the show “Game of Thrones,” I know its reputation, and so this may actually be a good comparison – although this program, thankfully, has no sex scenes in it; while the show “Game of Thrones” does. The Plantagenet story is filled with violence, both on the personal and national levels. On the personal level, kings were murdered by those in their own families who were next in line for the throne – sometimes in clear ways, and other times in ways that were merely suspicious; but which raised more than a few eyebrows at the time. And on the national level, the struggles to control the throne often sucked in the rest of the country as well, dragging England into multiple civil wars. This was one of the surprises for me, that there were multiple civil wars just during the Plantagenet reign. The most well-known are the fifteenth-century “Wars of the Roses,” which I cover in a different blog post. But there were others as well, showing that monarchy is actually a fairly unstable form of government. Ironically, the supporters of monarchy have often defended it as the most stable form of government imaginable, but the story of the Plantagenets tends to suggest otherwise, with a fairly high body count by the time that their reign was concluded in 1485.

Edward the First

A review of the BBC’s “The Stuarts & The Stuarts in Exile”

“… all and every person and persons, who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown, by virtue of the limitation of this present act, and is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be subject to such incapacities [to rule], as in such case or cases are by the said recited act provided, enacted, and established …”

– “An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject” (better known as the “Act of Settlement”), as passed by the Parliament of England in 1701 – later amended by the Perth Agreement in 2015

During the English Civil War, one king from this dynasty was executed …

During the English Civil War, one of the Stuart kings of England was executed. Specifically, Charles the First was beheaded by Oliver Cromwell and his allies in 1649. This was probably the most dramatic moment of the entire Stuart dynasty, but there are many other such moments. The Stuarts have a fascinating history, and left an indelible mark upon the history of the British Isles. Thus, the BBC decided to examine this story in the 2010s, by engaging Clare Jackson to make this documentary. It must have been reasonably popular, because they later added two bonus episodes to the original three in that same decade. More about those later. For now, let me examine the original three episodes, which were simply marketed as “The Stuarts.” I will cover “The Stuarts in Exile” somewhat later in this post.

Charles the First

A review of David Starkey’s “Henry VIII: Mind of a Tyrant”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to discuss them tastefully, there’s no way to take them out of this story – it’s Henry the Eighth, after all.

It is one of the great soap operas in history. When he divorced his first wife, Henry the Eighth also changed England from Catholic to Protestant – the most prominent aspect of the story. But presenter David Starkey had already covered this particular soap opera eight years earlier in 2001. Why, then, did he return to this subject in 2009? I’m sure that his fascination with Henry the Eighth must have been part of it. After all, this topic was the subject of David Starkey’s dissertation, making him a true expert on this area. But there is one other reason, which was that his previous film was called “The Six Wives of Henry VIII.” Thus, it is mainly focused on the wives. Mr. Starkey thus hadn’t gone into as much depth on Henry the Eighth himself. But now, as Mr. Starkey says in this film, he was finally ready to write Henry the Eighth’s biography. And he tells the story with such human interest that it will be likely to appeal to a wide audience.

Henry the Eighth

A review of the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga”

There’s a reason that 1066 is the best remembered year in British history. In that year, the Normans invaded England. They are the last people ever to do so successfully. Others have tried since then (notably Napoleon and Hitler), but none of them have succeeded. This is known in English history as “the Norman Conquest” – or sometimes, just “the Conquest.” But who were the Normans? Where did they come from? How did they come to be in France – and then, later, in England? Did they engage in conquests elsewhere in the world? And why, after all of their successes, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

These are complicated questions, and researching them brings a number of surprising answers. But two documentaries are especially good at delving into this subject. They are the BBC’s “The Normans” and “The Normans: The Complete Epic Saga.” I considered reviewing them separately in two different blog posts, but the overlap between them is quite considerable. Thus, it may make sense to cover them together here, and show their relative advantages and disadvantages. Each of them covers some things that the other doesn’t, and brings a unique perspective to some of the events that both of them cover.

A review of Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Dark Ages”

During the Dark Ages, there were a number of invasions of what is today “England.” Some of them were before the state of England was created, while others of them happened long after its formation. But if you want a good television overview of these invasions, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better one than Michael Wood’s “In Search of the Dark Ages,” made for the BBC in the late seventies and early eighties.

A review of Neil Oliver’s “Vikings: The Real Warriors” (BBC)

In the year 793, the Vikings attacked a monastery on the English island of Lindisfarne. It was the beginning of the Viking invasion of England – or, at least, the first Viking invasion. Thus, many historians mark this raid as the beginning of the “Viking Age.” It was then that they first became important players on the world stage. But who were the Vikings? Where did they come from? Why did they act as they did? Were they just a kind of “medieval terrorist,” or is there more to the story than that? And why, after all that they accomplished, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

A review of “The Wars of the Roses: A Bloody Crown”

So why is this conflict known as “The Wars of the Roses”?

In fifteenth-century England, there was a conflict between two families for the throne of England. This conflict lasted for 32 years, and claimed thousands of lives by the time it was over with. But this conflict carries the strange name of “The Wars of the Roses.” Why do historians call it that? The reason is that the House of York was symbolized by a white rose, while the House of Lancaster was symbolized by a red rose. These were the two families that were battling each other for the throne of England. Technically, they were two rival branches of the same family - namely, the Plantagenets.

The Wars of the Roses were not really about ideas, but about who controlled the throne …

It is important to be clear on this: In contrast to later wars like the “English Civil War,” this was not a war about ideas. Rather, it was just a war about which family would control the throne, both during their lifetimes and beyond. Although I know that thousands perished during the “Wars of the Roses,” I have no information about whether it was bloodier than the later “English Civil War.” But one thing is clear: both wars were civil wars. And something else is clear, too: the “Wars of the Roses” lasted far longer than this later conflict - over two-and-a-half times longer, in fact.

20th-century rendition of “The Battle of Towton” (1461), possibly the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil

A review of “Queen Victoria's Empire” (PBS Empires)

“ ♪ Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves.
And Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. ♪ ”

– “Rule, Britannia!” (1740), a British patriotic song written decades before Queen Victoria was born

At the height of the British Empire, it was the largest empire in the history of the world. Its geography was so widespread that people often commented that the sun “never set” on its borders. Actually, it is not the only empire in history to be described in this way, but it may still be the most prominent of them. The British Empire actually predates Queen Victoria's reign by some centuries, with its “first empire” going from 1583 to 1783 (the year that they lost America). The “second empire” went from 1783 to 1815, the year that the Napoleonic Wars ended. But a number of historians believe that Britain's “imperial century” was from 1815 to 1914, the year that World War One began. Queen Victoria reigned for more than half of this latter period, as it turns out, and was alive for an even larger share of it – part of which was before she assumed the throne in 1837. Thus, historians sometimes refer to this empire as “Queen Victoria's” empire, and to this era of British history as the “Victorian era.”

Giving Congress the power to coin money was a break with British precedents

“The coining of money is in all states the act of the sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it's value may be known on inspection.”

– William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 7

You might expect that in the Founding Fathers' time, the British Constitution would place the power of coining money into the Parliament. If so, you'd be wrong – in their time, it was the British monarchy that had this power, and the related power to regulate “weights and measures” as well. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States said that the Congress shall have the power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5). The Constitution thus vests these powers in the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch. This was a major break with British tradition.

To illustrate this, I will quote from a source that was used by a number of our Founding Fathers. This source is William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (better known as Blackstone's “Commentaries”), which was used specifically by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 7, so I will not note this every time.) Everything in the first volume, including this chapter, was written in 1765.

Sir William Blackstone

What's the difference between the presidency and the prior British monarchy?

“The supreme executive power of these kingdoms is vested by our laws in a single person, the king or queen : for it matters not to which sex the crown descends ; but the person entitled to it, whether male or female, is immediately invested with all the ensigns, rights, and prerogatives of sovereign power ; as is declared by statute 1 Mar. st. 3. c. 1.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 3

Americans discarded monarchy during their Revolution

In prior times, British laws vested the “supreme executive power” of the kingdoms into a “single person, the king or queen.” (Source: Blackstone's “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 3) The constitutional monarchy of Britain now has very little power today; but then, it was a force to be reckoned with. Blackstone further wrote that “With us therefore in England this supreme power is divided into two branches; the one legislative, to wit, the parliament, consisting of king, lords, and commons; the other executive, consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Thus, the king was technically considered a part of the parliament with the “lords and commons”; although these two houses of Parliament did have a few checks on him in return. (All quotations from Blackstone in this post are from the “Commentaries,” so I will not note this every time.) As Blackstone wrote, the executive branch was “consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 2) When America was created, one of its most radical departures from British tradition was the total discarding of any form of monarchy. Monarchy was incredibly unpopular in the thirteen states at this time. Thomas Paine expressed this attitude well when he said: “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” (Source: “Common Sense,” Chapter III) Thus, America had a president instead; declaring in its Constitution that “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... ” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1)

The White House

How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

“The office of president is treated with levity and intimated to be a machine calculated for state pageantry. Suffer me to view the commander of the fleets and armies of America, with a reverential awe, inspired by the contemplation of his great prerogatives, though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs, who derive ability to support an army from annual supplies, and owe the command of one to an annual mutiny law. The American president may be granted supplies for two years, and his command of a standing army is unrestrained by law or limitation.”

– An anonymous letter signed “Tamony,” dated 20 December 1787

Tamony argued that presidents would possess more “supreme power” than monarchs …

During the ratification debates, an anonymous letter to “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” feared that the president would become more powerful than a monarch. He said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: text of the letter). These fears, though unfounded, were actually quite typical of many of the opponents of the Constitution at this time. This letter was actually dated 20 December 1787, but it was not printed in “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” until 9 January 1788. Later, it was reprinted in “The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer” on 1 February 1788; and was soon after seen by Alexander Hamilton in that Pennsylvania paper. Because Alexander Hamilton saw the version printed in Philadelphia, he would later refer to the author in the Federalist Papers as “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY” (Source: Footnote to Federalist No. 69). As you might expect, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the author of this letter on this point; and offered a response to him in the Federalist Papers. To bolster his case, he actually cited Blackstone's “Commentaries,” a prestigious legal work from that time. There is an irony in this, I might add here, since William Blackstone had actually opposed the American Revolution until his death in 1780. Nonetheless, Hamilton considered him worth citing in the Federalist Papers anyway, and proceeded to debunk Tamony's argument with some quotes from Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Alexander Hamilton

The Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights influenced our Constitution

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

– Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

It might come as a surprise to say this, but the British have a real “Constitution,” even if it isn't all written down in one document like ours might seem to be. Rather, it would seem to be a constitution built out of multiple documents, such as the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right (both of which I have covered in prior posts). No less important are the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights, which were foundational for the rights of English-speaking countries. Like the other documents mentioned here, they would both have an enormous influence on the United States Constitution. I have covered the other documents mentioned here in some other posts of this series, so I will instead focus my attention here on the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights (both vitally important).

Parliament of England

A review of David Starkey's “Monarchy” (U. K.)

"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

When King John signed the Magna Carta, it was like signing a surrender document …

“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

– The original Magna Carta (1215), Section 39 – using the translation (from the Latin into English) that was offered by Yale Law School's “Avalon Project”

When King John of England signed the Magna Carta in 1215, it was tantamount to signing a surrender document, and was just as humiliating for him. Before, the authority of the king had been almost (if not completely) absolute. Now, it was limited, and his nobles had the king's signature to prove it. Why did the king agree to sign this document in the first place? If he wanted to continue to have absolute power (and he did), why would he agree to such limits upon his power?

King John of England

The short answer for this is that he had no choice – he was forced to sign this document by angry men wielding a sword at him. But how did these noblemen manage to force him to do this at sword-point? How is it that King John lost his grip on absolute power at this time, with his descendants having very little chance of recovering it later on?

The Magna Carta

The Petition of Right influenced the United States Bill of Rights

“The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them.”

– John Jay, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 5)

It sounds ironic to say it now, but a number of the Founding Fathers of the United States were actually against including a “Bill of Rights” within our Constitution. Some of them thought that it would be dangerous to do so, because they argued that any right not listed there would be construed “not to be protected” by the Constitution. They were partially wrong on this score, of course, and it would fall to other Founding Fathers to make sure that a “Bill of Rights” was later passed. But this early objection to the “Bill of Rights” may have been the reason that it eventually included a Ninth Amendment when it was passed, which said that “The enumeration [or “listing”] in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (In other words, rights may not be withheld merely because they aren't listed in the Constitution.) This addressed the concern of those Founding Fathers who had objected to a bill of rights because of this.

Parliament of England

Some Founding Fathers were against having a “bill of rights” in the Constitution …

Nonetheless, when Alexander Hamilton listed examples of a “bill of rights” in one of the Federalist Papers, he was not endorsing them, but slamming them. He was holding them up as bad examples which should be avoided to avert danger from having a “comprehensive” list. Specifically, Hamilton said that “It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.” (Source: Federalist No. 84)

Alexander Hamilton

… while others were for it

Other Founding Fathers disagreed, and held them up as models of good laws that should be emulated to protect rights. Because of their well-deserved popularity, these laws had a great influence on the first ten amendments to the Constitution (the amendments that later became known as our “Bill of Rights”). They are thus deserving of our attention despite Hamilton's objections to them, and were positive influences on our Constitution once the “Bill of Rights” was passed. I plan to cover all of these documents in this series (plus a few others); but in this post, I shall focus exclusively on the “Petition of Right,” written by Sir Edward Coke. Two decades before King Charles the First was beheaded in the English Civil War, he was forced to sign this document. (And he wasn't too happy about signing it … )

Petition of Right, 1628

A review of David Starkey's “Elizabeth”

Queen Elizabeth the First

The most powerful queen in English history

Elizabeth the First may well be the most powerful queen in English history, because she held actual political power in a way that most later queens of England did not. Victoria and Elizabeth the Second had their power limited by the British Constitution to a degree that Elizabeth the First did not. All of them had to contend with Parliament, it is true; but the monarchy still had real power in the years that we today call the "Elizabethan Era." This power was all the greater when the state religion was still under royal control. Just years before this, you see, the church had actually been under the control of the Vatican in faraway Rome. But her father's divorce from his Catholic wife had brought him the ire of the Catholic Church, and led to England's conversion to the new Protestant faith - a faith led by the monarch personally during the lifetime of Elizabeth.

King Henry the Eighth, Elizabeth's father

A review of David Starkey's “The Six Wives of Henry VIII”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to discuss them tastefully, there's no way to take them out of this story - it's Henry the Eighth, after all.

The three things you're not supposed to talk about at a party (and they're all here)

It's been said that there are three things that one should not talk about at a party - sex, politics, and religion. The story of Henry the Eighth is, at once, about all of these things - a story that began as being about marriage and intimacy, but ended up as a story about state religion and world geopolitics. It changed England from a Catholic country to a Protestant country, and had massive repercussions for generations to come.

King Henry the Eighth

A review of Neil Oliver's “A History of Scotland”

"That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain ... "

- "Union with England Act of 1707," Section I (passed by the Parliament of Scotland, and completing the process of Union begun by the "Union with Scotland Act of 1706," passed by the Parliament of England)

For my overseas readers, I should preface this review by saying that I am an American, but one who has ancestors in both Scotland and England - meaning that in the many conflicts between Scotland and England, I have ancestors from both sides of these conflicts; which is actually not uncommon in America. My mother's maiden name is McGregor (a clearly Scottish name), and my father's last name is Sparks (a more English name). Thus, I might have a kind of objectivity about the struggles covered in this series - an objectivity which, perhaps, might possibly be somewhat harder for those whose ancestors are all on one side, or all on the other. I have great pride in both of these cultures, I should add - and in the significant portion of my ancestors who came to America from the various parts of the British Isles. Thus, I had reason to be interested in this series.

A review of Simon Schama’s “A History of Britain”

"That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain ... "

- "Union with Scotland Act of 1706," Article I (passed by the Parliament of England, and later made official by the "Union with England Act of 1707," passed by the Parliament of Scotland)

I should preface this review, for my international readers, by saying that I am an American; but an American of mostly British descent, whose ancestors come mainly from England and Scotland. (England and Scotland today are both part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.) I identify strongly with Britain; not only because of my ancestry, but because Britons and Americans share common values such as freedom and democracy; and because we have been allies in war and peace for over two centuries; not fighting a war against each other since 1815 (the year the War of 1812 ended). Thus, I am much interested in the history of Great Britain, and thought I'd learn a little bit more about it by watching this series.

Cromwell: The movie that brings the English Civil War to life

The English Civil War was a war over ideas, much like the American Revolution ...

The British historian Simon Schama once said that the American Declaration of Independence was "like a chapter from a British history book." He compared the American Revolution to the English Civil War of a century before, even going so far as to say that the American Revolution was really "round two" of the British civil wars. There is truth in this statement, and the events of the English Civil War are eerily familiar to students of the American Revolution. They both were political wars, they both were wars over ideas, and they both began as wars over taxes; which soon transformed into conflicts about much broader issues.

Battle of Naseby, 1645 (during English Civil War)