The crown of England is the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. In Britain itself, the relationship between monarchy and people created the English national identity and shaped Scotland and Wales.
Given that the last monarch of a 'seperate' crown of England, Elizabeth I, expired heirless in 1603, leading to the Union of the Crowns (of England and Scotland) under Scottish king James VI (I of England) - can this major premise of David Starkey's 'Monarchy' be justified??
Even if it is the case that Europe's oldest political institution is the UK monarchy - an institution whose history has not been without interruption or intervention, as well as some bizarre twists in its lineage - then it has its roots in the Stuart dynasty, whose crown is the older physical entity, and the last of whom was Queen Anne (1702-14 AD).
As history shows, the Crown of Scotland was united with that of England, not discontinued as was her original Parliament, and it is highly likely that the origins of the Scottish Monarch predate those of England by quite some margin.
I suppose it depends whether or not you consider the sperate crowns to have ceased to exist in 1603 (or 1707).
Kenneth MacAlpin (839-860) who united the Picts and scots is usually considered the first King of Scotland. Ecgbert (829-830) the first to be called King of the Angles or English. I doubt either had full control of all the areas that make up both modern nations though.
As far as I am aware if we wanted to have a separate King or Queen of Scots we can do as the monachy was never discontinued in 1603 or 1707 1603 was the Union of the two crowns and we still have the Scottish Crown Jewells As for Starkey dont get me started
History prior to the Romans is considered a science and is termed archaeology. History after 1900 has been within living memory so there has been social analysis of events using modern techniques. The bit in between is a record of what people wrote about powerful individuals, like monarchs, who's writers were employed by them at the time. I love it when Starkey say things like 'King Charles thought that....". Does this Starkey chap have telepathic abilities then can work back in time ? Too much English bravado and too little forensic science.
Good television is where the narrator can do a piece to camera at Caernarfon castle and comment on the 'English dominance' in the invasion of Wales. A thinking man, however, would look at the "elephant in the room" and ask the question why were such castles needed. The funny bit is when the battle of Hastings is explained away as "having travelled from somewhere up north" as a reason for the defeat. I suppose it's easier to get a film team to East Sussex than drive up the M1 and see what was happening all over England. It's good television, but not good science.
One programme I have been very impressed with is Tywysogion on S4C, where the programme is interspersed with social, agricultural, and archivists from various universities as to what was the cause of events, rather than just reading out a narrative of dates and what people are alleged to have thought or 'felt'. How about digging up a few graves in Westminster Abbey and comparing it with the DNA of Queen Elizabeth II to get a plan of the family tree ? Or have I said something that would loose my head. LOL !
I notice that the 'Time Team' programme has developed in it's programme techniques. It used to start with a narrative about accepted wisdom, only to be shot down with a discovery, which, when carbon dated, turns out to show that a particular artefact is out of place, or an item of technology was in fact 'foreign'. Now, the programme puts less emphasis on 'accepted wisdom' and uses the dig to paint a picture of the time from what is found. A far better method of explaining history. The change in program format might, however, be driven by their ability to use computer graphics as a crescendo to the programme rather than a deliberate change to a more scientific approach.
Originally posted by Fil2: Kenneth MacAlpin (839-860) who united the Picts and scots is usually considered the first King of Scotland. Ecgbert (829-830) the first to be called King of the Angles or English. I doubt either had full control of all the areas that make up both modern nations though.
And one could argue that the English crown has its roots in Offa's Mercia, and King Offa ruled Mercia for 39 years, from about 757 until his death in 796.
Originally posted by Brythonfa: How about digging up a few graves in Westminster Abbey and comparing it with the DNA of Queen Elizabeth II to get a plan of the family tree ? Discuss...
Good post Brythonfa. I agree that the use of modern forensic sciecne is something that the study of history could do more to embrace. If we believe that history is about a search for truth, then however elusive this may be, we should surely adopt all tools at our disposal, not just the written record.
For instance, as is well known, the supposed bones of the "Princes innthe Tower" were last examined in 1933, way before the development of modern forensics and C14 dating and DNA analysis. We do not even know the sex of the bodies for sure nor whether they are related to each other. And yet their discovery and presence are often cited as proving their identity and murder. It is high time that these famous remains were re-investigated and subjected to full modern forensic scrutiny, including DNA analysis to shed much needed new light on this fascinating mystery. Whatever is found will not shift people's positions or views - we would be no nearer knowing for certain who murdered them but we might learn that they were the sons of Edward IV but died a natural death and which would shed a whole new light on the study of early modern England. Or we may learn that they were indeed murdered which might finger Richard III with a greater degree of certainty than can possibly be known at the moment. Or we might learn that they are from the 11th century or whenever and thus cannot be who they are said to be.
I believe that the Queen needs to consent to this particular process as the bones are buried in Westminster Abbey. Well who is she to preside over our history? Apparently the Richard III society does not want to rock the boat and press for a further examination (or are they scared of what will be revealed?) but this greatest of all English historical mysteries deserves the attention of modern science.
And doubtless it has many other equally worthy applications. Time team has shown that by embracing new technology the past becomes even more fascinating. As I said, good post.
