English History
My mother decided that she wanted to change direction in her life by training to be a Blue Badge Guide. A BBG qualification allows that person to act as a tourist guide at any institution (e.g. the National Gallery) in London. It's something my mum wanted to do because it's a complete change from her banking job and because it's something she started to do by accident when she was in Poland. She particularly remembers running around with foreign journalists while Pope John Paul II was visiting Poland in the famous visit he made back to his native country during Communism.
To get onto the course, she needed to complete an entrance exam, showing a general knowledge of English history, geography, art, literature and architecture. To this end, my mother bought a few introductory books on the subjects, particularly history. She'd read through them, talk about them with me and dad and leave them lying around the place. In time, I got interested enough by all the things she was saying to pick the book on history and read it. The net result is that I have, for the first time in my life, a general sense of all the Kings and Queens of England, when they ruled and what they did and achieved in their time.
One of the thing's that's really amazed me is watching the sense of progress from the country's roots in Roman Briton to its present modern day incarnation. Part of my amazement is just how many rulers took the country and brought many of the improvements we take for granted (justice, fair taxation, representation etc), only to have some other ruler throw it all away or rapidly send the country in the opposite direction.
One really good example of this were the Norman Kings after the invasion, as you really do get good king, bad king, good king, bad king... William I (the Conqueror) conquered the country for Normandy. He was both a really good and bad king. He managed to depopulate large swathes of the north by massacring the inhabitants, he alienated the Anglo Saxon population he had conquered, yet he was capable and well respected once he started ruling.
He was followed by William II (the Rufus, for his florid complexion). He was a complete brute who ran the country pretty much to please himself, extending the Royal Parks and allowing his soldiers to rape. He died in a "hunting accident" and was left where he was killed.
His brother, Henry I, decided that his brother's excesses were to be stopped. He took the Anglo Saxon laws and let it be known they'd be applied, married a heir to the Anglo Saxon dynasty and was very well educated, if a tad violent sometimes.
Following on was Steven and Maud. Henry left no clear heir and named Queen Matilda (Maud) heir. Steven didn't like that so he proclaimed himself King when he died. So, there was civil war and both sides, at some point, managed to rule, only both sides managed to be so self-serving and hostile that no one wanted them. I get the impression that Steven won simply because he was slightly less obnoxious than Maud. (If you like Cadfael, it's set during this time).
The Norman line ends, but it then follows by the Plantaganets, with Henry II, who, like his namesake, decides to drag the country out of the mud and restore justice and sanity to the monarchy (which he did). Among his achievements were unifying the laws and starting the basis of the courts, with itinerant Justices of the Peace. (Reinforcing my point about the cyclic nature of history is that fact that Alfred the Great had already done something similar some 200-300 years earlier.) It was his desire to bring the King's justice to all parts of life that led to his clash with Thomas Moore, who supported the right of ecclesiastical courts to try ecclesiastical affairs (apparently anyone who could spell/write). Having heard this, I'm not so inclined to feel any pity for Thomas Moore's murder, nor him being deserving of Sainthood.
Later on, I was struck by how Edward I would create a parliament which we would recognise as fairly representative as it was an act that was not repeated for hundreds of years. He was very successful, conquering Wales and Scotland using this system. I'm also bemused that neither James I and Charles I noticed this when they later wanted to abolish Parliament. I really am bemused at how well Kings who maintained justice and representation in England managed to do for themselves and the country and yet Divine Right or the absolute power of the Monarch still manages to make a return, and is consistently seen as a "good" way of running the country.
Talking about Divine Right, I get the impression that the selfishness of Kings like William II and Steven later became codified into the idea of Divine Right. Indeed, the struggles of James I and Charles I and the whole English Civil War seem to be a reflection of the same struggle over the idea of Kingship and what a King actually does. Talking about the Civil War, I'm surprised by how many civil wars there have been before The Civil War, and I'm bemused by the fact that this one gets capitals and a definite article.
One final thing that surprised me were the number of homosexual Kings, of which there were two. Both were, unfortunately, very bad kings.
To get onto the course, she needed to complete an entrance exam, showing a general knowledge of English history, geography, art, literature and architecture. To this end, my mother bought a few introductory books on the subjects, particularly history. She'd read through them, talk about them with me and dad and leave them lying around the place. In time, I got interested enough by all the things she was saying to pick the book on history and read it. The net result is that I have, for the first time in my life, a general sense of all the Kings and Queens of England, when they ruled and what they did and achieved in their time.
One of the thing's that's really amazed me is watching the sense of progress from the country's roots in Roman Briton to its present modern day incarnation. Part of my amazement is just how many rulers took the country and brought many of the improvements we take for granted (justice, fair taxation, representation etc), only to have some other ruler throw it all away or rapidly send the country in the opposite direction.
One really good example of this were the Norman Kings after the invasion, as you really do get good king, bad king, good king, bad king... William I (the Conqueror) conquered the country for Normandy. He was both a really good and bad king. He managed to depopulate large swathes of the north by massacring the inhabitants, he alienated the Anglo Saxon population he had conquered, yet he was capable and well respected once he started ruling.
He was followed by William II (the Rufus, for his florid complexion). He was a complete brute who ran the country pretty much to please himself, extending the Royal Parks and allowing his soldiers to rape. He died in a "hunting accident" and was left where he was killed.
His brother, Henry I, decided that his brother's excesses were to be stopped. He took the Anglo Saxon laws and let it be known they'd be applied, married a heir to the Anglo Saxon dynasty and was very well educated, if a tad violent sometimes.
Following on was Steven and Maud. Henry left no clear heir and named Queen Matilda (Maud) heir. Steven didn't like that so he proclaimed himself King when he died. So, there was civil war and both sides, at some point, managed to rule, only both sides managed to be so self-serving and hostile that no one wanted them. I get the impression that Steven won simply because he was slightly less obnoxious than Maud. (If you like Cadfael, it's set during this time).
The Norman line ends, but it then follows by the Plantaganets, with Henry II, who, like his namesake, decides to drag the country out of the mud and restore justice and sanity to the monarchy (which he did). Among his achievements were unifying the laws and starting the basis of the courts, with itinerant Justices of the Peace. (Reinforcing my point about the cyclic nature of history is that fact that Alfred the Great had already done something similar some 200-300 years earlier.) It was his desire to bring the King's justice to all parts of life that led to his clash with Thomas Moore, who supported the right of ecclesiastical courts to try ecclesiastical affairs (apparently anyone who could spell/write). Having heard this, I'm not so inclined to feel any pity for Thomas Moore's murder, nor him being deserving of Sainthood.
Later on, I was struck by how Edward I would create a parliament which we would recognise as fairly representative as it was an act that was not repeated for hundreds of years. He was very successful, conquering Wales and Scotland using this system. I'm also bemused that neither James I and Charles I noticed this when they later wanted to abolish Parliament. I really am bemused at how well Kings who maintained justice and representation in England managed to do for themselves and the country and yet Divine Right or the absolute power of the Monarch still manages to make a return, and is consistently seen as a "good" way of running the country.
Talking about Divine Right, I get the impression that the selfishness of Kings like William II and Steven later became codified into the idea of Divine Right. Indeed, the struggles of James I and Charles I and the whole English Civil War seem to be a reflection of the same struggle over the idea of Kingship and what a King actually does. Talking about the Civil War, I'm surprised by how many civil wars there have been before The Civil War, and I'm bemused by the fact that this one gets capitals and a definite article.
One final thing that surprised me were the number of homosexual Kings, of which there were two. Both were, unfortunately, very bad kings.