Anyone here love English history?

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

I fancy myself to be a bit of an aspiring Anglophile, and I'm a history buff in general. Personally I find Medieval-Early Renaissance history to be one of the most interesting and wonderous stretches of time, and out of all the lands of that era (even the Eastern Roman Empire!), I personally find England to have the greatest story. I'm very much into the English monarchy; My favorite dynasties are the Angevins, Tudors, and Stewarts--The Tudors (Henry VIII) being probably at the top of the list for me. Henry VIII's life reads more like fantasy than fact, it's truly a tragic story.

Watch this scene. It's from one of my favorite movies on the Tudors, even if it's not the most historically accurate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObRtO6Ub_RU

My second favorite is the Lion in Winter.

[MangoMercury]

Ironically enough, being from England, we didn't get taught a whole load of British history in school.  At least, not in secondary school.  It was mostly Ancient History and World War II.  But I do agree that we have a very rich history over here (the history of my hometown spans back over 1000 years), and it is quite fascinating, even if I don't really study up on it.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Ironically enough, being from England, we didn't get taught a whole load of British history in school.  At least, not in secondary school.  It was mostly Ancient History and World War II.  But I do agree that we have a very rich history over here (the history of my hometown spans back over 1000 years), and it is quite fascinating, even if I don't really study up on it.

What constitutes Ancient History for you guys?
Like..what years if you remember?
Definitely read up on the Tudor era (1485-1603) through the Stewarts.

[MangoMercury]

Like, as in Ancient Romans and Greeks - not history from our own country.

I remember doing work about the Tudors and the Stuarts back in Primary School; wouldn't remember anything about it though!  But I should probably brush up on some of my country history.

[LadyTerra]

I do find English history interesting, particularly the Tudors.  It's really sad that we're sort of hammered with dull summaries of historical events in grade school and don't even have the option to learn more interesting stuff until college.  Even the Romans and Greeks would be much more interesting if we learned more details instead of focusing on Julius Caesar's death.

I thought the Lion in Winter was about Henry II.

[Baggins]

Lion in Winter is a fictional story, and it is about Henry II, I think.

[Sir Perceval of Daventry]

Lion in Winter is a fictional story, and it is about Henry II, I think.

Yeah, it's fictional but the background for the story itself (his wife and children consistantly revolting against him, etc) is based on fact. It's just the particular timing and events that are fictional. But the characters, and their personalities, seem from all sources to have been quite close to their real life counterparts. 

King Henry II was a good King, he was a very benevolent and just monarch. To be honest, sometimes I wish monarchy was still retained in it's present form. The idea of having a "King" just to be superficial sounds much cooler than a "President"--There's that whole aspect of romance and regality involved. Our own culture (I'm American) when it comes to our leaders is kind of bland in terms of ceremony and pomp.

And I mentioned the Lion in Winter because I love the Plantagenets as well as the Tudors.

[LadyTerra]

To be honest, sometimes I wish monarchy was still retained in it's present form. The idea of having a "King" just to be superficial sounds much cooler than a "President"--There's that whole aspect of romance and regality involved. Our own culture (I'm American) when it comes to our leaders is kind of bland in terms of ceremony and pomp.

True, but ceremony and pomp make a good leader not (it almost rhymes).  You can't guarantee a benevolent and just monarch every single time.  I'd rather have a bunch of people argue and get nothing done than have one person with the power to hurt everyone at a whim. 

[Fierce Deity]

To be honest, sometimes I wish monarchy was still retained in it's present form. The idea of having a "King" just to be superficial sounds much cooler than a "President"--There's that whole aspect of romance and regality involved. Our own culture (I'm American) when it comes to our leaders is kind of bland in terms of ceremony and pomp.

True, but ceremony and pomp make a good leader not (it almost rhymes).  You can't guarantee a benevolent and just monarch every single time.  I'd rather have a bunch of people argue and get nothing done than have one person with the power to hurt everyone at a whim.  

Exactly, the downside of a monarchy is the limitless power that the leader would possess, and he would remain the leader until his death. Only then will his heir become the next leader, and there's no guarantee that he will be any more benevolent than their predecessor. There's a charm in the concept of a monarchy, but the system was an unjust system. There's a reason why our forefathers wanted to escape the religious persecution and unfair taxes. I'm more fascinated personally by American history. The willingness to create a new nation was justified by the circumstances of the early colonists in America. From that, we built a nation that is arguably the strongest "superpower" in the world today. My favorite time period would have had to be the era of Romanticism in America.

Now, I'm willing to admit that our system for governmental sovereignty is one of poor execution, and we are definitely not perfect, but our history was one of determination and prosperity. There was a time where a presidential election was a gentleman's bout and not a heinous mud-slinging by the masses. Those times were simple and pure.  

[MangoMercury]

Very true; not a lot of people are particularly favourable for our next monarch in line.

[Baggins]

King Henry II was a good King, he was a very benevolent and just monarch. To be honest, sometimes I wish monarchy was still retained in it's present form. The idea of having a "King" just to be superficial sounds much cooler than a "President"--There's that whole aspect of romance and regality involved. Our own culture (I'm American) when it comes to our leaders is kind of bland in terms of ceremony and pomp.

Seriously, read the Declaration of Independence if you want to know the reason why why America gave up the King...

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

There might be "romance" within the concept of monarchy, but George III was not particularly benovolent towards the American people... Nor did he ever listen to colonist's redresses. Frankly, I don't want to be anyone's peasant... I like living in a nation, where even the president is "a fellow American", that is that in theory we are created equally, and that its possible for anyone rich or poor, is capable of making something for themselves, and even be elected into one of the most powerful positions in the world.

There are reasons why even the British monarchy has been turned into something more ceremonial than having any direct political power, and why they even had a civil war over the issue.

[Deloria]

It was wonderful right up until the bloody Hanoverians got there. On that note:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY GERMANY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem, I suppose English history is largely why I'm with the wonderful person that I am. It's so nice to finally have someone around who understands it when I make obscure references to long-dead kings and conflicts. Personally, I'm fondest of the WotR (an absolutely fascinating civil war. After that everything gets so messy with religion: "We hate Protestants! Burn them! <enter new monarch several generations later> We hate Catholics! Burn them! <enter new monarch several generations later> "There was a fire! The Catholics must have started it! Let's burn even more of them!!" etc) and everything post-1688, though I like to think I've studied the period between the two extensively as well.

[darthkiwi]

"We hate Protestants! Burn them! <enter new monarch several generations later> We hate Catholics! Burn them!

But that was what made the Tudors so amusing!

I studied nothing but the tudors at A-level but it was still very interesting. I wish we'd done more Henry VII, though. I would have liked to learn what sort of a king he was in detail, and how he retained his crown, bearing in mind that his family only really went back two generations before becoming peasants

[Deloria]

"We hate Protestants! Burn them! <enter new monarch several generations later> We hate Catholics! Burn them!

But that was what made the Tudors so amusing!

I studied nothing but the tudors at A-level but it was still very interesting. I wish we'd done more Henry VII, though. I would have liked to learn what sort of a king he was in detail, and how he retained his crown, bearing in mind that his family only really went back two generations before becoming peasants

Indeed. Most ridiculous claim to the throne ever. "You see, I'm the King's half-brother on his mother's side! The King with the lesser claim, no less!"

Sorry, I meant to say "The King's illegitimate half-brother's son by his mother and a Welshman!"

[LadyTerra]

"We hate Protestants! Burn them! <enter new monarch several generations later> We hate Catholics! Burn them!

But that was what made the Tudors so amusing!

I studied nothing but the tudors at A-level but it was still very interesting. I wish we'd done more Henry VII, though. I would have liked to learn what sort of a king he was in detail, and how he retained his crown, bearing in mind that his family only really went back two generations before becoming peasants

Indeed. Most ridiculous claim to the throne ever. "You see, I'm the King's half-brother on his mother's side! The King with the lesser claim, no less!"

I don't get the rules for secession.  Like the whole thing with Charles not being eligible for the crown if he married Camilla... why?  How do you become eligible for the throne without conquering it?

[Deloria]

After the Glorious Revolution they set down some ground rules about who could and could not ascend to the throne. AFAIK only people married to Catholics or Catholics themselves, as well as illegitimate people are excluded from the succession. I really have no idea what Baggins meant when he said that. I do wonder if he based that on Edward VIII's abdication?

[Baggins]

Deloria, while I was in England, many people were telling me that. It's probably tabloid gossip, but who knows.