Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra

Faculty of Philosophy

Lenka Michelchikova

UNITED KINGDOM
History and Political System
(university course texts)

Nitra 2016
Assessors: Doc. Olga Ruda, PhD.
Doc. Dana Petrikova, PhD.

The publication is released in the scope of the project KEGA 013UKF-4/2014:

Development and implementation of innovative English and Russian language training
modules for journalists.
© Lenka Michelchikova 2016

ISBN 978-80-558-1067-6
EAN 9788055810676
CONTENTS

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Prehistoric Britain …………………………………………………………………………….. 7
The Roman period (43 - 410) ………………………………………………………………... 17
The Germanic invasions (410 - 1066) ………………………………………………………. 25
Norman Britain (1066 - 1154) ………………………………………………………………. 35
The Medieval period (1154 - 1485) …………………………………………………………. 41
Tudors (1485 - 1603) ………………………………………………………………………... 47
Civil War, Restoration and Revolution (1603 - 1714) ……………………………………… 53
Century of progress …………………………………………………………………………. 59
British Empire ………………………………………………………………………………. 65
Britain in and after World Wars …………………………………………………………….. 71
Political system of UK ……………………………………………………………………… 81
English and British Monarchs ………………………………………………………………. 94
Literature ……………………………………………………………………………………. 97
0
INTRODUCTION

This textbook is intended primarily for students of journalism to broaden their knowledge
about the history of Britain, its chief figures and events that shaped the country and at the
same time the whole world; thus it is important to have some general knowledge of the
historical context to become a good journalist.

At the same time, the texts are designed to improve students´ language proficiency. By
studying the materials, they will build vocabulary and master their reading, speaking and
writing skills in English language.

The text may as well serve as some additional materials for all who want to improve their
knowledge of the English language as well as the facts related to the history of United Kingdom.

The textbook is divided into 11 separate chapters, ten of them covering different historical
periods and the last one dealing with political system of UK. The periods are presented in a
chronological order. The chapters contain an explanatory description to the given period and
chosen authentic texts from or about the period. After the study and reading, students can check
their knowledge as each chapter is followed by activities. In this section, they can find questions
to answer, or topics for further discussion, multiple choice questions and various tasks in form of
writing essays, interviews, stories, or leads. The activities are proposed in order to encourage
students to comment freely on the topic and to improve students’ creativity, writing skills,
argumentation and critical thinking.
1
PREHISTORIC BRITAIN
The story of prehistoric Britain began when the ancestors of humans first appeared in Britain
around 900,000 years ago. Homo sapiens arrived around 30,000BC. The earliest humans were
hunter-gatherers who lived in caves or very simple shelters. They survived by hunting animals
and finding food to eat. In the Early Stone Age, thousands of years ago, Britain was part of
mainland Europe and was covered with ice. During the Middle Stone Age, Britain was linked
to Europe by a wide land bridge called Doggerland allowing humans to move freely. The
current position of the English Channel was a large river flowing westwards and fed by
tributaries that later became the Thames and Seine. Britain became an island at the start of the
Late Stone Age, by about 6000 BC when the melting of the ice sheet had created the English
Channel. During this period, another great change appeared and it was that people learned to
farm. They cleared large areas of land and settled down to live in small communities.
Neolithic people used flint, antler and bone to make tools, and developed the skill of making
clay pots. They buried their dead in large tombs, known as long barrows, and built huge stone
circles for outdoor ceremonies.
Bronze Age people lived in small communities led by a warrior chief. They gathered together
for religious ceremonies and built circular tombs, known as round barrows, for important men
and women. The Beaker culture also spread to Britain. Their way of life involved making
pottery and metal, holding feasts and building stone circles.
It was during the Bronze age (after 2500 BC) that circles of standing stones began to be
erected in Britain. By far the most famous is Stonehenge, but at least 900 stone circles
survived long enough to be recorded. Many stone circles were erected within existing
"henges", i.e. circular earthworks consisting of a ditch and bank surrounding a central table).

Stonehenge is a wonder of the ancient world. It also

provides us with an insight into the life and secrets of
Britain in 2500 BC. It was built on Salisbury Plain some
time between 5,000 and 4,300 years ago. It is one of the
most famous and mysterious archaeological sites in the
world.

One of its mysteries is how it was ever built at all with the technology of the time (as some
of the stones come from over 200 miles away Wales). Another is its purpose.
 The healing stones: why was Stonehenge built?
By Hugh Wilson
The question of why Stonehenge was built is perhaps one of the great mysteries of
archaeology. Four thousand years on archaeologists are coming up with new theories. Was
Stonehenge a site of healing?

The question – why?

There's a lot that we think we know about Stonehenge. We're almost certain, for example, that
the great prehistoric monument was built in several phases spanning hundreds of years, from
around 3000 BC to 1600 BC. We know, too, that it was a construction project that tested
ancient ingenuity and prehistoric technology to the limit.
And given the time and effort involved, as well as the scale of the ambition, we can be pretty
confident that Stonehenge was one of the most significant points on the landscape of late
Neolithic Europe.
But what we don't know is perhaps the most important question of all. Archaeologists have
gone some way in answering the 'how', 'what' and 'when' of Stonehenge. But they're still some
way from a definitive answer to the question 'why?' Four thousand years and more after
Stonehenge was built, nobody is really sure what it was built for.

A new theory
Two of Britain's leading archaeologists, both world-renowned experts on Stonehenge, may
have finally solved the riddle of the great standing stones. Professor Timothy Darvill and
Professor Geoff Wainwright are not convinced, as others have been, that Stonehenge was a
holy place or a secular tool for calculating dates. Instead, they think Stonehenge was a site of
healing.
"The whole purpose of Stonehenge is that it was a prehistoric Lourdes," says Wainwright.
"People came here to be made well."
This is revolutionary stuff, and it comes from a reinterpretation of the stones of the henge and
the bones buried nearby. Darvill and Wainwright believe the smaller bluestones in the centre
of the circle, rather than the huge sarsen stones on the perimeter, hold the key to the purpose of
Stonehenge.
The bluestones were dragged 250km from the mountains of southwest Wales using Stone Age
technology. That's some journey, and there must have been a very good reason for attempting
it. Darvill and Wainwright believe the reason was the magical, healing powers imbued in the
stones by their proximity to traditional healing springs.
The evidence
The bones that have been excavated from around Stonehenge appear to back the theory up.
"There's an amazing and unnatural concentration of skeletal trauma in the bones that were dug
up around Stonehenge," says Darvill. "This was a place of pilgrimage for people...coming to
get healed."
So the ill and injured travelled to Stonehenge because the healing stones offered a final hope
of a miracle cure or relief from insufferable pain.
But though Darvill and Wainwright think the idea of Stonehenge as a prehistoric Lourdes is
the most convincing yet, it's fair to say that the archaeological community is not completely
convinced.
When the theory was first proposed at a talk in London in 2006, it was met with considerable
support, but also one or two dropped jaws. And that's not surprising.

An ancient calendar?
A consensus among archaeologists on what Stonehenge was actually for has proved as
difficult to build as the huge stone circle itself. There have been plenty of theories. One is that
the great stone circle was a gigantic calendar.
Put simply, the site's alignment allows for the observation of astronomical events such as the
summer and winter solstice. With that information, our ancient ancestors could establish
exactly where they were in the cycle of the seasons and when the site would be at its most
potent.
But would they really have put so much time and effort into the construction of something that
today we take for granted? Some archaeologists believed they would.
Stonehenge offered a way to establish calendar dates when no other method existed. Accurate
dating allowed for more efficient and successful agriculture, as well as the marking of
important religious and social events.

A place of worship?
But the most popular theory about the purpose of Stonehenge has survived since serious
archaeological work first began on the site hundreds of years ago. The great standing stones,
thrusting heaven-wards from the ancient plain, certainly inspire a religious reverence.
Working in the early eighteenth century, William Stukeley was one of the great pioneers of
archaeology at Stonehenge. He was struck by its innate spirituality.
"When you enter the building..." he wrote in the early 1720s, "and cast your eyes around, upon
the yawning ruins, you are struck into an exstatic [sic] reverie, which none can describe."
Many since Stukeley have also felt the power of the 'yawning ruins’ and come to the
conclusion that Stonehenge was a place of worship.
 Monument for the dead?
Most recently, a project lead by Professor Michael Parker Pearson of the University of
Sheffield has attempted to place Stonehenge in a wider landscape of religious ceremony.
His interpretation is at odds with that of Darvill and Wainwright. Stonehenge was not a place
for the living, whether sickening or fighting fit. It was a monument for the dead.
According to Parker Pearson, "Stonehenge... was built not for the transitory living but for the
ancestors whose permanence was materialised in stone."

A landing pad?
An even more remarkable origin is suggested by other theories of Stonehenge. To some in the
excitable 1970s, Stonehenge was a landing pad for extraterrestrial visitors.
It's fair to say that the archaeological evidence for this - laser guns and jetpacks perhaps - has
yet to be unearthed.
Modern technology has allowed us to discredit some early explanations of Stonehenge's
purpose, however. We know that Stonehenge was not a Roman temple, and accurate dating
has also shown that it was completed at least a thousand years before the Druids roamed the
British Isles.
The notion of Stonehenge as a prehistoric Lourdes appears to be more compelling.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/
british_prehistory/healing_stones.shtml

During the Iron Age, farming flourished and the British population grew very fast. But it was
a very violent time. Tribes fought against each other and many people lived in hill forts to
protect themselves.
Iron Age Celtic culture was spread throughout the north-west European islands. It seems that
the Celts had intermingled with the people who were already there; we know that religious
sites that had been built long before their arrival continued to be used in Celtic times.
The Celts were the most powerful people in central and northern Europe. They were farmers
and lived in small village groups in the centre of their arable fields. They were also warlike
people. They built villages and hill forts and used iron weapons and tools. The Celts fought
against the people of Britain and other Celtic tribes. Celtic people called Britons settled in
Britain. Celts called Gaels lived in Ireland. Celtic society was tribal - each kinship group was
ruled by a king. Below the king were nobles who were warriors - some of them wealthy
enough to afford finely decorated amour. The priestly class - Druids - had little political power
by the period immediately before the Romans. High-class women sometimes played important
political roles in Celtic society.
The Celts probably arrived in Britain in two waves: the Goidelic- speaking Celts between
2000 BC and 1200 BC and the Brythonic- speaking sometime in the period 500 BC to 400 BC.
(Modern Welsh and Cornish are descended from Brythonic; modern Scottish and Irish Gaelic
from the Goidelic). There was also a smaller wave of settlement of Belgic Celts in Southern
England during the first century BC - possibly fleeing from the Roman invasions.

The Celtic language has had almost no influence on modern English, being largely obliterated
during the Anglo-Saxon invasions. The ancient Celtic word "uisge " (water) survives in
various place names - for example, the River Ouse, and (combined with the Latin word for a
camp, castra) the town of Exeter. It is also the root of whisky.

Peoples of Britain
By Dr Simon James
Before Rome: the 'Celts'
At the end of the Iron Age (roughly the last 700 years BC), we get our first eye- witness
accounts of Britain from Greco-Roman authors, not least Julius Caesar who invaded in 55
and 54 BC. These reveal a mosaic of named peoples (Trinovantes, Silures, Cornovii,
Selgovae, etc), but there is little sign such groups had any sense of collective identity any
more than the islanders of AD 1000 all considered themselves 'Britons'.
Calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so misleading that it is best abandoned.
However, there is one thing that the Romans, modern archaeologists and the Iron Age
islanders themselves would all agree on: they were not Celts. This was an invention of the
18th century; the name was not used earlier. The idea came from the discovery around 1700
that the non-English island tongues relate to that of the ancient continental Gauls, who really
were called Celts. This ancient continental ethnic label was applied to the wider family of
languages. But 'Celtic' was soon extended to describe insular monuments, art, culture and
peoples, ancient and modern: island 'Celtic' identity was born, like Britishness, in the 18th
century.
However, language does not determine ethnicity (that would make the modern islanders
'Germans', since they mostly speak English, classified as a Germanic tongue). And anyway,
no one knows how or when the languages that we choose to call 'Celtic', arrived in the
archipelago - they were already long established and had diversified into several tongues,
when our evidence begins.
Certainly, there is no reason to link the coming of 'Celtic' language with any great 'Celtic
invasions' from Europe during the Iron Age, because there is no hard evidence to suggest
 there were any.
Archaeologists widely agree on two things about the British Iron Age: its many regional
cultures grew out of the preceding local Bronze Age, and did not derive from waves of
continental 'Celtic' invaders. And secondly, calling the British Iron Age 'Celtic' is so
misleading that it is best abandoned. Of course, there are important cultural similarities and
connections between Britain, Ireland and continental Europe, reflecting intimate contacts
and undoubtedly the movement of some people, but the same could be said for many other
periods of history.
The things we have labelled 'Celtic' icons - such as hill-forts and art, weapons and jewellery
- were more about aristocratic, political, military and religious connections than common
ethnicity. (Compare the later cases of medieval Catholic Christianity or European
Renaissance culture, or indeed the Hellenistic Greek Mediterranean and the Roman world -
all show similar patterns of cultural sharing and emulation among the powerful, across
ethnic boundaries.)
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/
british_prehistory/peoples_01.shtml

The prehistoric period ended in Britain in AD43 when the Romans arrived. In 55BC Julius
Caesar tried to invade Britain, but he was driven back by British warriors. The next year he
tried again and failed. His second invasion was probably an attempt to conquer at least the
southeast of Britain. Almost 100 years later, in AD43, the Roman general Agricola launched a
new invasion. This time the Romans conquered the ancient Britons and Britain became part of
the Roman Empire. Slowly, people stopped living in tribes and began to follow a Roman way
of life. Some ancient Britons retreated to Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, where they continued
to follow their Celtic customs.
Many others decided not to move. They stayed on in Britain and learned to live like the
Romans.
Written records of English history appear only after the arrival of the
Romans. For the many centuries before, there exists only archaeological
evidence of Britain's inhabitants.
Among some historical information that is available from before then, we
can mention a written record made by the Greek navigator Pytheas, who
explored the coastal region of Britain around 325 BC. However, there
may be some additional information on Britain in the "Ora Maritima", a
text which is now lost but which is incorporated in the writing of the later author
Avienus.
A few Roman writers described the ancient Britons. Their writings
provide a valuable source of evidence for life in Iron Age Britain. Julius
Caesar also wrote of Britain in about 50 BC after his two military
expeditions to the island in 55 and 54 BC.

Commentaries on the Gallic War

By Julius Caesar

4.20. During the short part of summer which remained, though in these countries the winters
are early - as all Gaul lies toward the north - Caesar nevertheless resolved to proceed into
Britain, because he discovered that in almost all the wars with the Gauls, help had been
furnished to our enemy from that country; and even if the time of year should be insufficient
for carrying on the war, yet he thought it would be of great service to him if he only entered
the island, and investigated the character of the people, and got knowledge of their
localities, harbors, and landing-places, all which were for the most part unknown to the
Gauls. For neither does anyone except merchants generally go there, nor even to them was
any portion of it known, except the sea-coast and those parts which are opposite to Gaul.
Therefore, after he had summoned to him the merchants from all parts, he could learn
neither what was the size of the island, nor what or how numerous were the nations which
inhabited it, nor what system of war they followed, nor what customs they used, nor what
harbors were convenient for a great number of large ships. . . .
(…)
4.33. Their [Britons'] mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in
all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the
very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked
themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The
charioteers in the mean time withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place
themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the
enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the
speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry. . . .
(...)
5.11. When he [Caesar] had come there, greater forces of the Britons had already
assembled at that place, the chief command and management of the war having been
entrusted to Cassivellaunus, whose territories a river, which is called the Thames, separates
from the maritime states at about eighty miles from the sea. At an earlier period perpetual
wars had taken place between him and the other states; but, greatly alarmed by our arrival,
the Britons had placed him over the whole war and the conduct of it.
5.12. The interior portion of Britain is inhabited by those of whom tradition records that
 they were born in the island itself; the maritime portion by those who came over from the
country of the Belgae for the purpose of plunder and making war; almost all of whom are
called by the names of those states from which they migrated to Britain, where, having
waged war, they continued to live, and began to cultivate the lands. The number of the
people is countless, and their buildings exceedingly numerous, for the most part very like
those of the Gauls; the number of cattle is great. They use either brass or iron rings,
determined at a certain weight, as their money. Tin is produced in the midland regions; in
the maritime, iron; but the quantity of it is small: they employ brass, which is imported.
There, as in Gaul, is timber of every description, except beech and fir. They do not regard it
as lawful to eat the hare, and the cock, and the goose; they, however, breed them for
amusement and pleasure. The climate is more temperate than in Gaul, the colds being less
severe. . . .
(...)
5.14. The most civilized of all these nations are those who inhabit Kent, which is entirely a
maritime district, nor do they differ much from the Gallic customs. Most of the inland
inhabitants do not sow corn, but live on milk and flesh, and are clad with skins. All the
Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad, which occasions a bluish color, and thereby
have a more terrible appearance in battle. They wear their hair long, and have every part of
their body shaved except their head and upper lip. Ten and even twelve have wives common
to them, and particularly brothers share wives with brothers, and fathers with their sons; but
if there are any children by these wives, they are reputed to be the offspring of the man
whom the mother first married when she was a virgin.

Source: Marquette University Ancient History and Archaeology Book 4 of Gallic Wars and
Book 5 of the Gallic Wars (with some revisions). [https://faculty.history.wisc.
edu/sommerville/123/123%20week1.HTM]

Activities
1. What does prehistoric mean? Explain in your own words.
2. Why was the discovery of Bronze important for people in prehistoric times?
3. Who were the Celts and how do we know about them?
4. How did Britain become an island?
5. Write an essay on What is culture? And demonstrate some cultural phenomena based on
your knowledge of prehistorical times.
6. Write a news report about laying down the foundation stone of Stonehenge.
7. Write a tabloid news article on Ceasar visiting British Isles.
 2
THE ROMAN PERIOD (43 - 410)

The Roman conquest started in AD 43 and they were to remain for nearly 400 years. They
wanted Britain's precious metals and they called the land ‘Britannia’, which meant 'land of tin'.
But the Romans did not colonise the islands of Britain to any
significant degree. To a population of around three million, their
army, administration and carpet-baggers added only a few per cent.
The Roman citizenship was more a political status than an ethnic
identity. By AD 300, almost everyone in 'Britannia' was Roman,
legally and culturally, even though of indigenous descent and still
mostly speaking 'Celtic' dialects.
A major revolt broke out amongst the Iceni against Roman rule in 62
A.D. Led by the warrior-queen Queen Boudicca (Boadicea) of the
Iceni, whose revolt nearly succeeded in driving the Romans out of Britain. Her people, incensed
by their brutal treatment at the hands of Roman officials, destroyed the settlements at Londinium
(London), Camulodunum (Colchester), and Verulamium (Saint Albans). It took a determined
effort and thousands of fresh troops sent from Italy to reinforce governor Suetonius Paulinus in
A.D. 61 to defeat the British Queen, who took poison rather than submit. Boudicca’s revolt
slowed the Romanization of Britain considerably.
Rome only ever conquered half the island. The future Scotland remained beyond Roman
government, although the nearby presence of the empire had major effects. The highlands and
moorlands of the northern and western regions, present-day Scotland and Wales, were not as
easily settled, nor did the Romans particularly wish to settle in these
agriculturally poorer, harsh landscapes. But in 84 A.D. Agricola won
the decisive victory of Mons Graupius in present-day Scotland over
Calgacus "the swordsman," that carried Roman arms farther west and
north than they had ever before ventured. They called their newly-
conquered northern territory Caledonia.
Major defensive works further north attest to the fierceness of the
Pictish and Celtic tribes, Hadrian's Wall in particular reminds us of
the need for a peaceful and stable frontier. Built when Hadrian had abandoned his plan of world
conquest (in 122 A.D.), settling for a permanent frontier to "divide Rome from the barbarians,"
the seventy-two mile long wall connecting the Tyne to the Solway was built and rebuilt,
garrisoned and re-garrisoned many times, strengthened by stone-built forts at one mile intervals.
Hadrian's Wall was about 15 feet high, 10 feet wide and there were also deep ditches on both
sides to make approach difficult.
One of the greatest achievements of the Roman Empire was its system of roads, in Britain no less
than elsewhere. When the legions arrived in a country with virtually no roads at all, as Britain
was in the first century A.D., their first task was to build a system to link not only their military
headquarters but also their isolated forts. Vital for trade, the roads were also of paramount
important in the speedy movement of troops, munitions and supplies from one strategic center to
another. They also allowed the movement of agricultural products from farm to market. London
was the chief administrative centre, and from it, roads spread out to all parts of the province.
They included Ermine Street, to Lincoln; Watling Street, to Wroxeter and then to Chester, all the
way in the northwest on the Welsh frontier; and the Fosse Way, from Exeter to Lincoln, the first
frontier of the province of Britain.
The Romans built their roads carefully and they built them well. They followed proper
surveying, they took account of contours in the land, avoided wherever possible the fen, bog and
marsh so typical in much of the land, and stayed clear of the impenetrable forests. They also
utilized bridges, an innovation that the Romans introduced to Britain in place of the hazardous
fords at many river crossings. An advantage of good roads was that communications with all
parts of the country could be effected. They carried the cursus publicus, or imperial post. A road
book used by messengers that lists all the main routes in Britain, the principal towns and forts
they pass through, and the distances between them has survived: the Antonine Itinerary. In
addition, the same information, in map form, is found in the Peutinger Table. It tells us that
mansiones were places at various intervals along the road to change horses and take lodgings.
Apart from the villas and fortified settlements, the great mass of the British people did not seem
to have become Romanized. The influence of Roman thought survived in Britain only through
the Church. Christianity had thoroughly replaced the old Celtic gods by the close of the 4th
Century, as the history of Pelagius and St. Patrick testify, but Romanization was not successful in
other areas. For example, the Latin tongue did not replace Brittonic as the language of the
general population. Today's visitors to Wales, however, cannot fail to notice some of the Latin
words that were borrowed into the British language, such as pysg (fish), braich (arm), caer (fort),
foss (ditch), pont (bridge), eglwys (church), llyfr (book), ysgrif (writing), ffenestr (window),
pared (wall or partition), and ystafell (room).
The Roman legions began to withdraw from Britain at the end of the fourth century. The famous
letter of A.D.410 from the Emperor Honorius told the cities of Britain to look to their own
defences from that time on.
 The Roman invasion: Whose side were the Britons on?
By Gillian Hovell

The Roman invasion of Britain is an old, old story. However, the reconstruction and display of
the Hallaton helmet – a ceremonial Roman helmet found in an Iron Age shrine – in 2012
reminds us that relations between the invaders and the Britons were more complex than we
normally imagine. Did Britons really, as the helmet’s discovery implies, fight side by side with
the Romans against their own people? Why might they have swapped their loyalties? And,
even with local support, was it really an easy ride for the Romans?
By combining the latest archaeological discoveries – such as the Hallaton helmet – with
reports written by ancient historians, we can piece together the events and motives of the time.
From these, startling questions arise: were the Britons more prepared than the Romans who
first marched into this unexplored world?
And what opportunities for personal advancement did some Britons seize, while others
continued to put up such a determined resistance that, in 400 years of Roman occupation,
Britain never truly lost its identity as a military frontier province? Just what was the real story?

What led Claudius to invade?

It was nearly 100 years before Rome invaded Britain again. After Caesar’s expedition, the
geographer Strabo had written, rather defensively perhaps, that “although the Romans could
have held Britain, they scorned to do so, because they saw that there was nothing at all to fear
from the Britons (for they are not strong enough to cross over and attack us), and”, he
continued, “they saw that there was no corresponding advantage to be gained by seizing and
holding their country”.
Nonetheless, the limping, trembling and militarily inexperienced Emperor Claudius knew (like
Caesar) that he needed military success to thrive in power, and that a prestigious invasion
could provide him with the greatest honour any Roman could hope for: a triumphal procession
in Rome and all the glory and popularity that went with it. A victorious invasion of a barbarian
land would also serve to boost Roman morale and to distract from troubles at home.
He was well equipped. Three years earlier, Emperor Caligula had drafted legions specially to
invade Britain but had never used them. They were idle and dangerously restless, so, when a
request for help came from Verica of the Atrebates tribe (who had been ousted from power by
Caratacus, king of the Catuvellauni tribe), Claudius was ready.
How did the invasion commence in AD 43?
The emperor gave command of the invasion to the general Aulus Plautius, who led legions,
cavalry and auxiliary troops across to Britain. They arrived unopposed in three groups –
though it is not clear where they landed: Richborough and the Solent have been suggested –
defeated Catuvellaunian attacks and reached a river, perhaps the Medway or the Thames. The
Britons were carelessly encamped on the west side, thinking the Roman army couldn’t cross
the fast, wide river without a bridge, but the Romans had recruited Celts who were practiced at
swimming in full armour. These auxiliary troops crossed to the enemy camp and maimed the
horses that drew the formidable battle chariots. The Roman advance towards London
continued and the Catuvellaunian king Caratacus fled to Wales (where he instigated opposition
to Rome for years).
No other tribe could come close to the military strength of the Catuvellauni and, one by one,
they surrendered to Rome. Aulus Plautius now sent a message to Claudius, inviting him to
come to Britain and to personally make a triumphal entry into Colchester. Some weeks later,
Claudius arrived, together with war elephants. This wasn’t just for show, for their smell was
known to drive enemy horses mad and the Britons’ skill in chariots was likely to be a real
threat, even now. Colchester was taken, and Claudius declared Britain conquered. After just 16
days, he headed home to receive the applause and glory of a triumphal entry into Rome.
Plautius was left to consolidate the conquest across the rest of Britain.

Did the Romans have support from native Britons?

The traditional view of the invasion is a straightforward tale of the organised Romans sailing
over, marching across the land, and subduing the primitive Britons. The reality appears less
clear-cut.
The Britons’ loyalties were divided: a warrior people, they sought status by violently taking
other tribes’ lands and their people as slaves, and their inability to abandon the traditional in-
fighting of these tribal rivalries weakened them and indirectly helped the Romans.
While the Britons were certainly tough and warlike, they were also opportunistic and capable
of changing loyalties as it suited them: the cut-throat inter-tribal conflicts often provided the
Romans with allies. Celtic soldiers even served in the Roman army, either to help to defeat a
tribal enemy or to get ahead personally – a conscious decision to side with the potential
winners and to receive a reward (such as the Hallaton helmet, perhaps?). Indeed, some tribal
chiefs openly surrendered to the Romans in order to share the victory and to acquire power and
status, for being a puppet chief of the Romans would rake in the material benefits and luxuries
of the empire and could be preferable to honourable defeat and slaughter.
Despite this, the Britons were no walkover: their warriors’ skills in chariot warfare and
guerrilla tactics were highly effective in reducing the efficiency of the trained Roman units. It
was only in the south-east that the Romans really silenced the opposition.
The Roman conquest of Britain was never a foregone conclusion though: even nearly 20 years
on, an excessively heavy Roman rule would prompt the rebellion of the Iceni, led by Queen
Boudica, whose followers would raze the new Roman towns of London, St Albans and
Colchester to the ground in an uprising in which 70,000 people would be killed before the
Romans regained control.
Further north and in Wales, the Britons continued to resist violently. They were never really
settled or Romanised at ground roots level, and the army remained an active presence
throughout the occupation.
Because we talk of ‘Roman Britain’ we tend to forget that most of Scotland, despite some
Roman incursions, remained unconquered and was never truly won over. And Ireland was
never invaded. ‘Roman Britain’ was essentially only Roman England and (less securely)
Wales.

How much do we really know about this story?

The archaeological evidence for the invasion years is sparse, yielding little more than shadows
of wooden forts and echoes of violent warfare, such as the artillery bolts that litter Maiden
Castle. This is why the Hallaton helmet, ritually buried at a Leicestershire Iron Age shrine
within a mere two years of AD 43, is so important. This rich gift from Rome, heavy with
‘victory’ symbols, suggests serious collaboration by the locals.
Of course, it could have been stolen, a trophy of a raid, but archaeology combines with Roman
literature (there were no writers in the illiterate British Iron Age) to reveal that some ambitious
Britons were quick to seize opportunities for personal advancement. The Greek historian of
Rome, Cassius Dio, recorded that Celtic soldiers served in the Roman army, but even before
Claudius’s invasion, Strabo reckoned that dues from British trade were richer pickings than
any invasion might supply.
Through such trade, Roman culture seeped in. Iron Age coins mimicked Roman coinage (one
chief’s coins bore the image of a Roman-style helmet – an interesting symbol when we
consider the Hallaton helmet) and archaeologists found fine Roman dining ware even in the
royal huts of the northern Brigantian stronghold at Iron Age Stanwick.
Within a few years of the invasion, buildings like Fishbourne Palace and Brading Villa and
towns like London and St Albans would appear, but the Romans didn’t have it all their own
way. Even as victors they recorded continuing tales of frightened Roman soldiers and
terrifying resistance. The Britons were clearly fierce, headstrong and independently minded.
Rome may have declared herself the master of Britain, but many Britons made Rome serve
their own purposes. As more details, like the Hallaton helmet, emerge from archaeology, each
 new clue adds to the complex and fascinating story that is the Roman invasion of Britain.

Source: http://www.historyextra.com/article/romans/
roman-invasion-whose-side-were-britons-0

Activities
1. Who successfully set up South England as a Roman Province?
2. Which tribe lead the British Revolt of AD 60-61?
3. What was a key reason why Rome could no longer help the British militarily?
4. After the departure of the Roman forces, which ethnic groups took advantage of the
evacuation and started settling in the East and South-East of the island?
5. The region roughly equivalent to modern day Scotland was once called ___________ by
the Romans?
6. Write an interview with Queen Boudicca about her relationship and attitude to the
Romans.
7. Write recollections of a native inhabitant of Britain on the times of Roman occupation.
3
THE GERMANIC INVASIONS (410 – 1066)

Anglo-Saxon Britain

By 410, Roman troops were continually being withdrawn from Britain to help fight wars
elsewhere in the empire. There was a general and persistent state of military crisis. Roman
Britain was being attacked from three directions. The Irish (called 'Scotti' by the Romans)
attacked from the west; the Picts (called 'Picti' meaning "painted or tattooed people" from Latin
pingere "to paint"; pictus, "painted", cf. Greek "πυκτίς" pyktis, "picture") from the north; and
various Germanic- speaking peoples from the east, across the North Sea. The latter included the
Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who were all from northern Germany or southern Denmark.
With incursions on all fronts, Britain appealed to emperor Honorius for help. Honorius wrote to
them telling them to 'look to their own defences'. This act is often seen as marking the end of
Roman Britain, although Roman institutions and their way of life endured.
The term Anglo-Saxon is a relatively modern one. It refers to settlers from the German regions
of Angeln and Saxony, who made their way over to Britain after the fall of the Roman Empire.
The Anglo-Saxon settlers were effectively their own masters in a new land and they did little to
keep the legacy of the Romans alive. They replaced the Roman stone buildings with their own
wooden ones, and spoke their own language, which gave rise to the English spoken today. The
early settlers kept to small tribal groups, forming kingdoms and sub- kingdoms. By the ninth
century, the country was divided into four kingdoms - Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia and
Wessex.
Place names are one of the ways that the Anglo-Saxon settlement can be tracked.
The suffix "ing" meaning "son of" or "part of" is often found: so Hastings is where Haesta's
children lived.
A "ham" was an enclosure or farm: so Waltham was the farm near the wood (weald/ walt). (The
two - ing and ham - are combined in many cases, e.g. Nottingham, Wokingham, Birmingham).
An "over" was a shore, hence Andover, Wendover &c. "Stoke" was a place with a stockade, and
this was sometimes corrupted to Stow. (Again the elements were sometimes combined - e.g.
Walthamstow.)
A "ton" was a place surrounded by a hedge or palisade and is one of the commonest endings, as
is "wick," a word used for a village or a marsh, or anywhere salt was found (Droitwich).

Some days of the week are named for Anglo-Saxon gods:

 Tuesday - Tiw/Tew, the god of darkness and sky.
 Wedesday - Woden/Odin, the god of battle.
 Thursday - Thor/Tor - son of Odin and the god of air and thunder.
 Friday - Frigg/Frea/Frija - wife of Odin and the goddess of motherhood, fertility and
wisdom.

The goddess of dawn/sun-rise, Eostre gave her name to the

Christian festival of Easter.

The Viking invasions

The name of Viking - pirate or sea-raider - was derived from "wic" - the temporary camps
established by the marauders. The Vikings originated in Denmark and Norway, and the British
Isles were not their only target. Vikings were skilled soldiers and sailors who sent expeditions to,
and established settlements in, Russia, Greenland, Iceland, America, France, and Spain - as well
as England.

The earliest recorded Viking raid on England was in 789, soon followed by another in 793-4.
Both of these aimed at plundering Northumbrian monasteries. From the 830 to 860, the Vikings
attacked almost every year and from almost every point of the compass. From 865 the Norse
attitude towards the British Isles changed, as they began to see it as a place for potential
colonisation rather than simply a place to raid. As a result of this, larger armies began arriving on
Britain's shores, with the intention of conquering land and constructing settlements there.
In 866, Norse armies captured York, one of the two major cities in Anglo-Saxon England. In
871, King Æthelred of Wessex, who had been leading the conflict against the Vikings, died, and
was succeeded to the throne by his younger brother, Alfred the Great. Meanwhile, many Anglo-
Saxon kings began to capitulate to the Viking demands, and handed over land to the invading
Norse settlers. In 876, the Northumbrian monarch Healfdene gave up his lands to them, and in
the next four years they gained further land in the kingdoms of Mercia and East Anglia as well.
King Alfred continued his conflict with the invading forces, but was driven back into Somerset
in the south-west of his kingdom in 878, where he was forced to take refuge in the marshes of
Athelney.

Alfred regrouped his military forces and defeated the armies of the Norse monarch of East
Anglia, Guthrum, at the Battle of Edington. Following Guthrum's defeat, in 886 the Treaty of
Wedmore was signed between the (Norse-controlled) East Anglian and Wessex governments
that established a boundary between the two kingdoms. The area to the north and east of this
boundary became known as the Danelaw because it was under the control of Norse political
influence, whilst those areas south and west of it remained under Anglo-Saxon dominance.
Alfred's government set about constructing a series of defended towns or burhs, began the
construction of a navy and organised a militia system whereby half of his peasant army remained
on active service. Although there were continuous attacks on Wessex by new Viking armies, the
kingdom's new defences proved a success and in 896 the invaders dispersed, instead settling in
East Anglia and Northumbria, with some instead sailing to Normandy.
In 1016, Cnut (or Canute) became king of England, and after further campaigns in Scandinavia
he could claim in 1027 to be 'king of the whole of England and Denmark and Norway and of
parts of Sweden'. Cnut was a strong and effective king. He introduced some Danish customs to
England, but England also influenced Denmark. For instance, Cnut appointed several
Englishmen as bishops in Denmark, and even today most of the ordinary Danish words of church
organisation are English in origin.
In an attempt at reconciliation with the English he had conquered, Cnut married Emma, the
widow of Æthelred. She was the daughter of the duke of Normandy, himself the descendant of
Vikings or Northmen (Normans). She bore Cnut a son, Harthacnut, but she had also had a son by
Æthelred, who succeeded Harthacnut as Edward II, the Confessor (1042 - 1066).
When Edward died without children, it was natural that Emma's great- nephew, Duke William,
should lay claim to the throne. It was just as natural that this claim should be resisted by Harold,
the son of Godwin, Edward's most powerful noble.
Harold II successfully beat off the invasion by Harald Hardrada of Norway, defeating him at
Stamford Bridge near York in September 1066. Even when he and his troops arrived, exhausted,
at Hastings three weeks later to face William's Norman invaders, he nearly prevailed.
But William won, and the last English royal dynasty perished.
 King Arthur, 'Once and Future King'
By Michael Wood

The fantastical tale of King Arthur, the hero warrior, is one of the great themes of British
literature. But was it just invented to restore British pride after the Norman invasion? Michael
Wood puts the king in the spotlight.

A great theme
The core myths of the Celtic peoples centre on the great cycle of stories based on the life and
exploits of King Arthur. These legends link Arthur to a common poetic idea of Britain as a
kind of paradise of the West, with a primeval unspoiled past. Together they add up to the
greatest theme in the literature of the British Isles.
The historic figure of Arthur as a victorious fifth-century warrior, leading Britons into battle
against Saxon invaders, has so far proved impossible for historians to confirm. In fact the one
contemporary source that we do have for the time, 'The Ruin and Conquest of Britain' by the
British monk and historian Gildas (c.500-70) gives somebody else's name altogether as the
leader of the Britons.
So where does the legend come from? Why has Arthur - the 'once and future king' of the poet
Thomas Malory - remained so important to us, and why has he been important in the past?

First layer of the legend

The King Arthur that we know of today is a composite of layers of different legends, written
by different authors at different times. He appears in his first incarnation in the 'History of the
Britons', written in 830 and attributed to a writer called Nennius.
Here Arthur appears as a heroic British general and a Christian warrior, during the tumultuous
late fifth century, when Anglo-Saxon tribes were attacking Britain. In one of the most pregnant
passages in British history, Nennius says: Then in those days Arthur fought against them with
the kings of the Britons, but he was commander [dux bellorum] in those battles.
Nennius then gives a list of 12 battles fought by Arthur, a list that belongs in an old tradition of
battle-list poems in Welsh poetry. Some of the names appear in other early poems and annals,
stretched over a wide period of time and place, and the list represents the kind of eclectic
plundering that was the bard´s stock- in-trade.
So the 12 battles of Arthur are not history. One man could not possibly have fought in all of
them. The 12 battles are in fact the first signs of a legend.
Historic Arthur
In the turmoil of the period following the Norman invasion in 1066, Celtic literature
experienced a flowering. Much of it concerned stories of the Welsh and the other Celtic
Britons in glorious triumph against their new masters. A shower of new histories also sprung
forth, introducing the Normans to the culture and the past of the Celts. All such stories need a
main protagonist, a hero to lead the troops, and this is where Arthur fitted in.
Much of it concerned stories of the Welsh and the other Celtic Britons in glorious triumph
against their new masters.
Already known in Welsh poetry and in Nennius's history, he was an obvious contender. And
with that background it is perhaps unsurprising that it was another Welsh writer who propelled
Arthur from being just a Celtic warrior to being a mythical super-star.
The writer was Geoffrey of Monmouth, who spent his working life in Oxford and here
produced his momentous work 'The History of the Kings of Britain'. Geoffrey claimed the
work was based on a secret lost Celtic manuscript that only he was able to examine. But it's
really a myth masquerading as history, a fantastical tale of the history of the British Isles,
which concentrates its key pages on King Arthur and his wondrous deeds.
In this work, for the first time, Arthur's whole life is told - from his birth at Tintagel to his
eventual betrayal and death. There´s Guinevere and Merlin, there´s the legendary sword
Caliburn (later known as Excalibur), and even the king´s final resting place at Avalon - though
it's not yet identified with Glastonbury.
At the time it was written Geoffrey´s book had a tremendous influence, and over 200
manuscripts still remain in existence. Its impact was as great in Europe as it was in Britain.
Geoffrey had an expert way of mixing myth with fact, thus blurring reality - and this blend
attracted a mass audience, perhaps in the same way that works such as The Da Vinci Code do
today.
The Holy Grail
At the same time, the stories of Arthur began to bloom in the Celtic lands of northern France.
This French connection began soon after the Norman Conquest, when Henry II of England
married the vivacious and beautiful Eleanor of Aquitaine. In their court the two worlds of
French and English literature intermingled, and poets and troubadours transformed the Arthur
legend from a political fable to a tale of chivalric romance.
Perhaps the most important among the court writers was Chrétien de Troyes, who worked for
Eleanor´s daughter Marie de Champagne. Chrétien is probably the greatest medieval writer of
Arthurian romances, and it was he who turned the legend from courtly romance into spiritual
quest. The mysterious Holy Grail, one of the most captivating motifs in all literature, first
appears as part of the Arthurian legend in Chrétien's unfinished poem 'Perceval, or the Story of
the Grail' (1181-90):
A girl came in, fair and comely and beautifully adorned, and between her hands she held a
grail. And when she carried the grail in, the hall was suffused by a light so brilliant that the
candles lost their brightness as do the moon or stars when the sun rises. After her came another
girl bearing a silver trencher.
The grail was made of the finest pure gold, and in it were set precious stones of many kinds,
the richest and most precious in the earth or the sea.
Chrétien´s image of the grail, luminous and other-worldly, became a mystical symbol of all
human quests, of the human yearning for something beyond, desirable and yet unattainable.
With that, the Arthur legend entered the true realm of myth.
Arthur becomes political
By the time the Tudor king Henry VII came to the throne in 1485, chivalric tales of Arthur's
knightly quests and of the Knights of the Round Table, inspired by Chrétien de Troyes, had
roused British writers to pen their own versions, and Arthur was a well established British
hero. Thomas Malory's work the Death of Arthur, published in 1486, was one of the first
books to be printed in England.
It is a haunting vision of a knightly golden age swept away by civil strife and the betrayal of
its ideals. Malory identified Winchester as Camelot, and it was there in the same year that
Henry VII´s eldest son was baptised as Prince Arthur, to herald the new age.
In the meantime Geoffrey of Monmouth's tome had not been forgotten, and Arthur was also
seen as a political and historical figure. Nowhere was this more true than in the minds of 16th-
century rulers of Britain, trying desperately to prove their equal worth with their sometimes-
ally sometimes-foe Charles V, the great Holy Roman Emperor.
The young prince Arthur did not live to be crowned king and usher in a true new Arthurian
age, but in 1509 his younger brother became Henry VIII and took in the message. He had the
Winchester Round Table of Edward III repainted, with himself depicted at the top. Here he
was shown as a latter-day Arthur, a Christian emperor and head of a new British empire, with
claims once more to European glory, just as Geoffrey of Monmouth and Thomas Malory had
described.
Victorian revival
The 19th century in Britain was a time of great change, and the Industrial Revolution was
transforming the nation irrevocably. But this situation produced great doubt and uncertainty in
people's minds - not just in the future direction of the world but in the very nature of man's
soul. As we have seen, at times of great change the legend of King Arthur, with its unfaltering
moral stability, has always proved popular, and so it proved again in the reign of Queen
 Victoria.
Thus, when the Houses of Parliament were rebuilt after the disastrous fire of 1834, Arthurian
themes from Malory´s book were chosen for the decoration of the queen´s robing room in the
House of Lords, the symbolic centre of the British empire. And poems such as Tennyson´s
'Idylls of the King' and William Morris´s 'The Defence of Guinevere', based on the myth,
became extremely popular. In addition, the Pre-Raphaelite painters produced fantastically
powerful re-creations of the Arthurian legend, as did Julia Margaret Cameron in the new
medium of photography.
The Victorian Arthurian legends were a nostalgic commentary on a lost spirit world. The
fragility of goodness, the burden of rule and the impermanence of empire (a deep
psychological strain, this, in 19th-century British literary culture) were all resonant themes for
the modern British imperialist knights, and gentlemen, on their own road to Camelot.

Modern myth
Today the tale has lost none of its appeal. Camelot was 'discovered' at Cadbury, in Somerset,
in the 1960s, and many books on the subject have been written in the past few decades. Films
such as John Boorman´s Excalibur (1981), Robert Bresson´s Lancelot (1972) and Jerry
Zucker's First Knight (1995) were pre- cursors to Antoine Fuqua's 2004 Hollywood epic King
Arthur. Historians have also identified a real fifth-century Arthur - a prince and recognised
warrior who died fighting the warring Scottish Picts.
Has any of this helped verify the King Arthur of our story books? Maybe not. But in the end it
is perhaps his myth that is in any case more important than his history. Over the centuries the
figure of Arthur became a symbol of British history - a way of explaining the 'matter' of
Britain, the relationship between the Saxons and the Celts, and a way of exorcising ghosts and
healing the wounds of the past.
In such cases the dry, historical fact offers no solace, it is myth that offers real consolation, not
in literal, historical fact but in poetic, imaginative truth. And a body of myth like the Arthurian
tales therefore represents in some magical way the inner life of our history as Britons, over
many hundreds, even thousands, of years. In this sense the fabulous myths really do serve
Britain and make Arthur, perhaps, the real 'once and future king'.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/
anglo_saxons/arthur_01.shtml

Activities
1. What was the Norse god Thor’s favourite DIY tool? Saw, hammer, screwdriver or tape
measure?
2. What is the name of the Norse God from whom the word Wednesday comes from?
3. Who defeated the Vikings and became the King of England?
4. Which king was killed at the Battle of Hastings?
5. Write a lead to the legend about King Arthur.
6. Write a tabloid news about the dispute between William of Normandy and King Harold.
7. Imagine you are a journalist living in the year 1066. Write an editorial to the newspapers.
4
NORMAN BRITAIN (1066 - 1154)

1066 is probably the most remembered date in English

history - recognized by people who know virtually
nothing else about Britain or history. On 14 October of
that year, an invading army from Normandy defeated
the English. The battle was close and extremely
bloody. At the end, most of the best warriors in
England were dead, including their leader, King
Harold. He was defeated with a lucky shot of the
Norman leader, Duke William of Normandy. On Christmas day that year, Duke William of
Normandy, was crowned king of England. He is known in popular history as ´William the
Conqueror´ and the date is remembered as the last time that England was successfully invaded.
The victorious William, now known as 'the Conqueror', brought a new aristocracy to England
from Normandy and some other areas of France. He also strengthened aristocratic lordship and
moved towards reform of the church. At the same time, William was careful to preserve the
powerful administrative machinery that had distinguished the regime of the late Anglo-Saxon
kings.
At William's death, his lands were divided, with his eldest son Robert taking control of
Normandy, and his second son, William Rufus, becoming king of England.
English and Norman society and Feudal England
The Normans and the Anglo-Saxons were each Scandinavian immigrants who had settled in
another land and taken over from its ruling aristocracy. For both societies, land was the defining
currency. The Lord owned land, which he parcelled out amongst his followers in return for
service. They in turn settled the land as minor lords in their own right, surrounded by a retinue of
warriors to whom they would grant gifts as rewards for good service and as tokens of their own
good lordship (of which the greatest gift was land). Success in war generated more land and
booty which could be passed around. If a lord wasn't successful or generous enough, his
followers would desert him for a 'better' lord. It was a self-perpetuating dynamic fuelled by
expansion and warfare in which the value of a man was determined by his warlike ability: the
lord led warriors; the warrior fought for his lord; they were both serviced by non-fighting tenant
farmers who owed their livelihoods to the lord; and below them came the unfree slaves. It was
after the Conquest, and in particular during the 12th Century, that the full system of feudal
obligations developed. Latin became the official language of government.
The Normans had an enormous influence on architectural development in Britain. There had
been large-scale fortified settlements, known as burghs, and also fortified houses in Anglo-Saxon
England, but the castle was a Norman import. Some were towers on mounds surrounded by
larger enclosures, often referred to as 'motte and bailey castles'. Others were immense, most
notably the huge palace-castles William I built at Colchester and London. A lord might display
his wealth, power and devotion through a combination of castle and church in close proximity.
Churches were also built in great numbers, and in great variety, although usually in the
Romanesque style with its characteristic round- topped arches. The vast cathedrals of the late
11th and early 12th centuries, colossal in scale by European standards, emphasised the power of
the Normans as well as their reform of the church in the conquered realm.
Domesday Book
At Christmas 1085, William I commissioned a survey of his English dominions. His bureaucrats
interviewed representatives from all over England on the ownership of land in their locality. The
results were compiled in "the King's great book" soon known as the Domesday Book. The basic
unit in Domesday Book was the manor. It soon influenced taxation level, as the government
became aware how wealthy English localities were.

The Battle of Hastings

By C. Warren Hollister
The description of the battle given by William of Malmesbury (1090-1143)
The courageous leaders mutually prepared for battle, each according to his national custom.
The English, as we have heard, passed the night without sleep, in drinking and singing, and in
the morning proceeded without delay against the enemy. All on foot, armed with battle-axes,
and covering themselves in front by the juncture of their shields, they formed an impenetrable
body which would assuredly have secured their safety that day had not the Normans, by a
feigned flight, induced them to open their ranks, which till that time, according to their
custom, had been closely compacted. King Harold himself, on foot, stood with his brothers
near the standard in order that, so long as all shared equal danger, none could think of
retreating. This same standard William sent, after his victory, to the pope; it was sumptuously
embroidered with gold and precious stones, and represented the figure of a man fighting.
On the other hand, the Normans passed the whole night in confessing their sins, and received
the communion of the Lord's body in the morning. Their infantry, with bows and arrows,
formed the vanguard, while their cavalry, divided into wings, was placed in the rear. The duke,
with serene countenance, declaring aloud that God would favor his as being the righteous side,
called for his arms; and when, through the haste of his attendants, he had put on his hauberk
the hind part before, he corrected the mistake with a laugh, saying "The power of my dukedom
shall be turned into a kingdom." Then starting the Song of Roland, in order that the warlike
example of that hero might stimulate the soldiers, and calling on God for assistance, the battle
commenced on both sides, and was fought with great ardor, neither side giving ground during
the greater part of the day.
Observing this, William gave a signal to his troops, that, feigning flight, they should withdraw
from the field. By means of this device the solid phalanx of the English opened for the purpose
of cutting down the fleeing enemy and thus brought upon itself swift destruction; for the
Normans, facing about, attacked them, thus disordered, and compelled them to fly.
In this manner, deceived by a stratagem, they met an honorable death in avenging their enemy;
nor indeed were they at all without their own revenge, for, by frequently making a stand, they
slaughtered their pursuers in heaps. Getting possession of an eminence, they drove back the
Normans, who in the heat of pursuit were struggling up the slope, into the valley beneath,
where, by hurling their javelins and rolling down stones on them as they stood below, the
English easily destroyed them to a man. Besides, by a short passage with which they were
acquainted, they avoided a deep ditch and trod underfoot such a multitude of their enemies in
that place that the heaps of bodies made the hollow level with the plain. This alternating
victory, first of one side and then of the other, continued so long as Harold lived to check the
retreat; but when he fell, his brain pierced by an arrow, the flight of the English ceased not
until night.
In the battle both leaders distinguished themselves by their bravery. Harold, not content with
the functions of a general and with exhorting others, eagerly assumed himself the duties of a
common soldier. He was constantly striking down the enemy at close quarters, so that no one
could approach him with impunity, for straightway both horse and rider would be felled by a
single blow. So it was at long range, as I have said, that the enemy's deadly arrow brought him
to his death. One of the Norman soldiers gashed his thigh with a sword, as he lay prostrate; for
which shameful and cowardly action he was branded with ignominy by William and expelled
from the army.
William, too, was equally ready to encourage his soldiers by his voice and by his presence,
and to be the first to rush forward to attack the thickest of the foe. He was everywhere fierce
and furious; he lost three choice horses, which were that day killed under him. The dauntless
spirit and vigor of the intrepid general, however, still held out. Though often called back by
the kind remonstrance of his bodyguard, he still persisted until approaching night crowned him
with complete victory. And no doubt the hand of God so protected him that the enemy should
draw no blood from his person, though they aimed so many javelins at him.
This was a fatal day to England, and melancholy havoc was wrought in our dear country
during the change of its lords. For it had long adopted the manners of the Angles, which had
indeed altered with the times; for in the first years of their arrival they were barbarians in their
look and manner, warlike in their usages, heathens in their rights. After embracing the faith of
Christ, by degrees and, in process of time, in consequence of the peace which they enjoyed,
they relegated arms to a secondary place and gave their whole attention to religion. I am not
speaking of the poor, the meanness of whose fortune often restrains them from overstepping
the bound of justice;
I omit, too, men of ecclesiastical rank, whom sometimes respect for their profession and
sometimes the fear of shame suffers not to deviate from the true path; I speak of princes, who
from the greatness of their power might have full liberty to indulge in pleasure. Some of these
in their own country, and others at Rome, changing their habit, obtained a heavenly kingdom
and a saintly intercourse. Many others during their whole lives devoted themselves in outward
appearance to worldly affairs, but in order that they might exhaust their treasures on the poor
or divide them amongst monasteries.
What shall I say of the multitudes of bishops, hermits, and abbots? Does not the whole island
blaze with such numerous relics of its own people that you can scarcely pass a village of any
consequence but you hear the name of some new saint? And of how many more has all
remembrance perished through the want of records?
Nevertheless, the attention to literature and religion had gradually decreased for several years
before the arrival of the Normans. The clergy, contented with a little confused learning, could
scarcely stammer out the words of the sacraments; and a person who understood grammar was
an object of wonder and astonishment. The monks mocked the rule of their order by fine
vestments and the use of every kind of food. The nobility, given up to luxury and wantonness,
went not to church in the morning after the manner of Christians, but merely, in a careless
manner, heard matins and masses from a hurrying priest in their chambers, amid the
blandishments of their wives. The commonalty, left unprotected, became a prey to the most
powerful, who amassed fortunes, either by seizing on their property or by selling their persons
into foreign countries; although it is characteristic of this people to be more inclined to
reveling than to the accumulation of wealth. . .
Drinking in parties was a universal practice, in which occupation they passed entire nights as
well as days. They consumed their whole substance in mean and despicable houses, unlike the
Normans and French, who live frugally in noble and splendid mansions. The vices attendant
on drunkenness, which enervate the human mind, followed; hence it came about that when
they engaged William, with more rashness and precipitate fury than military skill, they
doomed themselves and their country to slavery by a single, and that an easy, victory. For
nothing is less effective than rashness; and what begins with violence quickly ceases or is
 repelled.
The English at that time wore short garments, reaching to the mid-knee; they had their hair
cropped, their beards shaven, their arms laden with gold bracelets, their skin adorned with
tattooed designs. They were accustomed to eat till they became surfeited, and to drink till they
were sick.
These latter qualities they imparted to their conquerors; as to the rest, they adopted their
manners. I would not, however, had these bad propensities ascribed to the English universally;
I know that many of the clergy at that day trod the path of sanctity by a blameless life; I know
that many of the laity, of all ranks and conditions, in this nation were well-pleasing to God. Be
injustice far from this account; the accusation does not involve the whole, indiscriminately; but
as in peace the mercy of God often cherishes the bad and the good together, so, equally, does
his severity sometimes include them both in captivity.
The Normans, that I may speak of them also, were at that time, and are even now, exceedingly
particular in their dress and delicate in their food, but not so to excess. They are a race inured
to war, and can hardly live without it; fierce in rushing against the enemy, and, where force
fails of success, ready to use stratagem or to corrupt by bribery. As I have said, they live in
spacious houses with economy, envy their superiors, wish to excel their equals, and plunder
their subjects, though they defend them from others; they are faithful to their lords, though a
slight offense alienates them. They weigh treachery by its chance of success, and change their
sentiments for money. The most hospitable, however, of all nations, they esteem strangers
worthy of equal honor with themselves; they also inter-marry with their vassals. They revived,
by their arrival, the rule of religion which had everywhere grown lifeless in England. You
might see churches rise in every village, and monasteries in the towns and cities, built after a
style unknown before; you might behold the country flourishing with renovated rites; so that
each wealthy man accounted that day lost to him which he had neglected to signalize by some
munificent action.

Source: http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/
123/123%20week3.htm

Activities
1. Why was there a disputed succession in 1066?
2. Why did William of Normandy claim the English throne?
3. How did William control the country?
4. What was the Domesday book?
5. Track down as many English words as possible having their origins in French, write a list
and then create a story using the words.
 6. Write a news report from the Battle of Hastings.
7. Write either a feature story or a feuilleton about How did William the Bastard become
William the Conqueror?

5
THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD (1154 - 1485)

The Middle Ages were a period of massive social change, burgeoning nationalism, international
conflict, terrible natural disaster, climate change, rebellion, resistance and renaissance.
The Britain of Henry II, and of his sons Richard I and John, was experiencing rapid population
growth, clearance of forest for fields, establishment of new towns and outward-looking crusading
zeal. Legacies of the Norman invasion of 1066 remained. The aristocracy spoke French until
after 1350, so saxon 'ox' and 'swine', for example, came to the table as French boeuf and porc.

Plantagenet dynasty (1154 - 1485)

The dynasty produced such varied characters as the energetic Henry II, arguably one of
England's greatest monarchs and his legendary son, Richard the Lionheart, who led the Third
Crusade against Saladin into the Holy Land. The highly aesthetic Henry III and his son, the
indomitable Edward I, who conquered Wales and became known as the Hammer of the Scots
for his campaigns into that country, where he fought William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, the
most famous of Scotland's sons, and Henry V, the conqueror of France, who bequeathed the
diadems of both countries to his pious and ineffectual son, Henry VI.
The later Plantagenets became divided into the Houses of Lancaster and York which descended
through different sons of King Edward III. The Yorkist King Richard III was the last of his
house.
Magna Carta
In 1215, an alliance of aristocracy, church and merchants force King John to agree to the Magna
Carta, a document in which the king agrees to follow certain rules of government. Later kings
frequently confirmed and reissued this document, the most famous in English constituional
history; it was sometimes referred to as the Great Charter of the Liberties of England. In fact,
neither John nor his successors entirely followed them, but the Magna Carta is remembered as
the first time a monarch agreed in writing to abide formal procedures. Although Magna Carta did
not settle the conflict between John and his barons, it soon came to be regarded as the
fundamental cornerstone of English constitutional law.
 Selections from Magna Carta
John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and of
Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars,
foresters, sheriffs, reeves, ministers, and all his bailiffs and faithful men, greeting. Know that,
through the inspiration of God, for the health of our soul and [the souls] of all our ancestors
and heirs, for the honour of God and the exaltation of Holy Church, and for the betterment of
our realm, by the counsel of our venerable fathers ..., of our nobles ..., and of our other faithful
men —
1. We have in the first place granted to God and by this our present charter have confirmed, for
us and our heirs forever, that the English Church shall be free and shall have its rights entire
and its liberties inviolate. And how we wish [that freedom] to be observed appears from this,
that of our own pure and free will, before the conflict that arose between us and our barons, we
granted and by our charter confirmed the liberty of election that is considered of prime
importance and necessity for the English Church, and we obtained confirmation of it from the
lord pope Innocent III — which [charter] we will observe ourself and we wish to be observed
in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us
and our heirs forever, all the liberties hereinunder written, to be had and held by them and their
heirs of us and our heirs.
2. If any one of our earls or barons or other men holding of us in chief dies, and if when he
dies his heir is of full age and owes relief, [that heir] shall have his inheritance for the ancient
relief: namely, the heir or heirs of an earl £100 for the whole barony of an earl; the heir or
heirs of a baron £100 for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight 100s, at most for a
whole knight's fee. And let whoever owes less give less, according to the ancient custom of
fiefs.
3. If, however, the heir of any such person is under age and is in wardship, he shall, when he
comes of age, have his inheritance without relief and without fine.
4. The guardian of the land of such an heir who is under age shall not take from the land of the
heir more than reasonable issues and reasonable customs and reasonable services, and this
without destruction and waste of men or things. And if we entrust the wardship of any such
land to a sheriff or to any one else who is to answer to us for its issues, and if he causes
destruction or waste of [what is under] wardship, we will exact compensation from him; and
the land shall be entrusted to two discreet and lawful men of that fief, who shall answer for the
issues to us or the man to whom we may assign them. And if we give or sell the wardship of
any such land to any one, and if he causes destruction or waste of it, he shall forfeit that
wardship and it shall be given to two discreet and lawful men of that fief, who likewise shall
answer to us as aforesaid.
5. Moreover, the guardian, so long as he has wardship of the land, shall from the issues of that
 same land keep up the houses, parks, preserves, fish-ponds, mills, and other things belonging
to that land. And to the heir, when he comes of full age, [the guardian] shall give all his land,
stocked with ploughs and produce, according to what crops may be seasonable and to what the
issues of the land can reasonably permit.
...
8. No widow shall be forced to marry so long as she wishes to live without a husband; yet so
that she shall give security against marrying without our consent if she holds of us, or without
the consent of her lord if she holds of another.
...
10. If any one has taken anything, whether much or little, by way of loan from Jews, and if he
dies before that debt is paid, the debt shall not carry usury so long as the heir is under age,
from whomsoever he may hold. And if that debt falls into our hands, we will take only the
principal contained in the note.

Source: http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/
sommerville/123/123%20week4.htm

Black Death
The 14th century in England saw the Great Famine and the Black Death, catastrophic events
that killed around half of England's population. The Black Death was the worst disease in
recorded history, killing 50% of the population in a year. Chronic malnourishment weakened the
population, perhaps making people more susceptible to the Black
Death, the worst disease in recorded history, which arrived in Europe
in 1347 and in England the following year. The plague returned in a
series of periodic local and national epidemics. The plague only
finally stopped at the end of the seventeenth century.

Hundred Years’ War

English kings in the 14th and 15th centuries laid claim to the French
throne, resulting in the Hundred Years' War. Historical tradition
dates the Hundred Years War between England and France as running from 1337 to 1453. In
1337, Edward III had responded to the confiscation of his duchy of Aquitaine by King Philip VI
of France by challenging Philip’s right to the French throne. Edward III formally assumed the
title 'King of France and the French Royal Arms'.
The overseas possessions of the English kings were the root cause of the tensions with the kings
of France, and the tensions reached right back to 1066. William the Conqueror was already duke
of Normandy when he became king of England. His great-grandson Henry II, at his accession in
1154, was already count of Anjou by inheritance from his father and duke of Aquitaine (Gascony
and Poitou) in right of his wife Eleanor.
England's King John lost Normandy and Anjou to France in 1204. His son, Henry III, renounced
his claim to those lands in the Treaty of Paris in 1259, but it left him with Gascony as a duchy
held under the French crown. The English kings’ ducal rights there continued to be a source of
disquiet, and wars broke out in 1294 and 1324.
In 1453 the English had lost the last of their once wide territories in France, after the defeat of
John Talbot’s Anglo-Gascon army at Castillon, near Bordeaux.
Its origins in national war experience gave that patriotism a chauvinistic edge that continued to
colour English popular attitudes to foreigners and especially to the
French for a very long time. Francophobia runs as a recurrent
thread through the English story from the 15th century down to
the start of the 20th, when finally the Germans replaced the
French as England’s natural
adversaries in the popular eye.

The Wars of the Roses (1455-1485)

The Wars of the Roses were a series
of dynastic civil wars for the throne
of England fought between supporters of two rival branches of the
royal House of Plantagenet: The Houses of Lancaster and York.
They were fought in several sporadic episodes between 1455 and
1485, although there was related fighting both before and after this
period. The nobles were divided into two groups, one supporting the House of Lancaster, whose
symbol was a red rose, the other the House of York, whose symbol was a white rose. Three
decades of almost continual war ended in 1485, when Henry Tudor (Lancastrian) defeated
and killed Richard III (Yorkist) at the Battle of Boswort Field. Henry Tudor married Edward
IV's daughter Elizabeth of York to unite the two houses. The House of Tudor subsequently ruled
England and Wales for 117 years.
Henry VII's victory in 1485 typically marks the end of the Middle Ages in England and the start
of the Early Modern period.

Medieval English society

The Free
At the top of the English social scale stood the king and nobility. Senior churchmen (abbots and
bishops) were also barons with noble status.
About 200 of these men formed England's ruling elite. Crown, nobility and church owned about
75% of English land.
Immediately below the nobility were knights. Knighthood was not hereditary; instead, men were
made knights as a reward for outstanding service or because they had become wealthy enough.
The other class of freemen were "sokemen" (or socmen.) Roughly one in six of the population
were sokemen, and they owned about twenty per cent of the land. They were especially
numerous in East Anglia.
Sokemen held in socage; they had security of tenure provided they carried out certain defined
services often including light labor services and paying a fixed rent. Their land was heritable.
The Unfree
The largest class of the population were villani. (Those born to servile status were also called
nativi.) About four in ten people were villani tied to the land. They did not own the land but
farmed their own holdings (about 45 per cent of all English land,) which they were allowed to
occupy in exchange for labor services on the landowner's demesne. The exact services required
from villani varied in accordance with local customs and agreements. A common arrangement
was three days work each week (more in harvest time).
A lower class of villeins were known as bordars or cottars. These occupied very small plots of
land for personal use, which like the villani they did not own, but for which they had to pay rent
and/or labor services. Although they constituted about one third of the population, bordars only
occupied about five per cent of the land.
At the very bottom of the social scale were slaves who owned no land at all. These constituted
slightly less than one in ten of the population at the time of Domesday Book. During the 12th
Century many of these slaves were given holdings and became bordars.
Activities
1. Who was the young French girl who helped the French in the 100 Years War?
2. What was the chief goal of the Crusades?
3. What proportion of the English population is estimated to have been killed by the Black
Death in 1348-9?
4. Write either a breaking story, a disasters or developing story on Black Death, War of the
Roses, or Hundred Years' War.
5. Write reading notices from Hundred Years' War.
6. Write five different news headlines for medieval newspapers.
6
TUDORS (1485 - 1603)

The Tudor era saw unprecedented upheaval in England. Between them the five Tudor kings and
queens introduced huge changes that are still present in the society.
Henry VII wants to keep his kingdom secure and creates several foreign alliances to try to avoid
wars. He arranges the marriage of his 13-year-old daughter Margaret to James IV to secure peace
between England and Scotland. Although the peace doesn't last, the couple's great-grandson,
James I of England and VI of Scotland, will unite the crowns of Scotland and England 100 years
later.

Henry VIII – A man of extremes

Henry VIII is one of the English most renowned monarchs.
He was a larger than life king who established one of the
most glittering courts in Europe. However, he was also a
spoiled prince used to getting his own way and ruthless
when his desires were thwarted.
Henry turned the country upside down in pursuit of Anne
Boleyn, changing the nation's official religion, annulling
his first marriage and executing once-favoured advisers to
secure his marriage to her. However, when Anne failed to
produce a son to carry on Henry's legacy, even she wasn't safe. When Henry came to the throne,
England was a Catholic nation subject to the Pope in Rome. Henry considered himself a loyal
subject of Rome and was given the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ by Pope Leo X after he authored
a book attacking the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. However, the Pope’s repeated refusal to
annul Henry’s marriage to his first wife Catherine of Aragon put their relationship under severe
strain. The king became convinced his power as a prince came directly from God and was not
subject to the Pope. Henry breaks from the authority of the Pope and is declared head of the
English Church by Parliament. To cancel out the power of the Catholic church in England, he
dissolves over 800 monasteries and transfers their wealth and lands transferred to the crown.
Years of discord between Protestants and Catholics follow.
Henry VIII is also known as the 'father of the Royal Navy.' When he became king there were five
royal warships. By his death he had built up a navy of around 50 ships. Henry also built the first
naval dock in Britain at Portsmouth and in 1546 he established the Navy Board.
Henry VIII orders the creation of the first national postal service for royal mail. Called 'The
King’s Posts', it was devised by Sir Brian Tuke and commanded all towns to have a fresh horse
available for anyone carrying mail from the Tudor Court. This royal mail system was opened to
the general public in 1635 by King Charles I - the start of the
postal system that is still used today.

Elizabeth I’s long reign

In 1558 Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, becomes queen.
During her reign she established a reasonable degree of internal
stability. By the mid-1580s, England could no longer avoid war
with Spain. England's defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588
associated Elizabeth with one of the greatest military victories
in English history.
Elizabeth's reign is known as the Elizabethan era. The period is famous for the flourishing of
English drama, led by playwrights such as William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, and
for the seafaring prowess of English adventurers such as Francis Drake. Some historians depict
Elizabeth as a short- tempered, sometimes indecisive ruler, who enjoyed more than her share of
luck.
Queen Elizabeth I faced numerous plots against her and thus pays Sir Francis Walsingham to set
up a European network of spies across Europe. He establishes England's first counter-
intelligence network and a London school that teaches cipher breaking and forgery. Elizabeth's
Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots is in exile in England and poses a threat to Elizabeth.
Mary is put under house arrest. Walsingham is convinced she is plotting against the queen and
implicates her in a plan to depose Elizabeth. Mary is executed a year later.
Elizabeth I dies aged 69. The Virgin Queen never married or had children.
James VI of Scotland was her closest royal relative as they were both direct descendants of
Henry VII. He is named King James I on the day of Elizabeth's death. One of Britain's greatest
and most influential dynasties finally reaches its conclusion.

First English colony in America

England wants to compete with Spain and Portugal, whose American colonies generate great
wealth. Sir Walter Raleigh sets up a colony of about 100 men on the east coast of North
America, which he names Virginia after Elizabeth I, ‘the Virgin Queen’. Although Raleigh's
settlement fails after a year it marks the start of an effort by England to colonise North America.
The first successful permanent settlement is founded in 1607.

Could you survive Tudor England?

By Paul Fraser
Welcome to Tudor England. Grab your lute, tankard of ale and codpiece (so to speak) and see
if you have what it takes to survive. But if you're over the age of 35, I have bad news: the
Tudor version of you is most probably dead. That was the average life expectancy in England
at the time. But be merry, there's plenty to enjoy in Tudor England.
Plague
London streets were a wonderment of odour and noise. Chamber pots were brazenly tipped out
of windows. Traders bawled out their wares. There was the constant sound of hooves on
cobbles. Drainage did not exist. Amid such squalid conditions, plague was a constant menace
and could wipe out 15% of a town in days.
Out in the country things were quieter, but no easier for the common man working the land.
50% of the population lived at "subsistence level" - having just enough food, water, and
clothing to get by.
If you didn't have a job, you were in trouble. There were harsh laws for vagrants, even those
who were seeking work. A good whipping might be in order.
Beer for breakfast
If you had somewhere to call home, it would unlikely have been a place to boast about. A poor
person's house was a hut with a dirt floor, and sanitation, across all classes, was an unpleasant
business. The flushing toilet (invented 1596) arrived too late for most Tudors, which meant
crouching over a cesspit or the aforementioned chamber pot instead. Toilet paper too was
centuries away, so it was lamb's wool for the wealthy, and leaves or moss for the poor.
Water was dangerous to drink. Adults turned instead to ale or wine (if wealthy) throughout the
day, while children drank milk. Bread and cheese were the staples of the diet for the poor, with
a watery pottage providing some warming comfort for an evening meal. Lots of meat,
including robin and badger, might be on the menu for the rich. Potatoes arrived only in 1580.
Medical thought revolved around the four humours: blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile.
A good balance of the four was required to maintain health. Induced vomiting or blood-letting
would get you back on your feet. Influenza, smallpox, syphilis and dysentery were
everywhere.
Boiled alive
 Jail was merely a place for a prisoner to go before a punishment could be meted out. 70,000
people were executed during the time of Henry VIII. Flogging or the stocks were common for
small crimes, death by hanging for anything serious, which could include stealing, though you
might just have your arm chopped off.
You could find yourself boiled alive for attempted murder, while women found guilty of
treason might be burned at the stake. Won't confess? - it's "the rack" for you. Gossiping
women were a particular menace, and might have to wear "the brank" - a metal cage that
spiked your tongue when you spoke.
Accused of being a witch? The outlook was not favourable. It was off to the ducking stool. If
you floated you were definitely a witch and burned at the stake. If you sank, it proved you
were not a witch. But by that time it was probably too late.
No sex on the weekend
The church discouraged sex between Thursday and Monday and all sexual relations were off
during Lent. Women who enjoyed sex were regarded with suspicion.
So with sex off the menu, what to do? To the theatre perhaps - especially towards the end of
the Elizabethan era when Shakespeare came on the scene. No hushed tones in the stalls during
Tudor times, heckling, merrymaking and fighting were almost guaranteed.

Source: http://www.paulfrasercollectibles.com/upload/
public/attachments/9/Newsletter2014-08-23.html

Activities
1. Which wife is buried beside Henry VIII?
2. Anne Boleyn was heavily pregnant at the time of her coronation in May 1533 with which
future queen of England?
3. Think back to the old rhyme, still used by schoolchildren to remember Henry VIII's
wives: 'Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.' Who was his fifth wife,
the second to be beheaded?
4. It was not until the reign of Henry VII that tennis became popular at the English court.
The king took the game up and as a result of his interest made a tennis-play at
Kenilworth, and, in the next fifteen years, went on to construct courts at Richmond,
Wycombe, Woodstock, Windsor and Westminster. Tennis formed part of a young Henry
VIII’s education alongside hunting and archery. What were Tudor tennis balls made of?
a) rubber, b) pigs' bladders, c) dog hair and leather
5. Write an interview with Henry VIII, choose the main topic of the interview based on one
of the aspects of his chequered life.
6. Write a sport´s commentary on a tennis match between Henry VIII and his rival.
7. Write a review on a film, play, or book where Elizabeth I appeared as one of the
characters.
7
CIVIL WAR, RESTORATION AND REVOLUTION (1603 - 1714)

The Stuart dynasty spanned one of the most tumultuous periods in British history - years of civil
war, assassination attempts, usurpations, national disaster and revolution.
Elizabeth I, the last of the Tudor monarchs, died in 1603 and the thrones of England and Ireland
passed to her cousin, James Stuart. Thus James VI of Scotland also became James I of England.
The three separate kingdoms were united under a single ruler for the first time, and James I and
VI, as he now became, entered upon his unique inheritance.
England, Scotland and Ireland were very different countries, with very different histories, and the
memories of past conflict between those countries - and indeed, of past conflict between
different ethnic groups within those countries - ran deep. To make matters trickier still, each
kingdom favoured a different form of religion. Most Scots were Calvinists, most English
favoured a more moderate form of Protestantism and most Irish remained stoutly Catholic. Yet
each kingdom also contained strong religious minorities. In England, the chief such group were
the Catholics, who initially believed that James would prove less severe to them than Elizabeth
had been.
When these expectations were disappointed, Catholic conspirators hatched a plot to blow both
the new king and his parliament sky-high. The discovery of the Gunpowder Plot served as a
warning to James, if any were needed, of the very grave dangers religious divisions could pose,
both to his own person and to the stability of his triple crown.
English Civil War
The conflict between King and Parliament reached its climax and the
English Civil War (1642-1651) began. The war can be described as a
series of armed conflicts and political
machinations between Parliamentarians
(Roundheads) and Royalists (Cavaliers). The war
culminated in the execution of the king in 1649,
the overthrow of the monarchy, and the
establishment of a republic known as the Commonwealth of England
(1649–53). James´s son, Charles I, became the first monarch in Europe to be executed after a
formal trial for crimes against his people. Charles II, the son of Charles I was exiled. In 1653, the
leader of the parliamentary army, Oliver Cromwell, seized power and declared himself ´Lord
Protector´ of a republic, or a Protectorate (1653–59) with a military government which, after he
had brutally crushed resistance in Ireland, effectively encompassed all of Britain and Ireland.
Cromwell ruled until his death in 1658, when he was succeeded by his son Richard. The new
Lord Protector had little interest in governing and he soon resigned.

One man’s view of Cromwell, in verse

John Milton
Cromwell, our chief of men, who through a cloud
Not of war only, but detractions rude,
Guided by faith and matchless fortitude,
To peace and truth thy glorious way hast plough'd,
And on the neck of crowned Fortune proud
Hast rear'd God's trophies, and his work pursu'd,
While Darwen stream with blood of Scots imbru'd,
And Dunbar field, resounds thy praises loud,
And Worcester's laureate wreath; yet much remains
To conquer still: peace hath her victories
No less renown'd than war. New foes arise
Threat'ning to bind our souls with secular chains:
Help us to save free Conscience from the paw
Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw.

By the time Cromwell died, he, his system of government, and the puritan ethics that went with it
(theatres and other forms of amusement had been banned) had become so unpopular that the
executed king´s son was asked to return and become King Charles II.
However, the conflict between monarch and Parliament soon re- emerged in the reign of Charles
II´s brother, James II. Again, religion was its focus. James tried to give full rights to Catholics,
and to promote them in his government. The ´Glorious Revolution (1688)´ (glorious because it
was bloodless) followed, in which Prince William of Orange, ruler of the Netherlands, and his
Stuart wife Mary accepted Parliament´s invitation to become king and queen. Parliament
immediately drew up a Petition of Rights, which limited some of the monarch´s powers.

The Petition of Right (1628)

To the King's Most Excellent Majesty,
Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons in Parliament assembles, that whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute made
in the time of the reign of King Edward I, commonly called Statutum de Tallagio non
concedendo, that no tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the king or his heirs in this realm,
without the good will and assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses,
and other the freemen of the commonalty of this realm; and by authority of parliament holden
in the five-and-twentieth year of the reign of King Edward III, it is declared and enacted, that
from thenceforth no person should be compelled to make any loans to the king against his will,
because such loans were against reason and the franchise of the land; and by other laws of this
realm it is provided, that none should be charged by any charge or imposition called a
benevolence, nor by such like charge; by which statutes before mentioned, and other the good
laws and statutes of this realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should not
be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge not set by common
consent, in parliament.
Yet nevertheless of late divers commissions directed to sundry commissioners in several
counties, with instructions, have issued; by means whereof your people have been in divers
places assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money unto your Majesty, and many of
them, upon their refusal so to do, have had an oath administered unto them not warrantable by
the laws or statutes of this realm, and have been constrained to become bound and make
appearance and give utterance before your Privy Council and in other places, and others of
them have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and sundry other ways molested and
disquieted; and divers other charges have been laid and levied upon your people in several
counties by lord lieutenants, deputy lieutenants, commissioners for musters, justices of peace
and others, by command or direction from your Majesty, or your Privy Council, against the
laws and free custom of the realm.
And whereas also by the statute called 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England,' it is
declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his
freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed,
but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.
And in the eight-and-twentieth year of the reign of King Edward III, it was declared and
enacted by authority of parliament, that no man, of what estate or condition that he be, should
be put out of his land or tenements, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited nor put to death
without being brought to answer by due process of law.
 ....
By pretext whereof some of your Majesty's subjects have been by some of the said
commissioners put to death, when and where, if by the laws and statutes of the land they had
deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might, and by no other ought to have
been judged and executed.
...
They do therefore humbly pray your most excellent Majesty, that no man hereafter be
compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such like charge, without
common consent by act of parliament; and that none be called to make answer, or take such
oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwise molested or disquieted concerning the
same or for refusal thereof; and that no freeman, in any such manner as is before mentioned,
be imprisoned or detained; and that your Majesty would be pleased to remove the said soldiers
and mariners, and that your people may not be so burdened in time to come; and that the
aforesaid commissions, for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked and annulled; and that
hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or persons whatsoever
to be executed as aforesaid, lest by color of them any of your Majesty's subjects be destroyed
or put to death contrary to the laws and franchise of the land.
All which they most humbly pray of your most excellent Majesty as their rights and liberties,
according to the laws and statutes of this realm; and that your Majesty would also vouchsafe to
declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the
premises, shall not be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; and that your Majesty
would be also graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare
your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers and ministers shall
serve you according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they tender the honor of your
Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom.

Source: http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/
sommerville/123/123%20week12.htm

Activities
1. Who was such a bad ruler parliament executed him?
2. What are the two sides of the English Civil War?
3. What two political parties emerged because Charles I had no heirs? What were their
beliefs? Who ended up ruling?
4. What were England's strict Protestants called?
5. What title was assumed by Oliver Cromwell, during his leadership of the Country after
the English Civil War?
6. Write a commentary on the execution of King Charles I.
7. Write a sensationalist news King Charles II – Superstar.
8
CENTURY OF PROGRESS

In 1707, the Act of Union was passed. Under this agreement, the Scottish parliament was
dissolved and some of its members joined the English and Welsh parliament in London and the
former two kingdoms became one ´United Kingdom of Great Britain´. However, Scotland
retained its own system of law, more similar to continental European system and it does so to
this day.
Britain was governed under a mixed constitution, achieved
through the Glorious Revolution of 1689. The monarch ruled in
conjunction with the two houses of parliament. All three parties
were closely involved in political decisions.
Within Parliament, two opponent groups were formed. One
group, the Whigs, were the political descendants of the
parliamentarians. They supported the Protestant values of hard
work and thrift. The other group, the Tories, had a greater
respect for the idea of the monarchy and the importance of the Anglican Church. This was the
beginning of the party system in Britain.
The monarchs of the eighteenth century were Hanoverian Germans with interests on the
European continent. The first of them, George I, Elector of Hanover, became king in accordance
with the Act of Settlement, 1702. The act stipulated that, after the death of the childless Queen
Anne (the last legitimate Stuart monarch) the British monarchy should be Protestant and
Hanoverian. George could not even speak English. Perhaps this situation encouraged the habit
whereby the monarch appointed one principal, or prime, minister from the ranks of Parliament to
head his government. It was also during this century that the system of an annual budget drawn
up by the monarch´s Treasury officials for the approval of Parliament was established.
During the Hanoverian era, Britain experienced considerable demographic growth, the birth of
an industrial economy, and extensive social change.
Industrial revolution
In England, the growth of the industrial mode of production, together with advances in
agriculture, caused the greatest changes in the pattern of everyday life since the Germanic
invasions. Britain built factories and canals, extended agricultural productivity through
parliamentary enclosure, experienced rapid urban growth, manufactured and patented new
industrial techniques, achieved a breakthrough in fuel sources for energy and traded extensively
along its own coasts and with Ireland, Europe and the wider world.
Areas of common land, which had been used by everybody in a village for the grazing of
animals, disappeared as landowners incorporated them into their increasingly large and more
efficient farms. (There remain some pieces of common land in Britain today, used mainly as
parks. They are often called ´the common´.)
Industrialisation did not affect all parts of the nation equally. It was particularly strong in south
Lancashire, Yorkshire, Birmingham and the Black Country, the Edinburgh-Glasgow corridor and
London.
Sea power
Britain's development between 1714 and 1837 had an important international and military
dimension. An empire based on commerce, sea power and naval dominance consolidated British
overseas settler societies.
At the beginning of the 18th century, Britain possessed colonies along the eastern seaboard of
North America, numerous sugar islands in the Caribbean and a foothold in Bengal. Georgia
became a British colony in 1732. Britain acquired the Ceded Islands in 1763.
Despite the disastrous loss of the 13 North American colonies in the American War of
Independence in 1783, Britain subsequently acquired settlements in New South Wales, Sierra
Leone, Trinidad, Demerara, Mauritius and the Cape Colony. She also extended her hold over
Bengal and Madras.

Top 10 Reasons the 18th Century was Awesome

By Mohammed Shariff
When we think of the past, we tend to either romanticize it or flat-out abhor it. Apparently
none of us could feel comfortable living in a time when the internet was a type of fishing tool.
Also, the old days featured a touch of misogyny and a good dose of slavery, as well as
completely lacking electricity—but there were plenty of awesome things back then which
definitely made up for the downsides. Things like:

10 Great Safeguards for the Poor

“Socialism,” which features a strong welfare system, is looked upon poorly in some countries
today. But this was not always the case: during the eighteenth century, the English Parliament
passed three different laws allowing for welfare for the unemployed.
And these weren’t “handouts,” either. The Workhouse Test Act allowed people who were poor
to receive aid, provided they would try to find a job. The law even gave churches the ability to
get federal aid so that they could feed and house the poor. But this leads to a problem: what if
there weren’t any jobs to get? The Government had your back on this too. Building projects
were commissioned purely to provide jobs for unskilled laborers who were out of work. These
building, called “follies” were mainly aesthetic and some of them are still around today.

9 Education Was Easy

Let’s say you wanted to become educated, or at least aware of the world, in eighteenth century
Europe. The only problem is that you’re flat-out broke. Well, in London and all over Europe,
“coffeehouses” were on the rise. Unlike the hipster dens of today, these coffeehouses drew
intellectuals like professors or students from universities like Oxford and Cambridge. For a
penny, people could buy a cup of coffee and listen to these great minds discuss the state of the
world or whatever field they were an expert in.
Essentially, you could get free lectures in all sorts of topics. Historians say that these
coffeehouses eventually led to a massive literacy spike that also resulted in hundreds of new
newspapers all over Europe.
(…)

6 The Coolest Animal Attractions

If you lived in the 1700s, London was the place to be. The city would get a number of circus
attractions every year—and while some of them were the usual “bearded lady”, sometimes
they got insane animals. The Learned Pig, for example, was an attraction that debuted
sometime around 1760. It had been trained using classical conditioning to do math, tell the
time, play cards, and even read your future. The pig was a huge success, and inspired a
number of imitations—including one pig in the States that was eventually accused of
witchcraft and had to go on the run. That’s not a joke.

5 People Wore Sunglasses

You can pretty safely assume that people hundreds of years ago didn’t exactly dress in denim
and leather jackets. That fashion style is reserved purely for the world in which Mad Max
exists. But one thing they did wear, oddly enough, was sunglasses. James Ayscough initially
thought his invention could be used for corrective purposes, as actual glasses. But when he
 realized that tinting the lenses didn’t exactly fix your eyesight, he gave them out anyway.
These early sunglasses were usually tinted blue or green, making them 100% cooler than the
ones we have today.

4 People Drank Soda

Speaking of cool things people did back in the 1800s that you wouldn’t expect, the first soda
water was being handed around too. Joseph Priestly was the first person to invent soda water
by mixing oxygen and water. Since he was primarily an academic chemist and a philosopher,
he didn’t capitalize on it. But J.J. Schweppe—whose name you may recognize from
Schweppes’ ginger ale— did exactly that. His business exploded, and people have been
drinking fake bubbly ever since.
(...)

Source: http://listverse.com/2013/02/23/top-10-reasons-
the-18th-century-was-awesome/

Activities
1. The 1800s were a time of 'Industrial Revolution', with great changes. Which of the
following is NOT true?
a) A move from domestic industry to factory-based industry.
b) A move from steam engines to wind power.
c) A revolution in transport and communications.
2. What was the first industry?
a) factory, b) textile, c) bomb, d) weapon
3. In 1886, who was given a patent for the world's first automobile?
a) Henry Ford, b) Karl Benz, c) Harry John Lawson, d) Rudolf Diesel
4. Who invented the telephone?
5. Write an essay on Why is the Industrial Revolution important to history?
6. Write a travel article Discovering British colonies.
7. Write a news article in the column New invention every day.
9
BRITISH EMPIRE

During the 19th century Britain was transformed by the industrial revolution. There were great
changes in social structure. Most people now lived in towns and cities. They no longer depended
on country landowners for their living but rather on the owners of industries. These owners and
the growing middle class of professionals and tradesmen held the real power in the country.
Along with their power went a set of values which emphasized hard work, thrift, religious
observance, the family, an awareness of one´s duty, absolute honesty in public life, and extreme
respectability in sexual matters. This is the set of values which are now called Victorian.
Industrialisation brought with it new markets, a consumer boom and greater prosperity for most
of the propertied classes. It also brought rapid, and sometimes chaotic change as towns and cities
expanded at a pace which precluded orderly growth. Desperately poor housing conditions, long
working hours, the ravages of infectious disease and premature death were the inevitable
consequence.
During the Victorian age, Britain was the world's most powerful nation. In 1882 Britain was in
the later stages of acquiring the largest empire the world had ever seen. By the end of Victoria's
reign, the British empire extended over about one-fifth of the earth's surface and almost a quarter
of the world's population at least theoretically owed
allegiance to the 'queen empress'. In 1877 she became
empress of Ind ia. Her empire included Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, and large parts of Africa.

Queen Victoria
She reigned from 1837-1901 and she became a popular
symbol of Britain´s success in the world (although the
modern powerlessness of the monarch was confirmed). As
a hard-working, religious mother of nine children, devoted
to her husband, Prince Albert, she was regarded as the
personification of contemporary morals. The idea that the monarch should set an example to the
people in such matters was unknown before this time and has created problems for the monarchy
since then.

Queen Victoria: The real story of her 'domestic bliss'

By Jane Ridley
To the outside world Queen Victoria, Prince Albert and their family seemed the embodiment
of domestic bliss, but the reality was very different, writes historian Jane Ridley.
The marriage between the two first cousins - the young Queen and the clever, handsome
German prince - was a love match. Over 17 years, nine children were born: four boys and five
girls. Paintings and photographs projected an image of a virtuous, devoted young couple
surrounded by obedient, fair-haired children.
Though sexually infatuated, the young couple were locked into a power struggle. Albert took
over more and more of Victoria's work as queen as her pregnancies forced her to step aside.
Victoria was conflicted: she admired her "angel" for his talents and ability but she deeply
resented being robbed of her powers as queen.
There were terrible rows and Albert was terrified by Victoria's temper tantrums. Always at the
back of his mind was the fear she might have inherited the madness of George III. While she
stormed around the palace, he was reduced to putting notes under her door.
Though she was a prolific mother, Victoria loathed being pregnant. Repeated pregnancies she
considered "more like a rabbit or a guinea pig than anything else and not very nice".
Breastfeeding she especially disliked, finding it a disgusting practice. And she was not a
doting mother - she thought it her duty to be "severe". She didn't do affection.
Relations with her eldest son Bertie, later Edward VII, were especially fraught. From the start
he was a disappointment for Victoria. Like all the royal princes, he was educated at home with
a tutor. Bertie did badly at lessons and his parents considered him a halfwit. Victoria
remarked: "Handsome I cannot think him, with that painfully small and narrow head, those
immense features and total want of chin."
When Bertie was 19, he spent time training with the army in Ireland and a prostitute named
Nellie Clifden was smuggled into his bed. When the story reached Albert, he was devastated
and wrote Bertie a long, emotional letter lamenting his "fall". He visited his son at Cambridge
and the two went for a long walk together in the rain. Albert returned to Windsor a sick man
and three weeks later he was dead. Albert probably died of typhoid. Another theory is that he
suffered from Crohn's disease, but for years afterwards Victoria blamed Bertie for his death.
She could not bear to have him near her. "I never can or shall look at him without a shudder,"
she wrote.
For the next 40 years - the rest of her life - Victoria wore black mourning and only appeared in
public rarely and reluctantly. To her people, the tiny "widow of Windsor" seemed a pathetic,
grief-stricken figure. The truth was very different.
Though Victoria was invisible, her need to control her children was almost pathological. She
set up a network of spies and informers who reported back to her on her children's doings.
When Bertie married the Danish princess Alexandra, Victoria instructed the doctor to report
back on every detail of her health, including her menstrual cycle. Court balls were scheduled
so that they did not coincide with Alexandra's periods.
Victoria's eldest daughter Vicky married Fritz, the heir to the throne of Prussia, when she was
17. She was the mother of Kaiser William II. Even in faraway Germany, Vicky could not
escape her mother's interfering. Victoria wrote almost daily and her micromanaging made her
daughter ill with worry. When Vicky announced she was pregnant, Victoria replied: "The
horrid news... has upset us dreadfully". Vicky and her younger sister Alice, also married to a
German prince, colluded to defy their mother. Secretly, they breastfed their babies. When
Victoria discovered, she was furious and called them cows. Being a daughter of Queen
Victoria was like playing an endless game of musical chairs - there was always one who was
out of favour. There was always a favourite, too.
Victoria's changes of mind were bewildering and her rages could be terrifying. She was not
only her children's mother but also their sovereign and she never let them forget it. She kept
her youngest child Beatrice (known as Baby) at home; she was terrified of her mother.
Victoria wanted Beatrice to remain unmarried. When Beatrice announced that she was
engaged to a handsome German prince, Victoria refused to speak to her for six months and
agreed only on condition that the couple lived with her.
The rebel was Louise. Flirtatious, attractive and feisty, she refused to marry a German prince.
Instead, she chose Lord Lorne, the son of the Duke of Argyll. This turned out to be a mistake -
the marriage was childless and unhappy and Lorne was rumoured to be gay.
Victoria controlled her sons just as tightly. Leopold, who inherited haemophilia, suffered
especially. Victoria described him as "a very common- looking child". She tried to make him
live the life of an invalid, wrapping him in cotton wool. As a boy, he was bullied by the
Highland servant who looked after him, but Victoria refused to listen to Leopold's complaints.
She wouldn't let him leave home but he finally won the long battle to study at Oxford. He died
aged 30.
Victoria wanted her sons to grow up like Prince Albert. The only one who resembled his father
was Prince Arthur, the third of the boys, later Duke of Connaught. He was her favourite - he
did what he was told and had a successful military career.
The son with whom Victoria quarrelled most was the eldest, Bertie. She once remarked that
 the trouble with Bertie was that he was too like her. She was right. Like his mother, Bertie was
greedy and highly sexed, with an explosive temper. But he possessed one supreme gift -
personal charm. As Prince of Wales, Bertie lurched from one scandal to another. In spite of his
repeated requests, Victoria never allowed him access to government documents. But the story
had an unexpected ending. Bertie never broke off relations with his mother. When he
eventually succeeded her as king at the age of 59, he did a very good job. He modernised the
monarchy, which was one reason why the British monarchy survived World War I when so
many others did not. Perhaps Queen Victoria was not such a bad mother after all.

Jane Ridley's Bertie: A Life of Edward VII is published by Chatto & Windus.
Queen Victoria's Children is broadcast on BBC Two on Tuesday 1, Wednesday 2,
and Thursday 3 January at 21:00 GMT [Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/
magazine-20782442]

Activities
1. Complete this sentence: “The ______ never______on the British Empire”.
a) sun sets
b) lightning Strikes
c) rain Pours
d) clouds Gather
2. What is the name of the first colony in North America?
3. What happened as a result of the Irish Potato Famine?
4. Queen Victoria's husband is widely thought to have introduced which Christmas tradition
to Britain?
5. Write an obituary for Prince Albert.
6. Write two interviews with Queen Victoria, one at the beginning of her reign in 1837 and
the second one towards the end of her reign in 1901.
7. Which of these quotes is often associated with Queen Victoria?
a) 'Let them eat cake.'
b) 'Now is the winter of our discontent.'
c) 'We are not amused.'
8. Imagine you are an editor of Victorian newspapers. What columns would it contain?
Invent their titles.
10
BRITAIN IN AND AFTER WORLD WARS

The 20th century witnesses some of the most momentous events in British history. From the
extravagant Edwardians to two world wars and from an unrivalled Empire to Royal abdication.
Around the beginning of the twentieth century, Britain ceased to be the world´s richest country.
The first 20 years of the century were a period of extremism in Britain. The Suffragettes, the
women demanding the right to vote, were prepared to damage property and even die for their
beliefs; some sections of the army appeared ready to disobey the government over its policies
concerning Ulster in Ireland; and the governments introduction of new taxation was opposed so
absolutely by the House of Lords that even Parliament seemed to have uncertain future. By the
1920, most of these issues had been resolved and the rather un-British climate of extremism died
out.
It was from the start of the twentieth century that the urban working class (the majority of the
population) finally began to make its voice heard. In Parliament, the Labour party gradually
replaced the Liberals (the descendants of the Whigs) as the main opposition to the Conservatives
(the descendants of the Tories). In addition, trade unions managed
to organize themselves.

Edward Britain
The Edwardian era spanned just nine years, from 1901 to 1910,
but evoked a last age of gentility, fun and exuberance. Edward VII
– known as Bertie to his family – had already set the pace as a
playboy Prince of Wales and neither marriage to Princess
Alexandra of Denmark in 1863, nor kingship from 1901,
dampened his boisterous spirits. His gambling and dalliances, including with the actress Lillie
Langtry, have become the stuff of legend. The country nevertheless warmed to their fun-loving
King Edward at a time when theatres and opera houses, seaside piers and pleasure pavilions were
the height of fashionable entertainment.

The creation of Northern Ireland

By the beginning of the twentieth century, most people in Ireland wanted either internal self-
government (known as ´home rule´) or complete independence from Britain. However, the one
million Protestants in the province of Ulster in the north of the country were violently opposed to
it. They did not want to belong to a country dominated by Catholics. They formed less than a
quarter of the total Irish population, but in six of the nine counties of Ulster they were in a 65%
majority. In the south, support for complete independence had grown as a result of the British
government´s savage repression of the ´Easter Rising´ in 1916. War followed. The eventual
result was that in 1922, the south became independent from Britain. The six counties, however,
remained within the United Kingdom as the British province of Northern Ireland.

The Great War

The gathering clouds of war finally broke in the reign of Edward’s
second son, George V (1910–36). The First World War (1914–18)
not only wreaked horrifying carnage across Europe, but it also
marked the final wrench away from the Victorian world.
George V visited troops in France and Belgium, as well as the
Grand Fleet, showing himself a genuine patriot, and in 1917 at the
height of public anti-German feeling he judiciously changed the
Royal Family’s name: from the Teutonic-sounding Saxe-Coburg-
Gotha inherited from his grandfather Prince Albert, to Windsor – altogether more acceptably
British. War eventually ended as US troops joined the battle and the Allies gained the upper
hand. But the repercussions continued for years, not least in the changed social climate in Britain
where the old order had been dramatically shaken. Women – so vital to the war effort on the
Home Front – were given voting rights, and independence was granted to the Irish Republic.

WWII and post-war Britain

Britain and France went to war with Germany in September

1939. Enemy planes dropped bombs on cities in Britain.
Allied ships were sunk by
submarines. In July 1940,
German planes started
bombing British coastal towns, defences and ships in the English
Channel in order to gain control of the skies in the South of
England.
People expected cities to be bombed, as enemy planes tried to destroy factories. But bombs
would hit homes and schools too, so children would be in danger. The government tried at the
start of the war to empty the cities of children and mothers, this was evacuation, to protect them
from air raids.
Over the summer of 1940 the Royal Air Forces held off the Luftwaffe in perhaps the most
prolonged and complicated air campaign in history. This arguably contributed immensely to the
delay and cancellation of German plans for an invasion of the United Kingdom (Operation Sea
Lion). Of these few hundred RAF fighter pilots, Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said
in the House of Commons on 20 August, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much
owed by so many to so few." By mid- September 1940, after many
battles, Germany postponed their planned land invasion of Britain as
the RAF effectively fought off the German Luftwaffe. This period is
known as The Battle of Britain.
A hero of those dark hours, Winston Churchill, was a leader of the
wartime coalition Government. With his rhetoric, British bulldog
spirit, iconic V for victory sign and cigar, he inspired the nation to its
greatest efforts. He was an inspirational statesman, writer, orator and
leader who led Britain to victory in the Second World War. He served as Conservative Prime
Minister twice. On 8 May 1945 Winston Churchill stood on a Whitehall balcony and addressed
the excited crowd below. "In all our long history," he said, "we have never seen a greater day
than this." Churchill had stood against Hitler and won – the day was his.

First Speech as Prime Minister to House of Commons

On May 10, 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. When he met his Cabinet on
May 13 he told them that "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." He
repeated that phrase later in the day when he asked the House of Commons for a vote of
confidence in his new all-party government. The response of Labour was heart-warming; the
Conservative reaction was luke-warm. They still really wanted Neville Chamberlain. For the
first time, the people had hope but Churchill commented to General Ismay: "Poor people,
poor people. They trust me, and I can give them nothing but disaster for quite a long time."

I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the formation of a Government representing the united and
inflexible resolve of the nation to prosecute the war with Germany to a victorious conclusion.
On Friday evening last I received His Majesty's commission to form a new Administration. It
as the evident wish and will of Parliament and the nation that this should be conceived on the
broadest possible basis and that it should include all parties, both those who supported the late
Government and also the parties of the Opposition. I have completed the most important part
of this task. A War Cabinet has been formed of five Members, representing, with the
Opposition Liberals, the unity of the nation. The three party Leaders have agreed to serve,
either in the War Cabinet or in high executive office. The three Fighting Services have been
filled. It was necessary that this should be done in one single day, on account of the extreme
urgency and rigour of events.
A number of other positions, key positions, were filled yesterday, and I am submitting a
further list to His Majesty to-night. I hope to complete the appointment of the principal
Ministers during to-morrow. The appointment of the other Ministers usually takes a little
longer, but I trust that, when Parliament meets again, this part of my task will be completed,
and that the administration will be complete in all respects.
I considered it in the public interest to suggest that the House should be summoned to meet
today. Mr. Speaker agreed, and took the necessary steps, in accordance with the powers
conferred upon him by the Resolution of the House. At the end of the proceedings today, the
Adjournment of the House will be proposed until Tuesday, 21st May, with, of course,
provision for earlier meeting, if need be. The business to be considered during that week will
be notified to Members at the earliest opportunity. I now invite the House, by the Motion
which stands in my name, to record its approval of the steps taken and to declare its
confidence in the new Government.
To form an Administration of this scale and complexity is a serious undertaking in itself, but it
must be remembered that we are in the preliminary stage of one of the greatest battles in
history, that we are in action at many other points in Norway and in Holland, that we have to
be prepared in the Mediterranean, that the air battle is continuous and that many preparations,
such as have been indicated by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, have to be made here at
home. In this crisis I hope I may be pardoned if I do not address the House at any length today.
I hope that any of my friends and colleagues, or former colleagues, who are affected by the
political reconstruction, will make allowance, all allowance, for any lack of ceremony with
which it has been necessary to act. I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined
this government: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."
We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long
months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war,
by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage
war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human
crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory,
victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may
be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British
 Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and
impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task
with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At
this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together
with our united strength."

Source: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/
1940-the-finest-hour/92-blood-toil-tears-and-sweat

6 June 1944 was D-Day, when Allied forces landed in Normandy (France) to begin the liberation
of western Europe. Everyone hoped the war would soon be over. However, there were many
fierce battles in Europe and in the Pacific war with Japan before the fighting stopped in 1945.

The aftermath of World War II was the beginning of an era defined by the decline of the old
great powers and the rise of two superpowers: the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States of
America (USA), creating a bipolar world. Allied during World War II, the US and the USSR
became competitors on the world stage and engaged in what became known as the Cold War.
Western Europe and Japan were rebuilt through the American Marshall Plan whereas Eastern
Europe fell in the Soviet sphere of influence and rejected the plan. Europe was divided into a
US-led Western Bloc and a Soviet-led Eastern Bloc.

Key figures and events of the 20th and 21st century

Margaret Thatcher
She was a British stateswoman and politician who was the Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and the Leader of
the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. She was the longest-serving
British prime minister of the 20th century, and the first woman to have
held the office. A Soviet journalist dubbed her the "Iron Lady", a nickname that became
associated with her uncompromising politics and leadership style. As Prime Minister, she
implemented policies that have come to be known as Thatcherism.
On moving into 10 Downing Street, Thatcher introduced a series of political and economic
initiatives intended to reverse high unemployment and Britain's struggles in the wake of the
Winter of Discontent and an ongoing recession. Her political philosophy and economic policies
emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labour markets, the
privatisation of state- owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade
unions. Thatcher's popularity during her first years in office waned amid recession and high
unemployment, until the 1982 Falklands War and the recovering economy brought a resurgence
of support, resulting in her re-election in 1983.
Thatcher was re-elected for a third term in 1987. During this period her views on the European
Community were not shared by others in her Cabinet. She resigned as Prime Minister and party
leader in November 1990. After retiring from the Commons in 1992, she was given a life
peerage as Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the county of Lincolnshire, which entitled her to
sit in the House of Lords. After a series of small strokes in 2002, she was advised to withdraw
from public speaking.

Tony Blair
He is a British Labour Party politician who served as the Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007. Under Blair's
leadership, the Party used the phrase "New Labour", to distance it
from previous Labour policies and the traditional conception of
socialism. Blair declared support for a new conception that he referred
to as "socialism", involving politics that recognised individuals as
socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, cohesion, equal
worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity. Critics of Blair denounced him for having the
Labour Party abandon genuine socialism and accepting capitalism. In the first years of the New
Labour government, Blair's government introduced the National Minimum Wage Act, Human
Rights Act, and Freedom of Information Act.
Blair strongly supported the foreign policy of US President George W. Bush, and ensured that
British Armed Forces participated in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and, more
controversially, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Blair has faced strong criticism for his role in the
invasion of Iraq, including calls for having him tried for war crimes and waging a war of
aggression. Blair was succeeded as the leader of the Labour Party on 24 June 2007, and as Prime
Minister on 27 June 2007 by Gordon Brown. He now runs a consultancy business and has set up
various foundations in his own name, including the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

Brexit: British withdrawal from the European Union

In 1975, the United Kingdom held a referendum on whether the
UK should remain in the EEC. All of the major political parties
and mainstream press supported continuing membership of the
EEC. However, there were significant splits within the ruling
Labour party, the membership of which had voted 2:1 in favour of withdrawal at a one-day party
conference on 26 April 1975. On 5 June 1975, the electorate were asked to vote yes or no on the
question: "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
Every administrative county in the UK had a majority of "Yes", except the Shetland Islands and
the Outer Hebrides. In line with the outcome of the vote, the
United remained a member of the EEC.
In 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected calls for a
referendum on the UK's EU membership, but suggested the
possibility of a future referendum. Under pressure from many of
his MPs and from the rise of UKIP, in January 2013, Cameron
announced that a Conservative government would hold an in-out
referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017, on a
renegotiated package, if elected in 2015.
The Conservative Party won the 2015 general election with a majority. Soon afterwards the
European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced into Parliament to enable the referendum.
Despite being in favour of remaining in a reformed European Union himself, Cameron
announced that Conservative Ministers and MPs were free to campaign in favour of remaining in
the EU or leaving it, according to their conscience. This decision came after mounting pressure
for a free vote for ministers. In an exception to the usual rule of cabinet collective responsibility,
Cameron allowed cabinet ministers to campaign publicly for EU withdrawal.
On the morning of 24 June, the result from the vote was that the United Kingdom had voted to
leave the European Union by 52% to 48%.

Activities
1. Which of the armed forces was responsible for the German attack during the Battle of
Britain?
a) Wehrmacht, b) Luftwaffe, c) SS, d) Kriegsmarine
2. What was the codename of the German operation to attack Britain?
3. What city was bombed for 57 nights in a row during the Battle of Britain?
a) Manchester, b) Birmingham, c) London, d) Newcastle
4. What was the treaty that ended WWI that laid some of the unrest that would later explode
into WWII?
5. Write a quotation lead, choose one from famous Churchill´s quotes.
6. Write a tabloid news about King-Emperor Edward VIII proposal to marry Wallis
Simpson.
7. Write a personality profile, choose someone from famous and important personalities of
the 20th century.
11
POLITICAL SYSTEM OF UK

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a constitutional monarchy. That is,
it is a country governed by a king or queen who accepts the
advice of a parliament. Second, it is a unitary state, as it
unites four different countries. Finally, it is also a
parliamentary democracy. That is, it is a country whose
government is controlled by a parliament elected by the
people. In other words, the basic system is not so different
from anywhere else in Europe. The highest positions in the
government are filled by members of the directly elected
parliament. In Britain, as in many European countries, the
official head of state, whether a monarch or a president, has
little real power.
Britain is almost alone among modern states in that it does not have a constitution. Of course,
there are rules, regulations, principles and procedures for the running of the country, but there is
no single written document which can be appealed to as the highest law of the land.

Monarchy
A monarch in the UK reigns, but does not rule. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the country as
well as of fifteen other independent Commonwealth countries, which form British
Commonwealth of Nations. The queen is the official head of executive, legislative and courts,
army and Church.
The full royal title of the Queen is: Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of
this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of
the Faith. The monarchy is hereditary, the succession passing automatically to the oldest male
child, or in the absence of males, to the oldest female offspring of the
monarch.
Three roles of the monarch are often mentioned. First, the monarch is
the personal embodiment of the government of the country and
guarantees its stability. Second, it is argued that the monarch is a
possible final check on a government that is becoming dictatorial.
Third, the monarch has a very practical role to play. By
being a figurehead and representative of the country, she or he can
perform the ceremonial duties which heads of the state often have to
spend their time on. This way, the real government has more time to get on with the actual job of
running the country.
The real importance of the British monarchy is probably less to do with the system of
government and more to do with social psychology and economics, as it attracts many tourists
visiting the country. The monarchy also gives British people a symbol of continuity. On the other
hand, the one aspect of the monarchy about which most people feel consistently negative is how
much it costs. Concerning the future of the monarchy, most people are either vaguely in favour,
or they just don´t care one way or another.

The royal family

Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, this was the title of the mother of Queen Elizabeth II. She
died at the age of 101 in 2002. Her tours of bombed areas of London during the Second World
War (see picture p. 73) with her husband, King George VI, made her popular with the British
people and she remained popular until her death.
Queen Elizabeth II was born in 1926 and became Queen in 1952. She is widely respected for the
way in which she performs her duties and is generally popular. She quickly proved herself a
dedicated successor and has become the most travelled monarch in British history, particularly
passionate about her role as Head of State of the Commonwealth realms that grew from Britain’s
vanished Empire. At home she undertakes 430 or so public engagements a year and she is patron
of more than 600 charities and organisations. The survival of the monarchy has always been
about adapting to the times and it will be for the future to judge the Queen’s reign in perspective.
Prince Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh, married Queen Elizabeth II. His outspoken opinions on
certain matters have sometimes been embarrassing to the royal family.
Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales is, as the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince
Philip, heir to the throne.
Princess Diana, The Princess of Wales, married Prince Charles in 1981. The couple separated
in 1992 and later divorced. Diana died in a car accident in 1997. During her lifetime, she was a
glamorous figure and the public loved her. They felt able to identify with her in a way that they
could not with other ´royals´. She was, in fact, the first Englishwoman ever to marry an heir to
the throne.
Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall married Prince Charles in 2005. Her long relationship with
Charles is widely believed to have been a major cause of his separation from Diana. For this
reason, she is not very popular with the public.
Princess Anne, also known as The Princess Royal, is the Queen´s daughter. She separated from
her husband after they had one son and one daughter. She married again. She is widely respected
for her charity work.
Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, is the Queen´s second son. He is separated from his wife,
Sarah Ferguson (Fergie). They have two daughters.
Prince Edward is the Queen´s youngest son. He and his wife are the Earl and Countess of
Wessex.
Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge, is the eldest son of Charles and Diana and therefore
the next in line to the throne after his father. He is married to Catherine, The Duchess of
Cambridge. He and his brother Prince Henry of Wales, like Charles and Andrew before them,
have both embarked on military careers.
The third in line to the throne is Prince George of Cambridge, the son of the Duke and Duchesse
of Cambridge, followed by his sister, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, in fourth place.

Should Britain abolish the monarchy?

Economist writers present three different arguments

for the role of the royal family.

On September 9th, Queen Elizabeth II will become the longest-serving monarch in Britain’s
history. Below, three Economist writers argue for different futures for the British crown.
The case against the monarchy
CEASE campaigning, Hillary Clinton; get back to business, Donald Trump: America’s 2016
election has been cancelled. The White House has announced that in the interests of political
stability the next president and all future ones will be chosen using the British model. Barack
Obama will remain in office until he dies, at which point Americans will welcome their next
head of state: his daughter, Queen Malia.
Americans would not stand for this. Why do Britons? The case against hereditary
appointments in public life is straightforward: they are incompatible with democracy and
meritocracy, which are the least-bad ways to run countries. Royalists say this does not matter
because the monarch no longer “runs” Britain. Yet in theory, at least, she has considerable
powers: to wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament and more.
There is little danger of Queen Elizabeth II throwing her weight around (though her son
Charles has a habit of bending ministers’ ears over trivial matters). But the trouble with
hereditary succession is that you never know quite who you're going to get. The Windsors are
no less likely than any other family to produce an heir who is mad or bad. What then?
The second pitfall is subtler: in the belief that the monarchy forms some kind of constitutional
backstop against an overmighty Parliament, Britain is strangely relaxed about the lack of
serious checks on its government. It has no written constitution; the current government has
plans to repeal a law implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, which many
Britons recklessly consider a nuisance rather than a safeguard. It is true that monarchs can, as a
last resort, stand up for the nation: royalists cite the example of King Juan Carlos of Spain,
whose televised address to the nation in 1981 helped prevent a coup. But the more one
believes that the head of state’s role really matters, the more serious a problem it is that the
monarch is chosen using a mechanism as dodgy as inheritance.
Opinion polls and healthy sales of commemorative junk suggest that Britons and foreigners
alike love the Windsors. But the royals may not be entirely good for the country’s image
abroad, or its view of itself. Britain still has a reputation as a snooty, class-obsessed place. Mrs
Clinton’s advisers warned her of the “inbred arrogance” of Britain’s previous government;
Britons themselves are gloomier than Americans about the prospects of talented poor people.
The image is out of date: by some measures Britain is now more socially mobile than
America. But it is hard to shake off the debilitating tag when the head of state and her hangers-
on attain their positions not through popularity, talent or industry, but by the mere fact of their
birth. Britain would be stronger if its head of state were elected. And if the winner were
Elizabeth, then good for her.
The case for the monarchy
IPSOS-MORI has been tracking opinion on the monarchy for the past 20 years, and the
responses have been remarkably consistent over that time. By a margin of well over three to
one, respondents have favoured keeping the institution over turning Britain into a republic. It
is hard, in fact, to find any political question on which the British people are more united,
except perhaps their dislike of politicians. That sets the bar for a change to an institution that
commands a great deal of affection (think of the millions who celebrated the royal wedding or
the Queen’s golden jubilee) pretty high.
Those who would like to scrap a popular monarchy need to be able to show that there is a
significant demand for a change (which there is not) or that the institution does significant
harm, which is just as hard to do. It is accused of being expensive but offset against the few
tens of millions of cost the fact that Britain’s royal heritage is a big part of its tourist appeal,
not to mention the unquantifiable but surely substantial brand-management efforts that the
Queen in effect performs on overseas trips. An alternative, elected head of state would not be
cost-free either.
The monarchy is accused of entrenching elitism and the class system, but it is a fantasy to
imagine that those things would vanish in a republic; they certainly have not in America, while
the monarchies of Denmark, Sweden and Norway are among the most meritocratic and
egalitarian in the world. It is accused of damaging democracy because (on paper) the Queen
retains vast constitutional powers. But this ignores the fact that there is not the remotest chance
that she or her successors would actually use them; if ever she or they did, then Britain could
and indeed should consider becoming a republic.
On the other hand, it is just as plausible to assert that there are benefits to a monarchy, on top
of the (hard to quantify) economic ones. At a time when most government institutions
everywhere are unpopular and even hated, any part of the state which people still actually like
is a rare plus, something not to be discarded lightly. And what would replace the monarch? An
elected and therefore political head of state is sure to upset at least one large section of the
electorate a lot more than an uncontroversial one who is above politics.
Admittedly, the value of continuity and tradition, and of a focus for Britain’s quiet brand of
patriotism are difficult to assess. The reality is that the monarchy does not do much harm and
does not do much good; but it is accepted and liked by most Britons. Getting rid of it simply
isn’t worth the fuss.

And the case for modest reform

CRITICS of Britain’s monarchy will often say that if you were starting a 21st- century
democracy from scratch you wouldn’t dream of having an hereditary head of state. Though
this is undoubtedly true, it is also true that the history of the past 50 years ago shows that
starting democracies from scratch is very hard. Successful democracies grow out of an
historical experience that is specific to the nations involved, and British democracy has grown
up entangled with the monarchy. It may be appealing, in various ways, to see the House of
Windsor as something like Wittgenstein’s Tractatus—a ladder which, having been climbed to
solid ground, can be kicked away—but it is not trivially or obviously true.
The fact that a monarchy is not intellectually justifiable does not mean that it does not have a
stabilising role. This may be particularly true in Britain, a composite nation. The division of
the currently United Kingdom is a goal that some value dearly, but for Britons who do not
particularly identify with one of the kingdom’s constituent parts, the crown may seem a more
binding element. And in the absence of a written constitution, it is probably a better focus for
the loyalties of the armed forces than the prime minister would be.
Thus, despite its manifest absurdity and unpalatable associations with inherited wealth and
status more broadly, the case for a British republic needs to be pretty strong to justify the
uncertain but real risks of transition, and to offer not just a general liberation from oppressive
symbolism but a clearly preferable alternative arrangement. And it is not obvious what that
would be. An executive presidency on the American model is clearly ludicrous; all countries
that have tried it other than America have experienced constitutional breakdowns on a
timescale of about a century. A non-executive presidency in a parliamentary system works
quite well in many places but few of them have chosen it peacefully over an established
indigenous (as opposed to colonial) monarchy, so there is not a very good comparison base.
But to keep Britain’s monarchy does not entail keeping it in its current form. Its entangled
history of democracy and monarchy has left Britain with a highly centralized constitution that
locates the nation’s sovereignty in "the king in parliament"—a situation that gives the leader of
the majority party in the legislature a disturbingly large part of the power that was once vested
entirely in the monarchy. This situation could be remedied quite easily by keeping the crown
but changing its constitutional basis to one along the lines of that most excellent of countries,
Belgium. Belgium is a popular monarchy. Its constitution makes clear that sovereignty rests in
the people; the King (or Queen, though it has yet to have one) - who is King of the Belgians, a
people, not Belgium, a territory - becomes monarch not by right, but by taking an oath to
uphold the people’s constitution.
A change to the British constitution which made the kingdom’s various peoples sovereign and
the head of state the guardian of that sovereignty, not the source of it, would be a welcome
plank in the more general programme of reform that the British state clearly needs. The British
helped to give the Belgians their constitution in 1830. If the Belgians were to give some of it
back 200 years on that would be a worthy return.

Source: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/
 21663904-etc-three-views-etc
Government
Government refers to the most powerful of the ministers, namely, the Prime Minister and
the other members of the cabinet, who exercise
executive power. There are usually about twenty
people in the cabinet. Most of them are the heads of the
government departments. Members of the government
are usually known as ministers. Unlike much of western
Europe, Britain normally has ´single-party government´.
That is, all members of the government belong to the
same political party. Most heads of government
departments have their title ´Secretary of State´, for example Secretary of State for the
Environment. The cabinet meets once a week and takes decisions about new policies, the
implementation of existing policies and the running of the various government departments.
The position of a British Prime Minister (PM) is in direct contrast to that of the monarch. While
the Queen appears to have a lot of power but in reality has very little, the PM appears not to have
much power but in reality has a very great deal. The traditional phrase describes the position of
the PM within the cabinet as primus inter pares (Latin for ´first among equals´). But in fact the
other ministers are not nearly as powerful. No. 10 Downing Street is the official residence of the
Prime Minister.
Parliament
The activities of Parliament in Britain are more or less the same as those of the parliament in any
western democracy. It has legislative power, which means it makes laws, gives authority for the
government to raise and spend money, keeps a close eye on government activities and discusses
these activities.
The British Parliament works in a large building called the Palace of Westminster (popularly
known as the Houses of Parliament). This contains offices, committee rooms, restaurants, bars,
libraries, and even some places of residence. It also contains two larger rooms. One of these is
where the House of Lords holds its meetings. The other is where the House of Commons holds
its meetings. The British Parliament is divided into these two ´houses´, or chambers, it means it
is bicameral and its members belong to one or other of them. However, only members of the
Commons are known as MPs (Members of Parliament). The Commons is by far the more
important of the two.
 House of Commons
Seating arrangements in the House of Commons tell us a
lot about what is distinctive about the British Parliament.
There are just two rows of benches facing each other.
There are the government benches on the left, where the
MPs of the governing party is. On the right, there are the
opposition benches. This physical division is emphasized
by the table on the floor of the House between the two rows of benches. The Speakers Chair is
also here. The Commons has no special place for people to stand when they are speaking.
MPs simply stand up and speak from wherever they are sitting. Moreover, there are no desks.
This makes it easy for the MPs to drift in and drift out of the room. The room itself is very small.
In fact, there isn´t enough room for all the MPs. There are about 650 of them, but there is seating
for fewer than 400. The ancient habits are preserved today in the many detailed rules and
customs of procedure which all new MPs have to learn. The most noteceable of these is the rule
that forbids MPs to adress one another by name.
The Speaker is the person who chairs and controls discussion in the House, decides which MP is
going to speak next and makes sure that the rules of procedure are followed. It is a very
important position. In fact, the Speaker is, officially, the second most important ´commoner´
(non- aristocrat) in the kingdom after the Prime Minister. Hundreds of years ago, it was the
Speaker´s job to communicate the decisions of the Commons to the king (that is where the title
Speaker comes from). Because the king was often very displeased with what the Commons had
decided, this was not a pleasant task. As a result, nobody wanted the job. They had to be forced
to take it. These days, the position is a much safer one, but the tradition of dragging an unwilling
Speaker to the chair has remained. MPs in the House always address the Speaker as ´Mr Speaker
´ or ´Madame Speaker´. Once a new speaker has been appointed, he or she agrees to give up all
party politics and normally remains in the job for as long as he or she wants it.
House of Lords
The second British chamber is called the House of Lords, which has no real power and only
limited influence. Although the Lords can delay a bill, they cannot stop it becoming law, even if
they continue to refuse it. Its role, therefore, is a consultative one. In the Lords, bills can be
discussed in more detail than the busy Commons have time for, and in this way irregularities and
inconsistencies in these proposals can be avoided before they become law. The Lords can also
act as a check on any governments which are becoming too dictatorial.
The House of Lords' chamber is similar to that of the Commons, but at the end of the chamber
there is the royal throne from which the Queen reads her speech at the Opening of Parliament.
The members of the Lords are aristocrats. In fact, only a very small proportion of them are there
by hereditary right. In 1958, a law was passed which made it possible to award life peerages.
These gave people entitlement to sit in the Lords, but not the children of these people. By the end
of the twentieth century, so many life peers had been appointed that it was common for them to
form a majority over the hereditary peers. In 1999, the number of aristocrats with the right to sit
in the Lords was limited to 92 (about 15% of the total members). The value of the Lords lies in
the fact that its members do not depend on party politics for their positions. Because they are
there for life, they do not have to worry about losing their positions. This means they can take
decisions independently. The House was presided over by the Lord Chancellor, but with the
passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the post of Lord Speaker was created, a position
to which a peer is elected by the House and subsequently appointed by the Crown. The two main
types of lords are The Lord Temporal (life peers and hereditary peers) and The Lord Spiritual (26
most senior bishops of the Church of England).
Party system
Britain is normally described as having a ´two-party system´. This is because members of just
two parties normally occupy more than 85% of all of the seats in the House of Commons and one
of them controls the government.
During the eighteenth century, MPs tended to divide into two camps, those who actually
supported the government of the time and those who actually did not. During the nineteenth
century, it became the habit that the party which did not control the government presented itself
as an alternative government. This idea of an alternative government has received legal
recognition. The leader of the second biggest party in Parliament recieves the title ´Leader of
Her Majesty´s Opposition´, and even gets an extra salary for this role. He or she chooses a
´shadow cabinet´, thereby presenting the image of a team ready to fill the shoes of the
government at a moment´s notice.

Conservative party developed from the group of MPs known as the

Tories in the early nineteenth century and is still often known informally by that name. It is a
party of right of centre and it stands for hierarchical authority and minimal government
interference in the economy, it likes to reduce income tax and gives high priority to national
defence and internal law and order.

Labour party was formed at the beginning of the twentieth century

from an alliance of trade unionists and intellectuals. They are of left of centre and they stand for
equality of opportunities, for the weaker people in society and more government involvement in
the economy; they are more concerned to provide full social services that to keep income tax
low.

Liberal Democrats were formed in the late 1980s from a union of

the Liberals, who developed from the Whigs in the early nineteenth
century, and from the Social Democrats. They can be regarded as centre or slightly left of centre.
They put more emphasis
on the environment than other parties, they believe in giving greater powers to local government
and in reform of the electoral system.
There exist some smaller parties, but it is very difficult for them to challenge the dominance of
the bigger ones. If any of them seem to have some good ideas, these are adopted by one of the
big parties, who try to appeal to as large a section of the population as possible.
General elections are called by the monarch when the prime minister so advises. The Parliament
Acts 1911 and 1949 require that a new election must be called within five years of the previous
general election.

Activities
1. Do MPs work in the House of Commons or the House of Lords?
2. The duties of the Monarch of the United Kingdom still include summoning, proroguing
and dissolving Parliament as well as appointing the Prime Minister and other leaders.
However, the monarch performs these duties in accordance with ministerial advice. What
assures that the King or Queen will adhere to that advice?
3. A 'green paper' is the name of a government document which is usually the first step in
creating or changing government policy.
a) a white paper, b) a red paper, c) a yellow paper
4. What is issued in response to a green paper?
5. Match the following terms associated with the UK government with the appropriate
information.
cabinet, prime minister, opposition, shadow ministry, House of Lords, SNP, MP, House of
Commons, monarch, government

a) represents one constituency =

b) elected by the people =
c) appoints ministers =
d) monitors of the governing ministers =
e) made up of the most important ministers =
f) appoints the Prime Minister =
g) national political party in Scotland =
h) can only revise and delay bills =
i) formed by the second largest party =
j) formed by the party which gets most votes in an election =
6. Stricter immigration rules for working people have been adopted in the British
parliament. Write a press release about the new law
7. Write an introduction to an essay entitled Britain: apart from or a part of Europe?
8. Write an investigative article about an affair of a member of royal family.
 ENGLISH AND BRITISH MONARCHS

House of Wessex
Alfred the Great (871- 899)
Edward the Elder (899-924)
Ælfweard (924)
Æthelstan (924 -939)
Edmund I (939-946)
Eadred (946-955)
Eadwig (955-959)
Edgar the Peaceful (959-975)
Edward the Martyr (975-978)
Æthelred the Unready (978-1013)

House of Denmark
Sweyn Forkbeard (1013-1014)

House of Wessex (restored, first time)

Æthelred the Unready (1014-1016)
Edmund Ironside (1016)

House of Denmark (restored)

Cnut (1016-1035)
Harold Harefoot (1035-1040)
Harthacnut (1040-1042)

House of Wessex (restored, second time)

Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) Harold Godwinson (1066)
Edgar the Ætheling (1066)
House of Normandy
William I (1066-1087)
William II (1087-1100)
Henry I (1100-1135)

House of Blois
Stephen (1135-1154)
Matilda (1141)

House of Anjou
Henry II (1154-1189)
Richard I (1189-1199)
John (1199-1216)

House of Plantagenet
Henry III (1216-1272)
Edward I (1272-1307)
Edward II (1307-1327)
Edward III (1327-1377)
Richard II (1377-1399)

House of Lancaster
Henry IV (1399-1413)
Henry V (1413-1422)
Henry VI (1422-1461)

House of York
Edward IV (1461-1470)

House of Lancaster (restored)

Henry VI (1470-1471)

House of York (restored)

Edward IV (1471-1483)
Edward V (1483)
Richard III (1483-1485)

House of Tudor
Henry VII (1485-1509)
Henry VIII (1509-1547)
Edward VI (1547-1553)
Mary I (1553-1558)
Elizabeth I (1558-1603)

House of Stuart
James I (1603-1625)
Charles I (1625-1649)

Interregnum
Oliver Cromwell (Lord Protector, 1653-1658)
Richard Cromwell (1658-1659)

House of Stuart (restored)

Charles II (1660-1685)
James II (1685-1688)
Mary II (1689-1694)
William III (1689-1702)
Anne (1702-1707)
House of Hanover
George I (1714-1727)
George II (1727-1760)
George III (1760-1820)
George IV (1820-1830)
William IV (1830-1837)
Victoria (1837-1901)

House of Windsor (by 1917 - House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha)

Edward VII (1901-1910)
George V (1910-1936)
Edward VIII (1936)
George VI (1936-1952)
Elizabeth II (1952-present)
LITERATURE

BRENDLOVÁ, Světla: Reálie anglicky hovoriacich krajín. Plzeň: Fraus, 2002. ISBN 80-88844-
39-8.
GARWOOD, Christopher – GARDANI, Guglielmo – PERIS, Edda: Aspects of Britain and the
USA. Oxford: OUP, 1992. ISBN 9780194542456.
MACÚCHOVÁ, Martina – MICHELČÍKOVÁ, Lenka: United Kingdom & Ireland (important
and interesting facts). Nitra: FF UKF, 2011. 130 s. ISBN 978-80-558-0027-1
MAUROIS, André: Dějiny Anglie. Praha: NLN, 2000. 492 s. ISBN 80- 7106-058-5.
MORGAN, Kenneth O.: Dějiny Británie. Praha: NLN, 2010. 658 s. ISBN 978-80-7106-432-9
O ́ DRISCOLL, James: Britain for learners of English. Oxford: OUP, 2009. ISBN
9787071974306447.
O ́DRISCOLL, James: Britain for learners of English, workbook. Oxford: OUP, 2009. ISBN
9787071974306478.
SZÁNTÓ, György Tibor: Dejiny Anglicka. Bratislava: Kalligram, 1996. ISBN 8077149713174.

Web sources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines
http://www.britain-magazine.com/features/history/20th-century-britain/
http://www.britannia.com/history/narromhist.html
http://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/contents.htm https://en.wikipedia.org
Lenka Michelchikova
United Kingdom: History and Political System

Constantine the Philosopher

Published by:
University in Nitra Faculty of
Philosophy
Scientific editor: Mgr. Pavol Adamka, PhD
Technical editor: Helena Voznyakova
Cover design and graphics Helena Voznyakova
Edition: First
Year of issue: 2016
Total pages: 98 pages
Cost: 100
Printing: EQUILIBRIA, s.r.o.

ISBN 978-80-558-1067-6
EAN 9788055810676