Introduction to British History and Culture [First ed.] 9788673796314

Citation preview

Sanja Ignjatović

INTRODUCTION TO BRITISH HISTORY AND CULTURE

https://doi.org/10.46630/ibhc.2023

Publishing Operations Editor Maja D. Stojković, PhD

Reviewers Arijana Luburić Cvijanović, Associate Professor Milena Kaličanin, Associate Professor Ana Kocić Stanković, Associate Professor Jasmina Teodorović, Associate Professor

SANJA IGNJATOVIĆ

INTRODUCTION TO BRITISH HISTORY AND CULTURE

Faculty of Philosophy 2023

Prepared as a part of the project Scientific Publications in Teaching English Linguistics and Anglo-American Literature and Culture, conducted at the University of Niš – Faculty of Philosophy (No. 300/1-14-1-01). By the decree of the Teaching and Scholarly Council of the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš, number 245/1-16-1-01, held on 27th September 2023 positive review reports of the manuscript of the textbook Introduction to British History and Culture by Sanja Ignjatović were approved.

Acknowledgements I owe gratitude to generations of students who offered feedback about the course content and teaching methods throughout the years. Also, to my colleagues from the Department of English who offered invaluable advice in the brainstorming stages of the textbook, and especially Ana Kocić Stanković for endless patience in listening to my ideas and grounding me. The comments, all the constructive criticism and encouragement of the reviewers of the textbook manuscript have been instrumental in my attempts to improve it. I thank Professor Jasmina Teodorović, Professor Arijana Luburić Cvijanović, Professor Milena Kaličanin and Professor Ana Kocić Stanković for their expertise, time and professional support.

Finally, To Professor Vesna Lopičić and Professor Milena Kaličanin, for teaching and mentoring me, and ultimately entrusting me with this course. To my Grandmother Olga, for being the support and home when, as a student, I could only dream of teaching this course. Thank You.

Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................

11

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1.1 Communities, Nations and Their Narratives ................................................. 1.2 Culture in Context: What Is It Like to Be a Brit? .......................................... Your Study Guide .......................................................................................... Suggested Reading ........................................................................................

17 17 18 22 22

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances ........................................ 2.1 The British Isles ............................................................................................. 2.2 The Constitutional (Parliamentary) Monarchy .............................................. 2.3 The Houses of Parliament ............................................................................. House of Commons: The Lower Chamber .................................................... House of Lords: The Upper Chamber ........................................................... 2.4 A Brief Historical Overview of British Political Parties ............................... 2.5 The Union Jack .............................................................................................. 2.6 The Troubles .................................................................................................. 2.7 Brexit ............................................................................................................. 2.8 Contemporary Circumstances ....................................................................... Your Study Guide .......................................................................................... Suggested Reading ........................................................................................

23 23 23 25 26 26 27 29 30 33 36 38 38

3. For the Love of Monarchy .................................................................................... 3.1 Chez Nous ..................................................................................................... Your Study Guide .......................................................................................... Megzit ............................................................................................................ Suggested Reading ........................................................................................

41 43 44 44 48

4. The First Mixers on the Isles ................................................................................ 4.1 Neolithic Tribes ............................................................................................. 4.2 Paganism ....................................................................................................... 4.3 The Celts ....................................................................................................... 4.4 The Myth Pool ............................................................................................... Meanwhile in the Balkans ............................................................................. Your Study Guide .......................................................................................... Suggested Reading ........................................................................................

49 50 52 57 59 61 62 62

5. The Romans .......................................................................................................... 5.1 Christianity Meets Paganism ......................................................................... Meanwhile on the British Isles ......................................................................

65 68 68

5.2 Insular Christianity... ...................................................................................... Meanwhile in the Balkans... ........................................................................... Your Study Guide ........................................................................................... Suggested Reading .........................................................................................

68 70 71 71

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings ........................ 6.1 The Anglo-Saxons .......................................................................................... Early Medieval Kingdoms .............................................................................. 6.2 The Viking Invasions ..................................................................................... Alfred the Great and the Restoration .............................................................. Witenagemot ................................................................................................... The Beginning of the End of Anglo-Saxon Rule ............................................ Impetus for the Norman Conquest ................................................................. 6.3 The Earliest Literacy Project on the Isles ...................................................... Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum ......................................................... The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ........................................................................... Meanwhile in the Balkans... .......................................................................... Your Study Guide ........................................................................................... The Legends of King Arthur ........................................................................... Suggested Reading .........................................................................................

73 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 80 80 81 82 82 83 84

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain .......................................................................... The Doomsday Book ..................................................................................... Norman Feudalism ......................................................................................... 7.1 The Legendary and Not so Legendary Anjou (1154-1216) ........................... Band of Brothers and Their Hunting Accidents ............................................. 7.3 The Problem of Heredity, Even If You Are a Man ......................................... Boys Will Be Boys ......................................................................................... 7.4 Anarchy, Misrule and Pacification ................................................................. When You Marry Her for Her Norman Lands ............................................... Momma’s Boys (Ou t’es papa?) ..................................................................... 7.5 The Becket Controversy ................................................................................. Old Friend – New Archbishop, New Problems .............................................. 7.6 The Grass Is Always Greener – In the Holy Land ......................................... Janus, Judas or John? ..................................................................................... 7.6 The Magna Carta Libertatum ......................................................................... When Going to University Was Pretty Cool – For the First Time ................. 7.7 The Crusades .................................................................................................. Meanwhile in the Balkans... ........................................................................... Your Study Guide ........................................................................................... The Legend of Robin Hood ............................................................................ Suggested Reading .........................................................................................

85 86 86 87 87 88 89 90 90 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 99 101

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents ............................................... 8.1 The Plantagenet Kings ................................................................................... A Cautionary Tale about Faith and Friendship ...............................................

103 103 103

8.2 Long Live Longshanks! ................................................................................ Prince of Wales (Welsh) No More ................................................................ Scotland: No, Thank You, England! .............................................................. 8.3 A Cautionary Tale about Romance and Marriage ......................................... 8.4 The Successful Medieval Manager and Black Death .................................... Boy King No More ....................................................................................... 8.5 Power to the People: The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 ...................................... Lancaster in the House .................................................................................. Dropouts and Reforms .................................................................................. 8.6 The Hundred Years’ War ............................................................................... Swords and Roses .......................................................................................... 8.7 English-Speaking Kings – The Lancaster Line ............................................. 8.8 Paper Crown Will Not Do - The York Rulers ............................................... Meanwhile in the Balkans... ......................................................................... Your Study Guide ......................................................................................... Suggested Reading .......................................................................................

105 106 107 108 110 110 111 112 113 114 115 115 118 121 124 124

9. The (In)Famous Tudors (1485-1603) ................................................................... Meanwhile in the Balkans... .......................................................................... Your Study Guide ....................................................................................... Headless Mary – Queen of Scots .................................................................. Suggested Reading ........................................................................................

125 130 131 132 134

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind ................................................... 10.1 The House of Stuart (1603-1714) ............................................................... King Charming .............................................................................................. Grandma, can you hear me? .......................................................................... 10.2 The Interregnum (1649-1660) ..................................................................... 10.3 Restoration of Monarchy ............................................................................ Burning Desire .............................................................................................. Love Me like the Stuarts Love Catholicism .................................................. 10.4 The Bloodless Revolution ........................................................................... Meanwhile in the Balkans... ......................................................................... Your Study Guide ........................................................................................ Suggested Reading ........................................................................................

135 135 135 137 141 142 142 143 143 145 145 146

11. Germans All over the Royal Halls ...................................................................... 11.1 Second-Cousin Rule .................................................................................... Sprechen Sie Englisch? ................................................................................. I Will Always Love You, Crown ................................................................... 11.2 The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, and George III ................... 11.3 Abolitionist George – The Regent ............................................................... No Time to Die .............................................................................................. 11.4 The Victorian Age ....................................................................................... Empress of India, but an Introvert above All ................................................ Meanwhile in the Balkans... .........................................................................

147 147 148 148 150 152 152 153 153 154

Your Study Guide ........................................................................................... Suggested Reading .........................................................................................

155 155

12. Colonial History of the British ............................................................................ Let’s Talk about the Empire ........................................................................... 12.1 Animal Farm ................................................................................................ Just Exploring, Thank You! ............................................................................ For the Queen and British Purse .................................................................... You Will Have Plenty of Tea! ......................................................................... 12.2 The Pinnacle of Colonial Success ................................................................ Will They or Will They Not – Abolish? ......................................................... Meanwhile in the Balkans... ........................................................................... Your Study Guide ........................................................................................... Suggested Reading .........................................................................................

157 157 158 159 160 161 163 164 164 165 165

13. The British Empire and the World Wars .............................................................. Meanwhile in the Balkans... ........................................................................... 13.1 The First World War ..................................................................................... 13.2 The Saxe-Coburg Gotha ............................................................................... Wir Sprechen Englisch! Genug! ..................................................................... Britain, Über Alles .......................................................................................... The Windsor House ........................................................................................ 13.3 The Second World War ................................................................................ Emperor Nevermore ....................................................................................... Winston Churchill ........................................................................................... Recollections May Vary .................................................................................. Meanwhile in the Balkans... ........................................................................... Your Study Guide ........................................................................................... Suggested Reading .........................................................................................

167 167 168 170 170 171 171 172 173 174 175 176 178 178

14. Notable Brits ........................................................................................................ The British Blast from the Past ...................................................................... The Lost Generation People Born Between 1883 and 1900 .......................... The Greatest Generation People Born Between 1901 and 1927 .................... The Silent Generation People Born Between 1928 and 1945 ........................ Baby Boomers People Born Between 1946 and 1964 ................................... Generation X People Born Between 1965 and 1980 ...................................... Millennials People Born Between 1981 and 1996 ......................................... Generation Z People Born Between 1997 and 2012 ...................................... Your Study Guide ...........................................................................................

179 179 180 181 181 182 182 183 183 183

15. National Monuments of the United Kingdom .....................................................

185

Bibliography ..............................................................................................................

189

Foreword

Foreword Introduction to British History and Culture sums up modest, almost a decade long, experience in teaching the course called British Studies at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš, first as a Teaching Assistant to Professor Milena Kaličanin, using the textbook written by Professor Vesna Lopičić1. This was the same coursebook I used as a student taking this course at the Department of English, and then as Assistant Professor teaching it for the first time. Inspired by stimulating discussions with students, and contemplations on the relevance of the course to the (Gen Z) students whose knowledge of things British is often limited to interpretations offered by the popular culture, this textbook aims to provide an overview of history and shed light on the British culture as produced by complex historical circumstances. I humbly hope the textbook will complement the legacy established by Professor Lopičić in designing the course, the materials – two additional Anthologies, and the teaching style. In 2022, in the days following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, between watching Piers Morgan shedding tears for the Queen Mother, John Oliver debunking the illusoriness of the crown, and contemplating my own anti-monarchist sentiments, I succumbed to Gen Z pressure and installed TikTok. This unusual event led me into a vortex of videos about the Windsor royal family. Not only did I accidentally expose myself to mesmerizing carpet cleaning videos, but also the private and less private details of the lives of Windsor and other royals, and felt compelled to fact-check at least some of the content considering I, too, was touched by the aftermath of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. After all, I had refused to watch the numerous TV shows inspired by these people – dead and alive, including the most popular one, The Crown. At some point, an interviewed royal commentator and biographer whose name remains a mystery to me, commented on the education late Queen Elizabeth received from private tutors coming from the best universities in England, among other. Privy to the life of the late Queen’s sister, this author talked about the regrets of the late Princess Margaret who never had proper education and therefore felt that her life might have been different had she been given the opportunity. Member of the royal family without an education. Cry me a river… I thought cynically, but empathy or the feminist in me prevailed. I reminded myself, intimately, why history books have become so easily replaced by interpretative cinematic narratives based on these people’s lives and historical events – we can all relate to the human regrets and pleasures of these privileged men and women 1

Lopičić, Vesna. British Studies Course Book. Niš: Tibet, 2005.

11

Sanja Ignjatović

we call royals, to an extent. More than we can relate to data in any case. Just remember Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s tedious Netflix series in which they attempt to convince us precisely that – we all have the same problems. Sure. My anti-monarchist thoughts fluctuated in the following months. In December 2022, I would give eulogy for my Grandmother who I loved dearly and often compared to the late Queen since to me, she represented the same things (and privately infinitely more!) as the Queen to the British nation: a sense of belonging and identity, continuity, tradition, dignity, respect and love. Elizabeth Regina II belonged to the Greatest Generation, my Grandmother to the Silent one, just like Princess Margaret. Curiously, my grandmother’s greatest regret was also that she never had the opportunity to get a proper education, although she was functionally literate, sharp-witted and insightful. This is what I talked about in the eulogy for that was the story that she kept telling, and especially so in the few months prior to her parting. Relentlessly. Education then, seems to be important. That we can all relate seems to be important. Active remembering, I would say, more than ever, seems important if we are to understand where we are coming from and where we are going. In “Tradition and Individual Talent”2 (1919), the 1948 Nobel Prize in Literature winner, T. S. Eliot writes about the importance of what he calls “the historical sense” as the perceptive capacity of the individual to understand the past in the wider context of the continuity of human (poetic) endeavour and guide their actions towards an integrative vision: Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indispensable […]; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his own contemporaneity.

This textbook is designed to resonate with this particular idea – the sense of our present moment is contingent upon our knowledge and active questioning of the collective past, our sense of how the past is still with us, in beliefs and values that we so naturally perpetuate and maintain in society, individually and as a collective. Each section provides an overview of a period in British history, the most important events and individuals (or collectives) that shaped it. Likewise, the succession 2

First published in 1919, but included in The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism in 1920.

12

Foreword

of sections and chapters is chronological starting with the fourth section as the first three pertain to general information and topics hopefully relatable to the contemporary reader. Meanwhile in the Balkans segments give at least minimal, and sometimes analogous, insight into the circumstances of our region for the period. Your Study Guide segments provide a number of questions or additional information that should guide you in the preparation for the midterm and exam. Finally, the Suggested Reading segment at the end of each section gives a list of studies, encyclopaedias and atlases and other literature that provides either the starting point for further research, or comprehensive information on specific topics considering that this textbook is merely an Introduction. Moreover, the suggested literature is not the required reading for this course, but offers directions for further research.

Niš, June 2023

13

ONCE NORTHUMBRIA

1. Introduction

1. Introduction 1.1 Communities, Nations and Their Narratives Defining nations and communities is a complicated matter that depends on the factors one determines as crucial, yet we usually feel these concepts need no defining. Italians are great football players, the English are sarcastic, Serbs are known for their spite, and so on. These are perhaps harmless stereotypes, but think about why you recognized them and probably agreed spontaneously. Who evaluated entire nations and based on what? Benedict Anderson notably explained in Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (1991) that the concepts of community and nation depend on the implicit consensus that the group of people calling themselves one or another, shares values, goals and turns them into collective action. This is why it is inexplicably easy for us to make our conclusions based on direct or indirect experience with a small number of people. Likewise, it is effortless to generalize these conclusions and project them onto entire groups of people – individuals living on a territory that has a name, under political organization of some sort, etc. These are nations and communities. Within these communities, of course, there are groups that do not conform to all the values officially generated by the public – the society. This is particularly visible in societies that value the ideology of nationalism as a strict set of beliefs and values to which all members must conform. In contrast, there is also such a thing as national pride, which is probably something that we all feel when our national football team wins, or loses, and when our members achieve remarkable results in areas valued by the society. What is more important, sports of science? Jokić winning another MVP or the prevention of emigration from Serbia? Why? The relations of belonging and identity are based on the shared language, culture, historical circumstances that shaped the society as it is at the present moment, and common goals. Every community historically establishes their customs, traditions, religion, culture as emanated in the arts – literature, for example, and cultural and ethnic identities often overlap. Ethnic identity is another complex concept since it is never clearly defined. In fact, ethnic identity is acquired by birth in a certain region or country, and we might identify with it or not, but it has to do with the perceived characteristics of a group of people calling themselves a nation – their racial, religious, historical, cultural and other determinants. However, as you can notice already, all of these are complex concepts. Descriptions of one culture might differ greatly if observed from different internal and external positions. The ideas 17

Sanja Ignjatović

about shared characteristics among members of a nation create bonds between individuals, a sense of belonging and national identity, as well as the sense of historical continuity. How does it feel to hear the national anthem when your country’s athlete or team wins the gold? Or during a formal event? Or when a politician makes an official statement abroad that embarrasses you? The territory itself is another point of convergence for the members of a nation for it is the material link to all that is imagined about it. Just read Franz Fanon and his discussion on dispossession. This might be particularly interesting in the light of studying the history and culture of the United Kingdom. Even if shared values are a matter of conventional agreement between members, the territory is the manifestation of the strength and power of this agreement over time. The term homeland represents a metaphor of our bonds with not only the territory – the literal land we live on, but also our ancestors and their history. Conversely, territorial aspirations are inspired by shared beliefs, history and values. If the members of a nation or community feel that a historical injustice has been committed and their territorial integrity transgressed, their aspirations will be directed towards liberation or the retrieval of the territory. Just think of the decolonization of North Africa or India. There is, of course, our own situation and Kosovo. The manner in which history is experienced, through narratives about significant events, historical figures, individual achievements of members of the nation or collective accomplishments, shapes motivations and visions about the future. In other words, our ideas about the past inform and formulate our ideas about the future.

1.2 Culture in Context: What Is It Like to Be a Brit? What are your ideas about the Brits? Have you been to the United Kingdom? Have you shared the 5 o’clock tea with one? Have you ever talked to someone you thought was British only to find out they prefer to identify as Scottish, or as Irish, or something else? Have you ever thought about why you have these ideas about the people living in the United Kingdom although you have not met every single British person in this world? In this chapter, we will try to refrain ourselves from jumping to conclusions and instead ask questions about some of the things we consider British. Although this country has its full name, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, most people will use the figure of speech called synecdoche and just call it England or Britain. Why do you think this happens? Could it tell us anything about the possible hierarchy or historical importance of one part over the other? What a trick question! It is precisely the case, and throughout this course, you will learn about a lot of such cases. In these parts, we refer to the United Kingdom as England. 18

1. Introduction

The British love their monarchy, and they have had it since the early medieval times and Anglo-Saxon kings who united tribes under, more or less, the same name and similar political organization. Of course, when we talk about the people living in the pre-Norman times – before the notorious 1066 invasion, we are not talking about the same folk who stood in crowds to celebrate the wedding of Prince Charles and his future, now former and late, wife Diana. However, it appears that whoever the people – Celtic-Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings or their radiant hybrid posterity, they all prefer the crown to any other political organization. With the exception of eleven years of experimentation with the so-called Puritan Republic, the Brits remain almost unanimous about what kind of overall image they like us all to hold about them – an image emanated in the royal family. With regard to that, the average Brit probably knows about the current crown and the royal events as integral part of national history, tradition and culture. If they read Daily Mail or The Sun, they probably know a lot more. The English language is another thing that comes to our mind as defining the culture of Brits. The language that the royalty speaks, the so-called posh English, comes to mind as the official language of the United Kingdom and most widely spoken one on the British Isles, even though it is not the mother tongue of the members of countries gathered under the crown. In fact, many people who you would call English or British speak more than one language – English for official communication purposes, in education, business, and so on, and their mother tongue privately. Scottish Gaelic belongs to the group of Celtic languages and it is spoken in the Scottish Highlands mostly. Surviving in the remote northern parts of the British Isles, this native language of the Scottish people went through a revival in the 20th century, with famous Scottish authors popularizing it in their literary works. Moreover, another language saved from quiet disuse and dereliction is Scots, which is different from Scottish Gaelic, its roots being Germanic. Language is not merely a communication tool, but a symbolic system that preserves the memory of a people, and in that sense, these two languages awakened a cultural revival and aroused a new sense of nationalism and identity that has less to do with the United Kingdom, but more with regional history and heritage of the people. Art, and especially literature, played a powerful part in the process of the Scottish Renaissance since it placed the Scottish in focus – with their dialects and specific worldview. The third language associated with the Scottish is the socalled Ulster Scots, spoken by the ethnic group in Northern Ireland as a variant of Scots, but certainly influenced by the neighbouring Ireland in the south. The Irish language (Gaelic) is spoken primarily in Ireland, as the official language. However, the Republic of Ireland recognized both Irish and English as official languages, which testifies to the importance of shared history with England, and the United Kingdom, even if the exchange of culture has not always been without 19

Sanja Ignjatović

troubles. Northern Ireland also recognizes Irish Gaelic as a minority language. Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Welsh and the language spoken on the Isle of Man – Manx, belong to the preserved languages of Celtic origin, although they have marked differences. Since their respective revivals, these languages have been an integral part of regional education and a new direction in the empowering of national pride. Welsh is only spoken in Cymru – the Welsh name for their country, where it has the status of the official language since the 1900s, alongside English. At the same time, it became part of the school curricula – cultural courses, which is the reason why there is an increasing number of children speaking it with varying proficiency. However, despite its status, Welsh appears to be one of the most difficult languages to learn, and it is fluently spoken by around a quarter of the Welsh. Another Celtic language, revived in the 20th century, is Cornish – only spoken in Cornwall, England. What does this tell you about the migrations of the Celts who populated the British Isles, and their efforts to preserve their evolving culture over centuries of invasions by the Romans, Germanic tribes, the Normans and the test of time? The British Sign Language is a separate language from spoken English, and it is used by the deaf and hard of hearing community on the British Isles. Obviously, the British Isles are home to many a language other than English, and therefore students of the English language, literature and culture need to take into consideration that a totalizing view of the so-called British culture might not be inclusive. Try explaining Serbian culture without mentioning the southern dialects, local customs and culture. Tea, as a symbol, stands engraved in our minds as typically a British thing, just like the Big Ben. Would you spend a week in London without treating yourself to a tea? Probably not. Even if you visited your Serbian family or friends in England, they would probably try to produce the quintessential British experience of tea and sandwiches. Tea, however, has not always been part of the British lifestyle – social habit, daily routine or form of pleasure. Tea became the thing roughly around the 17th century as trade with Asia was well established, but it was not a product available to just anyone, but only the wealthy. Therefore, primarily a symbol of status and luxury, with the increase in number of successful colonizing endeavours of the Indian Ocean Region, the British East India Company established stable trade routes, and sources of different resources and products the British market welcomed, such as cotton, opium, dyes, spices and tea, among other. Already in the 1600s, the demand for tea was growing due to the mere availability of the product. The company established plantations in India, among other colonized regions in Sri Lanka and Africa, and it would do business until late 19th century. You can imagine that tea was initially an exotic pleasure for the European market, and it is quite unsurprising that certain rituals came out of this fascination. Considering that the first consumers were those who could afford it – the upper classes, tea culture became the symbol of class and sophistication, involving a number of etiquette rules. If you want to consume the product with a proper 20

1. Introduction

image, leaving a proper impression, you also have to do it a certain way. Pinky swear. However, even if you find this a mundane and trivial ritual and practice, tea-trade has historically influenced politics. Would the British stay in India that long had there not been resources that corresponded with the taste and demand in motherland? How did the American Revolution start? Well, it all started with the so-called Boston Tea Party – a desperate act of the destruction of entire loads of tea taxed too highly by the British government in the American colonies. In fact, tea taxation, as encompassed by the unfair trade policies imposed on the American colonies by the unfortunate crown at the time, George III, spurred the American Revolution. Ironically, tea and all the ideas we have around it – social status, decorum and class, including the image of the late British monarchs, symbolize centuries of oppressions in other countries. India nationalized the British East India Company in 1858, formally ending an almost three-century-long imperialist practice. We know about pubs and the pub culture, and for some reason everyone compares (or contrasts) themselves to the British in terms of their inebriation threshold. One could say they hold the monopoly over who wins drinking contests. They order in pints. There is also debate about which region or nation specifically holds their beer better – the Scottish, the Irish or the English. Apparently, there are certain regional differences, but these are forgotten when their game is on, and replaced by old-fashioned fan group rivalry. Wimbledon is surely a British thing – symbolizing the arena for one of the most popular sports in the world, tennis. It is a French word, by the way. Very French. But then, so much of contemporary English vocabulary is inspired by French, which is also unsurprising to those who know a bit about history. William of Normandy made it happen, or the founder of Westminster Abbey, Edward the Confessor, by not providing clear instructions about his heir. More on that when we get to the Normans because it is a matter of interpretation. You have heard of Andy Murray – the symbol of British tennis as much as Novak Đoković is the manifestation of Serbian national pride with regard to sports. There is more, David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, Paul Scholes, Ashley Cole, and Sir Alex Ferguson (Scottish), all tell you about how much the British love their Premier League. Discussing personal taste is tasteless, but surely not everyone goes to pubs to watch games. There is the traditional fish and chips, bangers and mash, and regionally, probably a whole lot of stuff like haggis. Do google it on your own. The British also maintain ownership of the best humour in the world, even if the weather does not help – dry, sarcastic and imbued with irony, it has produced comedians such as Ricky Gervais who gave us the original The Office and made sure we all get to see the Americanized version. Charlie Chaplin might not be your cup of tea, but Eddie Izzard, Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders (the Absolutely Fabulous TV series), the Monty Python, Rowan Atkinson and many others, all 21

Sanja Ignjatović

gave us the gift of irony, satire and pure dark humour. Dylan Moran remains in a category of his own, much like Stephen Frye. All in all, the British idiosyncrasy neither starts, nor ends, with their unusual preference for the left side of the road.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to test your knowledge of the British culture before we embark on a journey into history. What comes to your mind when British literature is mentioned? Can you list any contemporary British authors? How about the authors of classics? Would it be easier to list a number of British musicians or artists? Who is the Shakespeare of British music? What is cultural appropriation? Do you think the British embracing the tea culture is a form of appropriation? What other forms of appropriation do you know of in your culture? How about the brass music at Serbian weddings? Is it important to know about the history of such things as tea in order to enjoy them more, or less?

Suggested Reading See David Christopher’s British Culture: An Introduction (2015), The Cambridge Companion to Modern British Culture (2010), edited by Michael Higgins, Clarissa Smith and John Storey. Barbara Korte’s and Nicole Falkenhayner’s Heroes in Contemporary British Culture: Television Drama and Reflections of a Nation in Change to learn more about the persisting myths in British contemporaneity, as well as values and images esteemed by the people. Also, see Growing Sideways in Twenty-First Century British Culture: Challenging Boundaries between Childhood and Adulthood (2021) by Anne Malewski.

22

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances 2.1 The British Isles The British Isles are a group of islands located in the north-west of Europe, enclosed by the North Sea in the north and the Atlantic in the west, which connect in the form of the English Channel – the famous La Manche. This obstacle has been conquered by modern technology with the underground train connecting France (the port of Calais) and England (Dover). The British Isles is the term used to refer specifically to the body of land that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland encompass, as well as the territory of the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, the use of the term is more appropriate when referring to the landmasses – the territory, but not the constituents of the United Kingdom or the individual countries, especially since not all of them belong to the monarchy. The British Isles, consisting of two large islands, also include other island groups: Inner and Outer Hebrides, Shetland Islands, Orkney Islands, and some would say Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, etc. Since some of these have political autonomy, such as the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea and the Channel Islands between England and France, they are sometimes not listed in the groupings as part of the British Isles. Interpretations may vary… The Channel Islands do belong to the United Kingdom, though. The constituents of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a degree of independence in their own legislative and administrative powers – the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In the 20th century, the United Kingdom has seen distinct nationalist movements and political parties advocating independence from the union – in Scotland (SNP – the Scottish National Party), but also Plaid Cymru – the main political party in Wales. The circumstance of Northern Ireland, with the history of Troubles, is more complex as emanated in the conflict between the nationalists and unionists (in favour of Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom). In fact, Brexit created challenges in terms of regulating the issue of border control between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which remains an EU member state.

2.2 The Constitutional (Parliamentary) Monarchy The United Kingdom is the union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it is differently referred to in different countries. Names of constituents 23

Sanja Ignjatović

such as Britain and England, or the term Great Britain, are often used to refer to the union in its entirety, somewhat suggesting the centrality of the political entity. Whereas Britain might usually be a reference to the entire United Kingdom, England is ambiguously used both to contain the entire union and the separate state as well. In this textbook, we will use the United Kingdom to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – its full contemporary name. However, important distinctions must be made when talking about the past – it was first Britain (or Kingdom of England), then Great Britain (with Scotland) and then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Northern Ireland did not yet exist as such) until the 1920s. The capital of the United Kingdom is London, and it is also the capital of England. However, all the constituent states have their own capital cities: Edinburgh in Scotland, Cardiff in Wales and Belfast in Northern Ireland. Although the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom, it is noteworthy to mention that its capital is Dublin and that it is located south of Northern Ireland. Constituted at the very turn of the 19th century in the form in which we know it today, the United Kingdom is home to over 67 million people (2022 estimation), and these people enjoy around 150 rainy days every year, on average. Unsurprisingly, the official language of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is English, although, as mentioned, there are other languages spoken on the territory: Irish, Scottish (Gaelic), Welsh, Scots and Ulster Scots, and the British Sign Language. It is a constitutional (parliamentary) monarchy in which the Head of State is a hereditary monarch. Currently, this is King Charles III who took over after Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary II’s death in 2022. However, in the political organization of the United Kingdom, the functions of the reigning monarch – the Sovereign of State, as well as the active royal family, are titular, diplomatic, social, humanitarian and cultural-traditional overall, rather than executive in nature. The role of the monarch in contemporaneity, ceremonial in terms of the roles pertaining to Parliament, and ritual in terms of the specific cultural and other events, remains crucial for the formulation of the national identity of the British, and other people living in the United Kingdom identifying with the longstanding culture and tradition. This symbolic role of the active royal family is important for the representation and designation of values upheld by the entire nation, and externally in terms of maintaining strong foreign relations with the Commonwealth, among other. The reigning royal family serves as the avatar of the British individual, which testifies to the power and significance of the institution in the mind of the nation. Despite all the political imbalances, the Brexit controversy and disagreements, the COVID-19 crisis and the history of animosity on the British Isles (between England and Scotland, or England and Ireland, for example), the death of Queen Elizabeth II in Balmoral Castle in Scotland in 2022 24

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

brought the majority of the nation together in mourning – in the organized activities encompassing the funeral ceremonies, as well as spontaneously. As the Queen’s coffin was leaving Balmoral, and Scotland, in the funeral vehicle, the farmers lined the roads to pay their respects to the longest reigning monarch. During a football match in Dublin in the days following Queen Elizabeth’s death, however, certain Shamrock Rover spectators chanted a derogatory phrase, “Lizzy’s in a box,” suggesting that the historical conflicts on the British Isles have not yet been buried, so to say, although the Queen is.

2.3 The Houses of Parliament The actual political, legislative and executive power resides in the hands of the Two Houses of Parliament – the House of Commons and the House of Lords, both of which are legislative houses, similar to the Serbian Assembly. The Sovereign of the State’s executive power resides in the hands of the two houses of Parliament and the Cabinet comprised of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister. When this textbook started taking its shape, the Prime Minister was still Boris Johnson (2019-2022), a proponent of Brexit who acquired some infamy for his questionable decisions during Brexit and the COVID-19 crisis, among other things. In the aftermath of his Partygate, mass resignations by members of Parliament, accusations of favouritism, racism and elitism, as well as many other scandals in his second term in office, Johnson, preceded by Theresa May, was succeeded by another woman – Prime Minister Liz Truss (2022) who did not stand the test of time (September to October 2022). She will be remembered as the candidate who promised to grapple with the serious issues, yet one who excused herself by resigning due to inability to deliver what she had promised. In September 2023, Rishi Sunak, the Conservative leader, is still the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Church of England (the Anglican Church) has its own legislative, judicial and executive powers although the monarch is its titular head – the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Currently, it is Charles III. The total of 106 bishops are led by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the general Synod represents an assembly of clergy and laity that creates, passes or abolishes church laws. The Church of England also participates in the matters of Parliament by providing 26 representatives to the House of Lords – bishops and archbishops. These representatives are known as Lords Spiritual. During the Republican Experiment in the 17th century, the House of Lords convened in Parliament only a few times, but Lords Spiritual were excluded from the sessions. The Clergy Act of 1661 reinstated the representatives of the Church of England in Parliament restoring the structure that existed before the Interregnum – the Cromwellian Republic. 25

Sanja Ignjatović

House of Commons: The Lower Chamber The House of Commons consists of Members of Parliament (MPs) who take five-year mandates. These individuals are chosen by the public by means of general elections, for each of the geographical constituencies in the United Kingdom, according to population size, which means that a constituency with a greater population has a greater number of representatives in the House of Commons. This is particularly important since the House of Commons has legislative functions. In other words, the Members of Parliament have the responsibility over one of the most important tasks in a country – the proposition of laws. In the process of proposition, laws are referred to as bills, and Members of Parliament have the duty to debate the bills and accordingly amend them. This largely contributes to the outcome of legislative action. However, the members of the House of Commons are also held accountable for debating all matters of public importance, including government policies, and most importantly, monitoring the work of the government – the Cabinet. The political party holding the majority of seats appoints the Prime Minister, who in turn appoints other members specific functions within the Cabinet. Whereas the public chooses their representatives according to the geographical constituency, the political party that commands the majority of seats in the House of Commons represents the government. If a single political party does not hold enough seats, it may enter a coalition, since the formation of the government requires the majority in order to pass any legislation. In other words, without the majority, the Members of Parliament would probably only be able to debate, but not pass laws or amend them. All the decisions are the outcome of voting – electronic or by voicing out affirmative or negative decision.

House of Lords: The Upper Chamber In contrast to the elective and limited-mandate nature of members of the House of Commons (the lower chamber of Parliament), the House of Lords is composed of appointed and hereditary members. This means that the upper chamber of Parliament includes life peers, bishops and hereditary peers – either individuals who take the seat it the House of Lords by means of lineage, or function they perform (bishop). Now, this may sound a bit elitist, but here comes the rationale: for as long as the upper chamber is composed of members who are independent experts, their role in the legislative and governance processes regulates and improves the work of the members of the lower chamber, which is elected by the public. Think about the rationale behind the idea of the House of Lords and peerage. The members named life peers are usually experts in one or another field of relevance for governance. On the other hand, hereditary peers are usually knowledgeable in 26

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

certain areas due to their familial or other (professional) association. For example, James Nicholas Bethell (5th Baron Bethell) joined the House of Lords in 2018 as a hereditary peer, with expertise as a journalist and nightclub manager. Dreams do come true! However, to remain serious on the matter, all the walks of life are encompassed by the list of members of the House of Lords, which greatly contributes to its revising and scrutinizing functions. Life peers can be appointed by the monarch, the PM, and as of 2000, the House of Lords Appointments Commission which regulates non-hereditary membership. Elitist? Well, in 1999, hereditary peerage was limited with a great number of peers losing their right to the seat in the upper chamber. Among the bishops with membership are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as well as other senior members of the Church of England – Lords Spiritual. Some of the most notable members of the House of Lords were Winston Churchill, as Earl of Marlborough (19531965), Margaret Thatcher – the Iron Lady, as Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven (1992 to 2013), Tessa Douglas Jowell – longstanding politician as, posthumously made a life peer as Baroness Jowell in 2018, and David Attenborough as Baron Attenborough of Richmond upon Thames (1997-2015). As you can notice, the House of Lords includes women as well. Weird, I know. They are not lords. The Peerage Act (1963) permitted women to become members of the upper chamber as peeresses. Unburdened by elections and limited mandates, ideally, these members’ objective is to keep the House of Commons in check, with an understanding of national objectives and the greater good of the citizens of the United Kingdom. Alongside powers of decision in constitutional matters, the House of Lords has the same authorities as the House of Commons – rejecting legislation if necessary or amending bills, but without the political pressure or the pressure of losing the majority of seats. However, the House of Commons is the one elected by the people to represent their particular needs. Therefore, it is the Members of Parliament who are directly accountable and responsible to those who elected them, whereas the peers in the upper chamber hold position by virtue of office, until the end of their life. House of Lords peerage cannot be revoked, and although they can resign, the law is such that the title remains with the peer. In 2022, Lord Nazir Ahmed (Labour Party) resigned his peer seat in the House of Lords due to conviction for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy. He still holds the title of Lord, which is highly problematic and a source of great debate.

2.4 A Brief Historical Overview of British Political Parties The first political parties in the English Parliament emerged during the reign of James I and Charles I of Stuarts, in the 17th century, as groups advocating different political organization of the country – Royalists and Parliamentarians. 27

Sanja Ignjatović

Parliamentarians would later be known as the Whigs, and they were the earliest political faction – the supporters of constitutional monarchy, but with greater power of Parliament. The Whigs were later advocating for the interests of the rising middle and upper classes, and against absolutism fuelled by the divine right dogma. On the other hand, the Royalists, later Tories represented the supporters of the monarchy, the traditional political structures and the prerogative of the monarch. This division was the driving force behind the civil wars that led to the Interregnum – the 11-year-period of the English Republic. After the Restoration of Monarchy, and later the Glorious Revolution, the Whigs managed to take the majority of seats in Parliament. With Mary II and William III’s ascension to the throne after the Stuarts, the Whigs’ efforts for the famous Bill of Rights – the Act of Parliament restricting the power of the monarch, to pass were literally crowned in the co-ruling monarchs’ signing the document. The beginning of the Hanoverian rule in the 18th century was marked by an increased engagement of Parliament in matters of governing, legislation and administration, which the Bill of Rights ensured. However, the old rifts between Royalists and Parliamentarians persisted, now under different guises and names. The Whigs supported Hanoverian ascension, whereas Tories associated with the Jacobites and the idea of reinstating the Stuarts. Tradition is tradition. In the circumstances of the 18th century, the Whigs started to gain more favourable positions and numbers in Parliament. Tories and Whigs evolved into the Conservative and Liberal parties in the 19th century. The Conservative Party advocated for the preservation of traditional institutions, social order, and a cautious approach to political and social change, whereas the Liberals embraced the progressive and reformist ideas. The twoparty system was established, with these two as the major competing groups, ideologies and options. The last Liberal Prime Minister was David Lloyd George (1916-1922), and it was during his rule that it became clear that the Conservative Party was dominating the political scene. However, the dissolution of the Liberal Party only led to the consolidation within the newly emerged Labour Party who had their first Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald lead the minority Labour government for 9 months in 1924. From 1929 until 1935, MacDonald attempted to lead the Labour government with the majority of Conservatives, which was quite paradoxical. The Labour Party found MacDonald to be a little sus, so they expelled him. Although the last five Prime Ministers led Conservative governments, the Labour Party had a 13-year run before them, with Tony Blair (1997-2007) and Gordon Brown (2007-2010). One of the most famous or infamous Conservatives was surely, Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013). Nicknamed the Iron Lady for her sensibility towards the working class (sarcasm, yes), she was a British politician and the first woman to serve as Prime Minister (1979-1990) in the United Kingdom, as well as the 28

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

longest-serving British PM in the 20th century with three consecutive terms. She was granted title Baroness Thatcher and peerage in the House of Lords. Thatcher started her political career in the Conservative Party, as a Member of Parliament (1959). Prior to becoming the Prime Minister, she was the appointed Secretary of State for Education and Science in the early 1970s, which is around the time she became the leader of the Conservative Party (1975). The so-called Thatcherism or policies introduced during her mandates, included deregulation of the market, privatization of state-owned industry and the reduction of the power of trade unions. How very traditional, Madam. And how familiar… Thatcher’s measures to reduce inflation and stimulate economic growth remain highly criticized. However, the defeat of Argentina in the Falklands War in 1982 probably boosted her popularity as no restrictive measure before (no sarcasm). Thatcher’s conservativism in the 1970s and 1980s allowed her to form powerful relationships with the United States, in opposition to the Soviet Union, which clearly defined the British side in the Cold War. Margaret Thatcher was forced to resign in 1990, pressured by the unions and those who suffered at the reforms she introduced – the working class and the poor. On the one hand, her policies had positive impact on the overall economy, but at the price of deepening the already visible social inequalities. In other words, data and statistics meant nothing to the working class who lived worse than before. Her disregard for the workers and the poor were the major points of contention against the Prime Minister. It took her own, the Conservatives, to challenge her leadership of the Party, so that Thatcher would finally be forced to resign due to lack of support in Parliament. Margaret Thatcher remains a pioneering woman, shrewd politician and a controversial figure.

2.5 The Union Jack The famous Union Jack or Union Flag was created in 1800 as the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to encompass all of its member states. But where is Wales? The combination of St George’s Cross, St Andrew’s Saltire of Scotland and St Patrick’s Saltire of Ireland stand to represent and symbolize the individual constituents, with the chosen patron saints – St George for England, although the Cross should be interpreted as inclusion of Wales, St Andrew as the patron saint of Scotland, and St Patrick of Ireland. However, the patron saint of Wales is St David, so we could debate about Wales’ presence in the national flag. Since the dissolution of Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Saltire of St Patrick represents the member of the union – Northern Ireland. Previous versions of the flag, prior to the 1800s, included other symbols suggesting aspirations towards other nations’ thrones, like the French. After the union with Ireland and the ascension of the Hanoverians to the throne, the symbolism was rendered somewhat ineffective and the British focused on the strengthening their national symbols. 29

Sanja Ignjatović

The Acts of Union in 1800 amended the acts of the Parliament of Great Britain (England and Scotland) to include the Parliament of Ireland. The merging of the parliaments followed suit of the formation of the Parliament of Great Britain between England and Scotland. When the union between Great Britain and Ireland happened in 1707, the Parliament of Ireland maintained the subordinate position to the Parliament of England, and by extension Great Britain, which led to diverging ideas about the solution to the independence issue. In 1782, the Parliament of Ireland sought legislative independence from Great Britain as conditional to remaining in the union, with a level of institutional power. In reality, the power in the Parliament of Ireland was mostly granted to Protestants, which completely disregarded the Catholic majority. This meant that Great Britain granted Ireland formal power, whereas in reality, the restriction was executed through the ruling Protestant minority. In 1798, the Catholic majority whose anti-unionist sentiments were maturing, incited a rebellion aided by a French invasion of Ireland. Instead of independence, Great Britain offered the Acts of Union, but not before the rebellion was suppressed brutally. Great Britain recognized that the anti-unionist fractions’ popularity was uncontrollably growing, backed by years of frustrating failures and the status of Ireland that resembled that of a colony rather than member state. At the same time, the complexity of the conflict involved the reconsideration of Catholic Emancipation. The rationale was that Ireland’s dissatisfaction with Great Britain would subside if religion was no longer a factor. Ireland had already chosen to side with Catholic France, and decreased insistence on religious matters presented a more affordable solution to Great Britain than complete dissolution. In theory, that is because things remained as they were – the Protestant minority protected the interests of centralized power.

2.6 The Troubles The Republic of Ireland is a parliamentary republic, on the smaller of the British Isles, occupying the territory of the island south and west from the border with Northern Ireland. Whereas the latter is part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland has been an independent and sovereign entity since 1949, under that name. The Prime Minister, or Chief of the country, serves as head of government that encompasses the lower and upper houses, as well as the President of State, who much like the monarch of the United Kingdom, serves ceremonial and diplomatic roles. The process of the division of Ireland started in the first decade of the 20th century, mainly due to the discriminatory attitude of Great Britain towards the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. The granting of seats mostly to Protestants who had ties with England, created an atmosphere of hostility in the territories of Ireland (divided into Southern and Northern) between the unionists and loyalists. The 30

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

conception of the idea of independence from Great Britain in the early 20th century created a rift between those who saw Ireland as one unified state (a republic), and those who preferred to remain loyal to the Crown – mostly Protestants, who saw the Northern part as inextricable part of Great Britain. The British monarch had their own representatives in both parts called the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The act of dismissal and abolition of the Southern part Lieutenant by the Irish Free State invited an equally radical decision by Great Britain to proclaim the Lord Lieutenant of the Southern part – Governor of Northern Ireland, a separate political entity. The Governor position was ratified by the Government of Ireland Act, passed by the now Parliament of Northern Ireland. In other words, a part of Ireland, aided by the British, proclaimed its, loosely speaking, independence and became a country. During this time, a period of instability ensued with violent conflicts all over the country resulting in the decision to end Northern Ireland’s Home Rule and introduce the Direct Rule of the British. The Irish war for independence started in 1916, with the so-called Easter Rising – an offensive by the Irish Republicans who formed a council called the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Later on, joined by volunteers and others in favour of the northern part of Ireland merging with the southern, the Irish Republican Army was created as a paramilitary movement including various fractions. These fractions would merge and regroup in the course of the 20th century, and even in the 21st. From its basic ideology that was leftist and communist, different fractions evolved to advocate anti-imperialist politics, as well as rigid political organization in the Republic of Ireland. Most of the conflicts instigated by the IRA fractions during the Irish Civil War in the early 1920s, and the subsequent Troubles in the 1960s, happened in Northern Ireland, but the activity was present in Ireland, as well as England. Depending on the perspective, the IRA’s involvement in bombings, armed conflicts and acts of violence – including torture and extortion which remains a particularly painful subject in Northern Ireland, is termed either terrorist or as the activity of the liberation army. The truth might not be easy to find considering the complexities of socio-political and cultural circumstances on the British Isles. The Irish Civil war ultimately led to the creation of the Irish Free State as an independent republic, but a dominion of the British Empire. It ended with the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921 – negotiations that lasted for a few years, which allowed Ireland and Northern Ireland self-governing. However, the efforts to deescalate the violence did not end even with the Crown proclaiming sovereignty of the Irish Free State in December 1922. The British forces had to leave Ireland, but this was not the case with Northern Ireland, which created the grounds for further conflicts. Some of the most notable British politicians participated in the drafting and negotiations of the Treaty, including the Prime Minister David Lloyd George (the last Liberal Prime Minister, go figure why the Liberals were done!) and Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time. The Irish side included Arthur Griffith as Secretary of State 31

Sanja Ignjatović

for Foreign Affairs, and Michael Collins who was not only one of the founders and leaders of the IRA, but also its Intelligence Director. In the decades to come, the Provisional Government of Ireland would further divide the IRA into those who would support the Treaty, and those who did not see it as a satisfactory solution. Considering the IRA encompassed politicians, revolutionaries, military men, volunteers and various groups, negotiations with the British and the representatives of the Protestant Northern Ireland often faced challenges. Initially, although offered seats in Parliament, the IRA representatives refused to participate, and the tension merely accumulated until the Troubles’ escalation. In other words, the Irish Free State was torn between its own fractions – the civil war in the 1920s terrorized both Dublin and Belfast. In 1923, the IRA – now opposed to the Provisional IRA which supported the Treaty and the Provisional Government, faced executions and persecutions by the Irish Free State Forces, and the conflict temporarily ended with the Treaty-supporters outweighing the anti-Treaty IRA. However, as you can imagine, just because the civil war was over, it did not mean it was over for the people who divided to support the now extremely complex branching of the nationalist movement. The conflicts persisted in the decades that followed, characterized by persecutions, trials and violence towards groups and individuals for their affiliation, or even suspected affiliation. The Irish Free State functioned as a self-governing dominion within the British Empire until the Republic of Ireland Act passed in 1948, when the state was declared a republic (Éire, 1949). Although the Irish Free State adopted the constitution that regulated the internal organization of the country under the name of Ireland in 1937, the official recognition lagged behind. In the 1950s, Ireland became the member of the United Nations and, subsequently, member of other European official organizations regulating trade. It is now a member of the European Union, independent from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The escalations of conflicts reviving the liberation cause is referred to as the Troubles. It was influenced, most notably, by the disagreements about governing with the view of the region’s future. In other words, the topical question was whether the two parts of Ireland could establish economic and political stability without the aid of Great Britain. The involvement of paramilitary groups, such as the IRA (the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Irish National Liberation Army (1970s) and the Ulster Volunteer Force, among many other fractions), in the series of bombings, shootings and rioting, made answering the question above rather difficult. On the one hand, the objectives of these formations were clear and pertaining to the liberation of the northern part of Ireland. On the other hand, the population of Catholics and Protestants was caught in between the warring parties, and the irretrievable losses of thousands of civilian lives rendered the cause ultimately senseless. Both parts – the Republic of Ireland and Northern 32

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

Ireland faced significant economic and social devastation in the second half of the 20th century. Moreover, the presence of the British forces in Northern Ireland aggravated the tensions among the Catholic population for decades after the AngloIrish Treaty, and incited the organization of numerous movements addressing the discriminatory practices and measures against Catholics. Something the Stuarts did fervently. Think about the nature of the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, essentially readers of the same holy book. The Good Friday Agreement, signed in 1998, with the mediation of the British, brokered a peace agreement between Ireland and Northern Ireland after decades of no formal relations between the warring states. The mediation process started in the 1980s and the resolution was found in the creation of terms of cooperation under the Ministerial Council. The North and South Ministerial Councils are regulated under the Good Friday Agreement and their role is to keep peace in problematic areas, as well as enforce rules which prevent any provocative or discriminative behaviour. However, even the existence of the Ministerial Council represents a provocation, especially due to the number of unresolved cases of violence, discrimination and abuse of human rights. Does this all sound familiar to you? The Republic of Ireland is a full member of the European Union and its 5M population enjoys the life expectancy of 82 years on average. Almost 85% of the people living in Ireland are Roman Catholic, and the unemployment rate is 4.4%. Incidentally, this Catholic country is a well-known tax haven. Northern Ireland’s population is estimated at 1.9M in 2021, and the unemployment rate is 2.5% in total, but 6.1% in youth. It still faces socio-economic challenges after the final decades of the 20th century.

2.7 Brexit Although geographically the United Kingdom is part of Europe, it is no longer part of the European Union by means of referendum where the narrow majority expressed the desire to leave the EU. Weird, right? We have been a candidate for over a decade… And the British left. The debate about the validity of reasons for leaving the EU, as well as about the aftermath and consequences of the dissension from this political organization, is still very active in 2023. With the final phase of the Brexit Withdrawal Deal over, on 31st January 2020, the United Kingdom became a third-world country. Another thing we have in common. Boris Johnson (Conservative Party), the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, played the crucial role in creating the momentum for the referendum in which the public decided on the matter of Brexit. In 2016, Boris Johnson started his campaign for the office with the narrative of Brexit as the main focus of his 33

Sanja Ignjatović

political platform. In 2019, on entering the office as Prime Minister, the process of negotiation and implementation of Brexit began. However, it appears that Johnson and his Cabinet found the process more challenging than expected. Some of the problems aggravated disagreements in Parliament and caused fluctuations in the voting of Members of Parliament. This slowed down the dissension process. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the government’s unpreparedness and prompted inadequate reactions. Several scandals followed Johnson’s mandate and Brexit. The so-called Brexit Deal outlined the terms of the United Kingdom’s departure, including the negotiations over trade relationships, various socio-political issues including the status of EU citizens. Moreover, relevant for the internal matters of the parliamentary monarchy, the withdrawal from the European Union complicated the already volatile situation in terms of the border of the Republic of Ireland, still member of the EU. In the 2016 Brexit referendum, more than 60% of Scotland voted to remain in the EU. The Scottish National Party’s position is that Brexit limits Scotland’s choices and compromises its economic and political interests. In the aftermath of the 2016 referendum, the Scottish even drafted special contracts by which the EU would grant them membership. Since Brexit, the topic of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom has taken significant time and interest of the public. Whereas Boris Johnson’s campaign essentially promised the revival of the economy upon complete withdrawal from the EU, the reality of the process showed different outcomes. Not only did Boris Johnson’s government extend deadlines, but the course of the negotiation proved that promises made, especially for the matter of the Northern Ireland border checkpoints, could easily be broken – customs checkpoints were established between Northern Ireland and Great Britain due to the Irish Sea issue problematizing the Good Friday Agreement. The very establishment of the checkpoints awakens the tensions of the last decades of the 20th century. The political implications of such turn of events led many to believe that leaving the EU was a regressive political move. Moreover, the benefits of leaving the EU proved to be significantly lower, if at all noticeable, in contrast to promises in the 2016 campaign. In addition to that, the National Health Service funding increase – represented as contingent upon the withdrawal from the EU that supposedly bled resources and finance out of the United Kingdom, never happened. The campaign also promised social care reforms and infrastructural investments, but both remained unaddressed by Johnson. We could say the promises were just writings on the wall, but it was a bus for Johnson. He campaigned using a red bus painted with Brexit lies. However, the infamous politician did deliver on his fair share of scandals – an extramarital affair that turned out to be a single indiscretion, the controversy about his advice to the Queen to exert power as monarch and suspend Parliament. Johnson essentially 34

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

mislead the late monarch into action that would prove subversive to the work of Parliament. This started a debate about additional limitations of the monarch’s authority. Allegations of corruption and favouritism followed Johnson until the end of his term. However, the former PM appeared to care very little about the public opinion, as his behaviour and manner of address often related offensive messages to racial and cultural minorities. The end of his term will be remembered for Partygate – the 2021 scandal revealing that during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, government officials organized gatherings and parties in the Prime Minister’s office. The Conservatives themselves signalled the violation of restrictions and lockdown measures, suggesting that Johnson lost support of the Conservative Party he led from 2019 to 2022. During the 2022 crisis when Liz Truss temporarily led the Conservatives, but then resigned, Johnson initially announced the possibility of becoming the leader candidate again, but found little support. The leaked correspondence and testimonies, and the uncovering of the former Prime Minister’s lies about the incidents at the 10 Downing Street, underscored the ineptness of Johnson’s leadership and called for transparency and investigation into the work of government officials ensued. In 2023, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is Rishi Sunak (1980) who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (2020). With expertise and extensive experience in finance, it is no wonder Sunak was appointed as Prime Minister at the time of the Brexit and COVID aftermath.

2.8 Contemporary Circumstances The circumstances of contemporary United Kingdom involve a number of economic, socio-political and cultural issues that challenge its government. In 2023, Brexit is still topical and the ramifications of leaving the European Union require the formulation of new relationships, with old partners and new in various sectors of the economy. Serious concerns in the aftermath of Brexit include the more frequent calls for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. The unfavourable consequences of Brexit on the Scottish economy open the question of devolution – the transfer of centralized power to regional governments of the constituent states. Moreover, another issue brought by Brexit – the establishing of customs checkpoints and border due to the Republic of Ireland’s membership in the European Union, problematized the leadership of the country as this was one of the major negative points of Brexit, promised by the Prime Minister at the time, to be avoided. Social inequality in the United Kingdom remains obvious between regions, which adds greatly to the dissatisfaction of regional centres and incites the devolution and independence topics. The unequal economic and social circumstances can 35

Sanja Ignjatović

be observed in terms of disparities in economic growth, wage difference and accessibility for employment. Whereas the north experiences slower economic growth, London and the southeast have increased opportunities and faster grow rates. The Brexit aftermath only made the regional differences more perceptible. Similarly, the rising healthcare costs and increased demand of National Health Services (NHS), which were one of the reasons for Brexit considering the promises of more investments, represent a particularly problematic area. From the strain on resources and infrastructure, to the necessity of reforms that would allow better social care to the elderly and vulnerable, public debates ask whether the issue lies within the aging population, the increase of chronic diseases, the problem of retaining healthcare workers, or some other challenges. Moreover, after Brexit, the status of the workers with EU citizenship became an issue. This particularly affected healthcare professionals and low-wage workers, whose status remains unclear. Due to residence and visa issues, the number of EU professionals has significantly decreased post-referendum and Brexit, whereas the number of nonEU workers, international students and visitors to the United Kingdom improved. Homelessness and the problem of housing affordability are certainly not only Brexit-caused, yet they persist in urban areas due to high property prices and limited housing options. At the same time, the already strained social system is unable to find effective solutions to the issue of shortage of social housing. Although government’s measures focus on the prevention of homelessness, it is organizations and charities that support individuals experiencing homelessness by offering outreach programs, housing advice, healthcare services and employment assistance. The number of people facing homelessness has been on the rise, and after the COVID pandemic, it is possible that the 2020 statistics of over 280,000 homeless people might be even higher. Another social issue is the gender pay gap observed in the disparity of earnings between men and women, in the favour of men. The promotion of equal pay, transparency in pay reporting and issues such as occupational segregation and promotion or career bias, are all points of concern. Despite initiatives encouraging women leadership and gender diversity in order to improve representation, the disparity appears to be a persisting matter. This issue is related to pervasive social inequality. Policies related to maternity and paternity leave strive to achieve flexibility of working arrangements to promote gender equality and challenge the traditional understanding of gender roles which not only place the responsibilities of child-rearing onto mothers, but also encourage inadequate policies in their financial treatment in professional environments due to expected absences. The United Kingdom recognizes the so-called Statutory Maternity Leave (up to 52 weeks). The first 26 weeks are called Ordinary Maternity Leave, whereas the other 26 weeks are the Additional Maternity Leave, and those depend on the eligibility of the woman in terms of length of previous employment, as well 36

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

as timely notice to the employer. In other words, in theory, the United Kingdom works to achieve favourable conditions for women to start their families, but the practice prevents women who want to be mothers before certain conditions are fulfilled to conceive since their leave might depend on the employer. Statutory Maternity Pay can be paid for up to 39 weeks, with a changing rate – 90% of weekly earnings for 6 weeks, and 90% of average earnings for the remainder of the period. Children are a luxury. On the other hand, the Shared Parental Leave allows the parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of pay, again according to specific criteria. Protection of workers’ rights, nevertheless, guarantees protection against unfair dismissal and the right to return to the same, or similar, job when the maternity leave is over – a measure against discrimination against pregnancy or maternity related issues. Capitalism. The United Kingdom has seen issues and debates pertaining to minority rights, such as gender and transgender rights. These include legal recognition of gender identity, especially with the view of access to healthcare services and protection against discrimination. Moreover, the policy of the United Kingdom has been inclusive education and social acceptance as a preventive measure against discrimination. In 2004, the Gender Recognition Act was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, allowing people with gender dysphoria to legally change gender and receive a Gender Recognition Certificate, which greatly improves the transgender individuals’ rights and opportunities, especially in terms of changing legal documents, degrees acquired in education, and so on. Transgender access to healthcare services remains an issue because the government does not necessarily cover gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, although they are necessary parts of gender transition. The Equality Act represents the primary anti-discriminatory legislative document in the United Kingdom, recognizing multiple forms of discrimination and disadvantage in society. The intersectional nature of the legislation observes the multiplicity of identities as shaping the unique challenges people face, based on their age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy, maternity, race, biological sex, sexual orientation and religion. The tradition was not such to recognize discriminatory practices based on difference of religious confession, for example. Nowadays, the United Kingdom relies on the Equality Act and several other anti-discriminatory documents to protect individuals against discrimination based on various perceived criteria of difference. Whereas the Race Relations Act dates back to 1976, as an amendment, the Human Rights Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights in 1998. The Disability Discrimination Act passed in 1995, and the Equality Act – Sexual Orientation Regulations in 2007.

37

Sanja Ignjatović

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the contemporary circumstances better. Why is the status of certain groups of islands important in terms of whether they are included in the reference to the British Isles? Observing the map of the British Isles, how do you explain the complexity of the position of this country? What is the difference between the British Isles and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Is it merely a matter of terminology? What countries are part of Great Britain? Are the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland the same thing? Is Serbia facing a similar territorial issue? What points of similarity can you identify? What can we guess about the economic, political and other potential strengths and weaknesses of a country based on their geographical position? How is that applicable to Britain, later England, later Great Britain, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? How has the geography of the British Isles changed against the European continent in the course of history? How do you think these changes affected the geopolitical circumstances? How about the migrations of people? What is the main difference between the House of Commons and the House of Lords? Which one of these chambers of Parliament do you find to be more democratic and why? Would you rather be member of the lower chamber or upper? What does the status in each of them imply? What does (hereditary) peerage imply? How does peerage work in Serbia? Do you know of any institutions or organizations that grant peerage? Do you think hereditary peerage is a good practice? How does it encourage practices that benefit society, or those that lead towards inequality, corruption, nepotism or elitism?

Suggested Reading See Joe Cleary and Clair Connolly’s The Cambridge Companion to Modern Irish Culture (2005) for more on Irish language and national identity, the Famine, the migrations that influenced the demographic changes in today’s United States, the cultural politics and its influence on the Irish modern identity, as well as topics such as Irish feminism. As a general overview of the British Art, from the first cultures that left traces on the British Isles to contemporaneity, see The Thames and Hudson Encyclopaedia of British Art (1985), edited by David Bindman. For in-depth empirical and quantitative studies that describe the British society at the 38

2. Geography, Politics and Contemporary Circumstances

end of the 20th century, see Contemporary British Society (2000). Also see British Culture and Society in the 1970s: The Lost Decade (2010) by Laurel Forster and Sue Harper, Feminist Periodicals and Daily Life: Women and Modernity in British Culture (2017) by Barbara Green.

39

3. For the Love of Monarchy

3. For the Love of Monarchy The constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom, or the British monarchy, represents a form of parliamentary government with the sovereign monarch as the titular Head of State and ruler over the territories of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies (three islands with a level of political autonomy but dependence on the sovereign) and the Commonwealth realms. Considering that monarchy, as a form of government, is based on succession – hereditary rule and primogeniture law, it heavily relies on the base of descent, gender, legitimacy, and even religion. One of the most important duties of the monarch is to produce heirs, and until 2013, the rule of succession was mostly in favour of the male children, with the exception of the firstborn Elizabeth Alexandra Mary who was the eldest of the two daughters of George VI. Edward VIII’s abdication allowed for his brother’s collateral line to claim the title and position, but otherwise, now late Elizabeth II was not necessarily intended for the throne. After all, in the 16th century, Henry VIII managed to change six wives in order to ensure male heirs for his bloodline. Ironically, neither Elizabeth I, Henry VIII’s younger daughter, nor Elizabeth II as George VI’s daughter, were planned as monarchs yet turned out to be two of the most iconic and successful rulers in British history in their own ways. After the death of Elizabeth II in 2022, the longest heir-apparent, first in the line of succession for decades, became Charles Rex III. This rendered his son, William, the heir-apparent and Prince of Wales. As Prince William has three children, George, Charlotte and Louis – born in that order, the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act made it possible for Charlotte to be considered as third in the line to the throne, after her father and older brother George. Before this act was passed, male-preference primogeniture would have made her fourth in line, after her younger brother Louis. In addition to this, the Perth Agreement of 2011 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, also lifted the ban on marriages to Catholics for royal unions. Although this might seem an insignificant amendment nowadays, in the view of centuries of religious conflicts on the Isles, even the beheading of a Catholic king, including the conflicts with the Republic of Ireland (predominantly Catholic), the 21st century appears to bring a new outlook on religious matters, or recognizes them as less relevant than before. Another novelty of the two acts passed at the beginning of the 21st century pertains to the royal blessing of the ruling monarch in terms of choice of spouse to the first six members of the royal family in the line to the throne. In other words, the ruling monarch must approve 41

Sanja Ignjatović

the choice of spouse to the potential six heirs for without their blessing, the heir is disqualified from the royal line. Now, this may look like an obsolete or unfair prerequisite, and even a limiting rule transgressing the freedom to choose one’s own partner, but the institution of the royal family – the Firm, is funded by the People and obliged to serve the nation. Their obligations, responsibilities and duties are not only ceremonial, but often diplomatic and representative of the country and nation. Wise choice of active royal members is therefore crucial, and the Megzit and Prince Andrew scandals substantiate and justify the rule. Furthermore, they show how the Royal Firm observes and sanctions behaviours that neither benefit, nor properly represent the role of the royal family and monarchy. After all, being a member of the royal family, although a demanding job and restrictive in terms of privacy and personal life choices, is a life of privilege and status granted and funded by the People of the United Kingdom.

King Charles III (2022, coronation in May 2023) (1) William, Prince of Wales, heir-apparent (5) Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex (2) Prince George of Wales (2013) (6) Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor (3) Princess Charlotte of Wales (2015) Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor (2021) (4) Prince Louis of Wales (2018)

The matter of the monarch’s consort has not been entirely unproblematic. The role of the consort implies the possibility of the person to be appointed as Counsellor of State, which is virtually the duty that the sovereign performs. In cases when the sovereign is unable to fulfil their duty, the consort may take over, which is one of the reasons why the current monarch’s choice of spouse has been heavily criticized in the British media and political circles. Queen Consort, Camila Parker Bowles, has been a controversial figure in contemporary British history – deemed the reason of the divorce between the late beloved Diana and (then) Prince Charles, she has suffered criticism and rejection as the potential consort. In his highly questionable memoir, Spare, Prince Harry notes that the two brothers urged their father not to marry his long-time mistress. Tabloids noted that the late Queen attended her son’s second wedding ceremony wearing a pearl-white costume sending a message of disapproval. In any case, there is no document officially or legally binding the first four successors to the throne to take any specific roles, although the Firm insists on patronages and strategically assigned and planned humanitarian work. Although it was the practice even before, in 2011, Parliament passed the Sovereign Act (c.15) as Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom by which official duties of the monarch are funded by the government in the form of annual payment. In other words, in 2011, the Royal Firm became 42

3. For the Love of Monarchy

officially budgeted by the government. The amount allotted to the monarch, as some suggest, is incomparable to the revenue the British royalty generate for the United Kingdom through tourism and symbolism of their role. What do you think? In terms of religion, it is both significant and interesting that the accession to the throne is regulated by the Accession Act 1910, the latest in the line of documents starting with the Bill of Rights 1689. The latest document requires the monarch to solemnly declare faith to the Anglican Church and the Protestant faith. Although the Bill of Rights was originally introduced to prevent another Catholic debacle, requiring a denunciation of Catholicism, following the Stuart rule and the accidental Cromwellian experiment, the 1910 document emphasizes the necessity of the monarch’s adherence to the Protestant faith. In any case, God save the king! How ironic is it that the moment one becomes the monarch – king or queen, they are in fact going through, usually, one of the most traumatic events of anyone’s life – the death of a parent or a sibling. This was the case with the current reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, King Charles III, formerly titled Prince of Wales, son of the late Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (1926-2022, ruled 1952-2022) and the late Prince Philip Mountbatten. Of course, the grieving part of taking over a monarchy need not always be present, as we will see in the chapters dealing with the millennia-long history of the British monarchy. From sibling rivalry gone too far, hunting accidents, to civil wars for the crown, childless monarchs’ family lines disappearing, murdered spouses and nephews, beheaded, hung or torturedto-death kings, to apparently the least painful – abdication, British history has covered all of it.

Chez Nous The Serbian Revolution against the Ottomans made quite a few historical figures whose role models must have been the royals of the European courts, or even the aggressor’s sultanate. After the fall of Serbia, it took a few centuries for the new crown to emerge – in the person and power of Đorđe Petrović, Karađorđe – the Black George. Temperamental and illiterate, the leader of the First Serbian Uprising fuelled the revolution and his efforts lasted well into the second decade of the 19th century – 1812. He would not remain a pig farmer! However, he did leave Serbia for Austria at the time of need for great leadership, which is when Miloš Obrenović rose to power as the very opposite of Black George. When the Serbian Revolution ended in 1817, with the success of the Second Serbian Uprising, Miloš Obrenović became the Prince of the Principality. Prince Miloš was forced to turn the Crown over to the next in line, and spend some time in exile, much like Karađorđe (1839). The successions that followed were short and problematic, but ultimately in 1882, Serbia became a Kingdom, although the 43

Sanja Ignjatović

institution of the King lagged behind. One of the reasons why Serbian royalty was not warmly welcomed by the European monarchs is the case of Alexander Obrenović and his unpopular marriage to Draga Mašin. The brutal murder of the couple in 1903 also implied the end to the Obrenović dynasty. The Karađorđević took over, naturally. Who else! Peter I Karađorđević (1903-1918) ruled over the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. He was succeeded by Alexander Karađorđević (1918-1934) during whose reign the Kingdom changed its name into Yugoslavia. This one was known for many things – dictatorship, determination and, apparently, fearlessness. He was the one assassinated in Marseille, France. One way to get a monument in Paris. In 1934, underage Peter II’s reign was handled by a council led by the late King’s brother, as is customary everywhere apparently. The reign was marked by the Second World War, permanent exile and his son, Alexander, was not even considered for succession because after the war, Yugoslavia became a communist country. The royals just remained in the United Kingdom.

Your Study Guide Megzit This chapter addresses some of the contemporary issues the British royal family and society face, and it proposes a mental exercise to those who like to dabble in the lives of royals, dead and alive, and celebrities. The exploration of topics such as the legacy of slavery and racism and contemporary politics regarding these matters in the United Kingdom, and the infamous hiatus from royal duties of Prince Harry Mountbatten-Windsor with his wife Rachel Meghan Markle, will hopefully explicate and demonstrate why studying history and culture is one of the most important tools for understanding our contemporaneity. At least you will be able to understand the context and potential truth behind the gossip about royals. Before we begin, in 1936, King Edward VIII passed the succession to his brother, George, after a few months of back-and-forth with Parliament and the public in terms of his eligibility for the throne of the United Kingdom and the position as the Head of the Anglican Church. The Declaration of Abdication Act by his Majesty, King Edward VIII, as an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, recognized the right of the King to abdicate – Parliament ratified it, and it additionally regulated the conditions of the line of succession pertaining to Edward VIII’s potential children. In other words, in 1936, Parliament decided officially, should Edward have children, they would not be eligible for succession. The reason for King Edward VIII’s abdication was clear – he wanted to marry Wallis Simpson – an American actress, already twice divorced. Although a debate on the sexist, misogynist and conservative position of members of Parliament to 44

3. For the Love of Monarchy

this marriage is due, their decision to explicitly oppose the union, perhaps also based on the vox populi of the 1930s, forced the monarch to choose, and he chose to relinquish his titles and royal duties. Several decades later, this historical event will serve as the analogous basis for the royal public debacle of the marriage of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle. A coincidence, you might say! Why, you might ask? Well, we can try to figure it out and understand whether the conditions of Edward VIII’s abdication truly resemble those of Harry’s marriage to an American actress, also proficient in matters of marriage once already.

Let us play detective… In January 2023, Prince Harry published his first memoire titled Spare – written with the help of a ghostwriter – a popular way for celebrities, politicians and famous people of all kinds to tell their stories even if they do not necessarily have the eloquence or expressive capacity to produce masterful literary works. Note the emphasis on literary in this particular case, although officially it is categorized as belonging to non-fiction writing, an autobiography or memoir of sorts. Just as a note, the fastest selling memoire of the Duke of Sussex was preceded by the 2020 interview with Oprah Winfrey in which the couple put forth allegations of racism, claimed animosity between the active royal family representatives and the Suits celebrity, and announced their break from public life and royal service. The famous interview was soon after taken down from the Internet. Go figure! The long-anticipated Netflix special called Harry & Meghan came out in 2022 as a follow-up feature of the couple and a documentary journey of their life in self-inflicted martyrdom-exile. The supposed docu-series trailers, as much as the interviews following the Oprah interviews, promised mortifying revelations pertaining to the racism issue, but also the sibling-rivalry that lead the spare-tothe-heir, HRH Harry, to freedom in the United States of America – Montecito California. There was no delivery on this promise. On the contrary, from Frogmore to Montecito, the autobiography provides information about events pertaining to the private lives of royals, their misfortunes and misunderstandings, the mishaps of youth, the tragedies that marked them, but also allegations of violence, and finally, the supposed liberation. But, no racism. Although we may take the memoir of Prince Harry as a historical source, the question is whether we can really take the account he provides as fact. After all, the co-author himself claims that his memory is faulty due to drug use in his twenties. In the 2020 Oprah Interview, Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex claims racism allegations because: 1. The couple’s son, Archibald (Archie) and the unborn child (the Duchess was very much pregnant during the shooting of the interview, and would 45

Sanja Ignjatović

later give birth to Lilibeth3) would not get royal titles. The insinuation was that due to conversations pertaining to the possible skin colour of their firstborn child, a racist policy was put in practice. In other words, Prince William’s children were given the royal titles (HRH – His or Her Royal Highness), whereas Harry and Meghan Markle’s children were disregarded. This particular part of the interview sparks judgment worldwide, to the point of Prince of Wales breaking the Never Complain, Never Explain rule of the royal family to disprove the claims, albeit in few words. Harry and Meghan soon after received awards for fighting racism.

QUESTIONS: Is there any official policy in place that would allow for such an uncharacteristic and racist practice to happen? Is there a policy regulating the hereditary royal succession? Why is it so important for the core of the royal family, but also its extended members to be given specific titles? Is it really just a matter of titles or are there other interests involved? How many active royals, heirs to the heir-apparent (or the spare-apparently) are in the direct line to the throne? What is the current position of young Lilibeth? Why did the couple leave the royal family, the Firm, and yet keep the titles? Are titles merely titles? What is the big deal? Just a clue… One of Harry’s ancestors, in fact, made sure that the Firm, the extended royal family and active royals in particular are both obligated by and rewarded for their service by means of titles. This happened at the beginning of the 20th century due to the complexity of the situation of the (now) Windsor family. Before the First World War, this particular matter was not regarded with such gravity as after the ties with the German Kaiser were severed. Maybe you would like to research in this direction. 2. In the same interview with Oprah, the former Duchess of Sussex intimates that three days before the grand ceremony of marriage, the couple was married in a private ceremony, in the backyard of their London home (a mansion to be more precise) by the Archbishop of 3 Notice that Lilibeth was a very private and personal nickname of the late Queen Elizabeth II, used by her father and her husband, Prince Philip. William’s daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales’ middle names are Elizabeth Diana – Charlotte Elizabeth Diana. Could it be that the two brothers are in a naming race with their royal offspring? One of the things Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, has failed to reproach his older brother with is that William had the female child first and used up both of their favorite maternal figures’ names – Elizabeth and Diana.

46

3. For the Love of Monarchy

Canterbury. More specifically, the Duchess’ recollection of the private moment is complemented by the Duke’s comment on there being just the three of them (the Netflix special). Soon after, these claims were clearly and loudly negated by the very Archbishop, Justin Welby.

QUESTIONS: Why was it important for the Archbishop of Canterbury to dispute any such claims, of private ceremonies and the like? Even for the (in)famous couple? Not to go into the psychology of why both Meghan Markle and her royal spouse would blatantly tell this unnecessary lie on different occasions – on record (the interview, the Netflix series), what could be the reason for the swift reaction of the principal leader of the Church of England? 3. What does the title of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex actually mean to the couple? Is it merely the sense of tradition, continuity and family values that prevented them from completely severing ties with the supposedly racist and bullying active royal members, and staff at Buckingham Palace? Could it be that there are certain economic factors involved? Why does the couple still use the titles even though they left active royal service? 4. How does 2023 treat the former royal-couple? What events mark the first half of the year, and what analogies can be drawn from their representation in the media? Why is Harry and Meghan’s security such an issue? Does it have anything to do with his memoir? Does it have to do with their status? What is the New York paparazzi chase story all about? Is it even possible to have a car chase in New York, and why did the chief of NYPD have to issue a public statement? 5. What other questions would you ask about the couple? Have any other controversial issues emerged due to Harry and Meghan’s public exposure? What do you think about their claims that the media have transgressed their right to privacy? What is your opinion about the entire thing? 6. How does the marriage of the current monarch, King Charles III and Camilla Parker Bowles add to this issue? What role does the death of late Princess of Wales, Diana Spenser – the former wife of (then) Prince Charles, play in the story of Harry and Meghan? 7. Prince Harry is the patron of organizations that help with mental health issues and provide care to those who cannot afford it. How does 47

Sanja Ignjatović

Meghan’s suicide story fit with his humanitarian work? Additionally, what has their non-profit based in the United States done so far?

Suggested Reading For further research, see Linda Colley’s Britons: Forging the Nation, 17071837 (2009), Lytton Strachey’s Queen Victoria: A Life (2012) and Ben Pimlott’s The Queen: The Queen: A Biography of Queen Elizabeth II (2012). These autobiographies and biographies could also shed light on the monarhy: Spare (2023) by Prince Harry, The Palace Papers (2022) by Tina Brown, our favourite author – Robert Lacey’s The Crown: The Official Companion (2019) and Sally Bedell Smith’s Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life.

48

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

4. The First Mixers on the Isles When talking about history, our first association about the United Kingdom might be the overview of the succession of kings and queens throughout centuries with a Game-of-Thrones ring to the turbulent times and mortifying events recorded from the 11th century to contemporaneity. Or the legends predating the Normans, now weaved into our consciousness through popular culture, and especially as cinematic narratives. However, it is rather difficult to talk about the first settlers of the British Isles simply because of lack of records. Recorded history for this part of the world officially begins sometime around the 1st century BC4, with the Roman invasion, although peoples populating the area left, in their own capacities, cultural artefacts and even records of trade and art long before that. The Torbay cave system in Devon and the wall-drawings and artefacts are just one of the examples. In other words, talking about ancient peoples and cultures living on the territory of what we today refer to as the United Kingdom is partly a matter of educated speculation based on the data gathered by scientists suggesting the geographical and other circumstances dozens of millennia prior to recorded history. In addition to that, although not in written form, the oral transmission of history and literature also offers glimpse into the distant past, although certainly not as distant as that taking us back to archaeological evidence of human activity on the isles in the period preceding even the Neanderthal. What we can speak about with a level of modest and humble certainty are the physical traces left by these later cultures, those founded and maintained by the Homo Sapiens, in the form of buildings, burial grounds, monuments, art and tools dating back to the Neolith.

4 The abbreviation AD (Anno Domini) means in the year of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and marks the time after the estimated date of birth of Christ (year 1 and onwards), whereas BC refers to the time before the supposed birth of Christ – Before Christ (before year 1). We are now in 2023 AD, which means the Romans first visited the British Isles at least half a century before Christ was born somewhere in today’s Middle East, so let us say 50 BC. Following this line of thinking, Jesus Christ had already lived, died and allegedly resurrected around 33 AD, when the Romans decided to try to conquer the Celtic-Britons again. Curiously, the Roman torturing techniques are the reason why today the cross is the symbol of Christianity, although in its secret sect-beginnings it used to be the sign of Pisces. The Romans used the X-shaped torture devices for whoever they deemed criminal. These are the same Romans who would bring news of this new transcendental religion to the pagan Celts some time later. Basically, they killed Christ, but also accepted Christ, and so now we have the Vatican, and Christ is represented as a white Caucasian man, sometimes even depicted with blue eyes. History is funny that way.

49

Sanja Ignjatović

Although we leave the somewhat speculative task of reconstructing ancient history to archaeologists and historians, suffice to say that the first massive changes in climate and geography – the end of the Ice Age, motivated the migrations. Traces of large mammals on the British Isles, such as the mammoth, moose or large deer, appear to date back to hundreds of thousands of years, and the first humanoids probably populated the Isles at the same period as large mammals – in phases, when the conditions allowed. Traces of elaborately crafted tools and instruments uncovered in Boxgrove, England, suggest that scavenger-tribes probably migrated to and from the British Isles, adjusting to the cold Anglian ice advance and the weather conditions. In other words, these ancient humans were running to Spain! Much like the contemporary British due to dreary weather and proximity.

4.1 Neolithic Tribes The Neolith or the New Stone Age is the name of the period from around approximately 4500 to 2000 BC, representing the last stage of the Stone Age. The periods preceding the Neolith were characterized by the nomadic lifestyle of scavenger, hunter-gatherer or fishing communities. In Neolithic times, farming and stone masonry were introduced, in contrast to the nomadic practices of the past, the organization of communities became more complex and the lifestyle more stable. The Neolith is followed by the so-called Bronze Age, and then Iron Age, and the periodization is based on the distinct manner in which these communities built their tools, buildings and weapons and exploited the available natural resources. However, although the criteria for periodization are similar for different regions of the world, it must be noted that these are merely analytical categories and do not describe the evolution of different cultures around the world according to the same timeline. For example, the Bronze Age in Western Europe began at about the same time as that in the north of Europe, with the Nordic communities lagging behind a few centuries. However, in the west it ended earlier, and transitioned slowly into the so-called Iron Age. Two millennia before the official beginning of the Neolith (around 6000 years ago), the geographic features of the landmass of the British Isles changed in such a manner that it started to visibly drift from the landmass of the European continent. In A History of Ancient Britain (2011), Neil Oliver interestingly describes this event of 6100 BC as the crucial moment in the consciousness of the people living in these parts of Europe, or the first Great Deluge. On the one hand, this knowledge of the geological circumstances allows us to speculate about the nature of the first migrations from and to the British Isles in terms of the mere accessibility of this territory to ancient humans before the coming of Neanderthals (between 40000 and 10000 BC) and after, with the coming of the modern version of humans 50

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

(Homo Sapiens). Throughout tens of thousands of years, the migrations were dictated by the changing climate, and both animals and humans, sought warmer and fertile areas. The insight we have on climate and geology reminds us that we cannot compare the contemporary conditions of the British Isles to those of the time before and during Neolith when the significant increase in population was recorded. Sometime between 8000 and 4000 BC, due to the migration of large animals, such as wild pig and deer from the south, people followed from the parts of Europe that had direct access to the Isles across what is today the English Channel. It is no wonder that these animals kept their place as sacred for millennia considering that early communities (Mesolithic and Neolithic) largely depended on, first scavenging, and then hunting and gathering. The first recorded ploughs in today’s United Kingdom date back to 4500 BC in today’s Scotland, and a thousand years later in the south of the Isles. This is the point in time at which we can talk about more stable communities of people and permanent settlements since farming enabled stable sources of food alongside the simultaneous practice of hunting, fishing and gathering. The use of better tools allowed for more efficient clearing of forests and therefore more advanced woodwork and building, for the time. At this point, one of the major advancements was animal husbandry allowing the keeping of a greater number of animals for the various resources they provided other than food. To emphasize how important this transition was, in A History of Ancient Britain, Neil Oliver underscores the different rates at which civilizations advanced around the world: Thousands of years before Britain became an island, farming was enabling people to settle down and build towns and villages in the territories that would one day become the countries of Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Turkey. It seems almost inconceivable but while people in Britain and much of western Europe were still firmly in the middle of the Stone Age – hunting red deer and wild cattle, building middens of empty shells and sleeping in tents made of ripesmelling animal hides – in a cradle of civilisation far to the east folk were moving closer to the modern world of permanent homes and settled villages, a world made possible only by the surplus food that comes from the growing of crops and the husbanding of animals. (2011: 79)

Although farming and the subsequent changes in dietary habits and lifestyle did not represent the best route for humans, it was the most convenient alternative to the ever-changing environmental conditions and climate that would have undoubtedly annihilated the hunter-gatherer communities. The sedentary lifestyle at least provided a level of control. The Iberians coming from today’s northern parts of Spain and the Beaker Folk who later on migrated to the British Isles undoubtedly mixed their lifestyles in that the Mesolithic nomadic lifestyle incorporated the technological advancements of the Neolith communities – tool-making, forms of crafts, the craft and art of 51

Sanja Ignjatović

pottery, as well as farming. The estimation is that Iberians started settling the Isles somewhere around 2,000 BC and onwards, crossing to the landmass from the Iberian peninsula and creating communities that would produce the enduring monuments such as Stonehenge, Avebury and the like. These Mediterraneanlooking people initially populated the more fertile areas of the British Isles seeking warmer climate and better conditions for living – in the valley of rivers and the vicinity of areas that offered other resources – food, wood and stone. Their eclectic lifestyle was enriched by the appearance of the Beaker Folk, oriented towards similar lifestyle, but with their own contribution in the form of pottery work.

4.2 Paganism  What remains as the testimony of these Neolithic tribes and their ambition to leave a lasting mark are the practices related to burial and the stone-monuments that baffle archaeologists and scientists in figuring out the intended purpose. Late Stone Age tribes were already established farming communities with developed practices and systems of beliefs, art forms and culture. Today, these practices are termed pagan, and paganism encompasses all the belief systems practiced by ancient civilizations or peoples before the emergence of Christianity as an organized religion spread by missionaries from the 5th century onwards. It is important to distinguish between the terms (pagan, paganism) used to include the numerous belief systems of naturalistic and polytheistic peoples before the Christianization of Europe, and the derogatory and negative connotations these expressions may have when used to denote something that goes against the normative religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other. Paganism on the British Isles was based on the observations of the natural cycles and people poetically shaped their understandings of it to fit the bigger image in which their lives too made part of the cycle of life. As natural cycles shift and change in a sequence of birth, life and death, these people ingeniously assumed their lives also belonged to the same scheme of things. Following this line of thought, the communal practices focused on the most important milestones in the lives of individual members and their families, yet in such a manner that emphasized greatly the communal aspects of life. For example, Windmill Hill in the United Kingdom stands as one of the monuments quite possibly used to communally celebrate important events in the life of the tribe (synchronization with the seasons, celebrations of seasons, etc.), but also in the lives of individuals, such as occasions of death. This enclosure, built over an unknown period of time and requiring tremendous effort, represents a circle within which, it appears, the community gathered to feast and perform social activities, much like we do today. The remains of humans and animal bones, positioned carefully within the enclosure suggests purposeful treatment, but even more so, the fact that a significant number 52

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

of people gathered to cooperate on such a monumental endeavour speaks volumes about the mentality and importance of social ties (see Neil Oliver’s A History of Ancient Britain). The building of Windmill Hill causeway probably began sometime around 3500 BC, potentially predating some more famous monuments of Stone Age people. Alongside communal (group) burials in mounds that resemble breasts rising from the earth herself, these communities also practiced cremation – the burning of bodies, and only rarely, that we know of, individual burial. It might be assumed that such burials would be performed for members of the community either of distinguished stature, or the exact opposite considering that the pagan understanding of death was to return not only to the earth, but to unite also with those who had died before them in this physical manner, in the collective burial grounds. This general conclusion is drawn from the fact that remains of bones were found in places used for social activities suggesting that death was accepted as an inextricable part of life, and that it remained in the view of the community. Another, perhaps less romantic, explanation for the burning of the deceased is that farming communities grew in numbers more rapidly than hunter-gatherer ones. This is not to suggest that hunter-gatherer tribes had no burial rituals, but simply that we know little of them. On the other hand, farmer communities would risk disease and vermin in case of inadequate disposal of bodies, or attract scavengers. Therefore, the designated areas for burial, as well as the practice of burning, although they acquired symbolic meaning over millennia of practice, might have simply been a reasonable practice guided by experience. One does not exclude the other, for after all, pagans appear to have understood the transient nature of physical existence therefore focusing social activity on joint meals (feasting), conversation and other forms of social contact precisely in these designated places which were intended both for the living and the dead. This indicates a deep understanding of the nature of life that is the opposite of primitive, which is often how these communities are regarded. Unfairly! What is more, aside the very symbolism of returning the remains of the dead to the earth, these Neolithic pagans exhibited a high capacity for abstraction attributing certain natural occurrences and phenomena value. For example, the appearance of the Sun and the Moon in the shape of a circle, and the continuity and reliability of these two bodies in the sky, provided them with notions of constancy, and not to mention warmth and light. The changes in the shape of the Moon (the cycles), the passage of other celestial bodies across the sky, which would have been a spectacle at the time, lead them to speculate and conceptualize the domains of the passage of time, but also what we would call spirituality today. The first calendars may well have been the product of the eureka-moments in realizing that the female menstrual cycle is synchronized with the Moon phases, but the unceasing presence of the Sun and the Moon, contrasted to other celestial 53

Sanja Ignjatović

changes, must have prompted infinite analogies with other aspects of the human life cycle. Farming provided greater knowledge into the workings of nature – its seasonal changes, and therefore human life was observed as synchronized with all those other cyclical systems that did not appear to change. It is no wonder that these communities built Stonehenge and other monuments in the shape of a circle, whatever the purpose of the boulders might have been exactly. Nowadays, we can speculate about the uses of such structures with the same amount of curiosity and ignorance the ancient peoples had when musing at the eclipses or experiencing a comet, or some other natural phenomenon they could not possibly understand due to technological limitations. If ever we dare to call these tribes primitive in any sense, we should remember that (hundreds of) thousands of people awaited the end of the world at the turn of the millennia (2000), and then on a few more occasions in the years to follow. Many even gathered at Stonehenge waiting for alien spaceships to beam them into other dimensions. Finally, in the era of information technology, when one can educate themselves on almost any topic by means of a few clicks, some people become devotees of Scientology. Human imagination is limitless, but so is fear – particularly of death. Presumably, nature worship and matriarchal communal organization were the features of the earliest forms of paganism. The idea of the human life cycle being part of the larger system – of the natural cycles and seasons, yielded the socalled myths of synchronization. Understood in this way, the circle of life was observed as a process – with a beginning, a sequence of phases, death, but also a rebirth. Whether these ancient pagans believed in the actual rebirth in human form or some symbolic continuation of life through nature itself (animate or inanimate), we can only speculate, but that would be a futile endeavour since we cannot possibly walk in their shoes. However, the cultural artefacts from these periods, as well as their treatment of the dead, imply acceptance of death as a natural phenomenon without the emphasis on the loss. In other words, life was not observed necessarily in terms of binary oppositions, as death excluding life, etc. Rather, understood as a circle, life had to include these points, but not in itself end. The life of the matriarchal tribes was organized around female leaders – birth givers, and the role of the mother in the community was regarded as more valuable than that of the father. In the matrilineal system, the child’s status did not depend on the father, and it is assumed that the hierarchical organization, if it existed, was not as rigid or strict as later in patriarchy. Considering that property and surplus belonged to the community and not its individual members, it was probably not as necessary to establish strict power dynamics. On the other hand, patriarchal social organization appears concurrently with technological advancement. As farming becomes the norm and human settlements acquire a more permanent character due to excess of crops or population that required expansion, there appeared a need for organized defence 54

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

of established communities, or leadership in expansionist efforts. In other words, at some point in history, long before the first millennia BC, matriarchy was already entirely abandoned for a lifestyle with a different focus. This led to the production of weapons – both for purposes of defence and offense, and survival became contingent upon the ability of the community to resist attacks and protect its resources, or launch its own campaigns for additional ones. Needless to note, this sort of circumstances demanded a different kind of leadership – one based on physical strength and survival instincts of the hunters, now warriors. Incidentally, ancient communities’ comprehension of the reproductive process grew and a change occurred in the nature of the understanding of the male role in procreation. In other words, conception was no longer a mystery and the role of both female and male biology was recognized as equally important in creating human life, which drastically changed the power dynamics. In fact, it opened the door for an entirely new way of thinking about resources and relations pertaining property. On top of that, smaller communities, sustaining themselves by actually managing stable sources of food and other resources, became constant targets of those who could not. Considering that human resources were essential for mere survival in terms of the literal number of able-bodied humans who could perform certain everyday tasks, and especially hard work when it comes to the production of food, tools, weapons, building construction, etc., and defend against invaders, it is no wonder that individualism emerged. The irony of survival that depended on numbers and intelligence, yielded the space for individual leadership. Moreover, not only did the individual become more valuable for their competences, but they also desired more rewards for efforts invested. Simultaneously, frequent warfare, along with natural catastrophes and harsh living conditions, dampened the sense of synchronicity and created a need for a different philosophical outlook on life. The mere exposure to the devastation of armed conflict, prompted a new way of thinking about life and death, as well as their attitude towards deities once revered. The highest deity of matriarchal paganism, the Triple Goddess, the Great Goddess, the White Goddess, the Moon Goddess – all variations of her name describing the qualities she emanates, is demoted in patriarchal paganism to lower positions in the pantheon of gods (polytheistic), until she is finally completely banished. The Great Goddess is initially the Great Mother and protector of all her children, the divine manifestation of the Earth. Her origins are somewhat analogous to the observations of the Moon – the light in the darkness. The woman was regarded as her manifestation, much like nature itself – all life on Earth. However, as is the case with all idealizations, even our ancient predecessors realized that their lives’ fortunes could not all be attributed to her if they were also counterbalanced by misfortunes they had little control over – famine, disease, death, etc. In the same vein, philosophical contemplations of the realities of human existence led them to consider the ideal of her supposed emanation on Earth – the woman. Therefore, as 55

Sanja Ignjatović

birth and life giving were considered natural and attributed to her benevolence, so was the negative aspect ascribed to this divine entity and her earthly representative as an innate quality. The Goddess, therefore, ceases to be the pure ideal of mother, but acquires the quality of the dealer of death. The evolution led to her triple form: the maiden – pure and innocent, implying virginity, the mother – nurturing and benevolent, and the crone – the destructive aspect as reflected in natural disasters, diseases, misfortunes and death. No wonder the mother is always blamed for childhood traumas. This view of the Great Goddess was translated into social and cultural practices and imposed onto women as sets of attitudes and values that should be embodied according to standards of desirability. Remember “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” (Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales) and the transformation of the ugly wise woman into a pure young woman as a reward for the now-enlightened knight who supposedly finally understands that rape is not okay? Or Lady Bertilak from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and her mother – the former gorgeous and desirable, and the latter ugly, overweight and unappealing? The problem in this story, though, is that Lady Bertilak refuses to remain within the boundaries of the first aspect of the Triple Goddess – chastity eludes her. But, there are other characters from literature and culture that we can easily categorize according to this millennia long practice: all the witches (Baba Yaga in Russian folk tales, for example) and female monsters (Grendel’s mother from Beowulf) manifest only the crone aspect of the Great Goddess. The maiden, pure and immaculate, is the most desirable aspect and even the wedding dress tradition illustrates the patriarchal necessity to reduce the woman into only those qualities that most appeal one part of society – that in power. Think about it, even Virgin Mary, the mother of Christ, had to remain a virgin even though she married. Jesus Christ, the son of the Christian god, necessitated the womb of a pure woman – one unspoiled by the touch of man. The misogyny and misandry in this idea are not only ridiculously irrational, but devastatingly harmful. Finally, motherhood is also regulated by a set of values and ascribed special status considering that woman, if she is not desired for her physical quality and chastity, serves best as mother. You will notice that throughout patriarchal history, representations of women are defined against the criteria of what is desirable to men. The maiden is desirable for her physical purity and her virginity can guarantee that the lineage of the man who spouses her will be his. The mother is defined against her private role in the home as caregiver and nurturer, whereas the domain of the man is outside the home, in the public sphere. As soon as the physical beauty passes and the children are no longer the woman’s responsibility, she has very little use, except in the domestic space. However, the third aspect that implies maturity or old age (and often, ironically, wisdom) renders the crone undesirable, appalling and evil. Essentially, the long transition from matriarchal to patriarchal communities, with the changes in the philosophical outlook on life, established in society as norms, values and attitudes, changed the manner in which the Great Goddess 56

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

was perceived in that, for one, she was no longer a deity of (great) importance. Moreover, her earthly representatives, the womankind, remained at the receiving end of the bitter rejection. Many ancient cultures, such as ancient Greeks and Celts, retained a more relatable pantheon of gods and goddesses characterized by human characteristics albeit supernatural strength and status. It is in their legends and myths that traces of this demonization of the Great Goddess can be discovered. Remember the story of Medusa? If you still cannot visualize the concept of the Triple Goddess, just remember that scene from the Lord of the Rings movie when Galadriel summons Frodo, in the middle of the night, and she offers him a glance into the future in return for trying on the Ring. The manner in which this Elven queen changes form – from her pure (light-coloured clothes, hair braided and down) and composed self into a monstrous entity that resembles our ideas of witches. She barely passes the test of power, but Frodo is horror-struck. After all, only He can carry the Ring to Mordor.

4.3 The Celts The Celts are one of the most interesting groups of tribes to have settled areas between central Europe and today’s France around 800 BC. Pressured by the attacks of the Germanic tribes and the Romans, the Celts ventured in all directions, even reaching at some point in the 3rd century BC the territory of the City of Niš. In fact, either during their military campaigns in Macedonia (today’s Greece) or upon their return, it was the Celts that founded the settlement along the bank of the river they called Navissos – the Fairy River. These Celts might not have been the exact same ones who populated the British Isles around the same time, 300 BC, but it is a curious piece of history especially for these parts of the Balkans. Although Niš, called Naissus by the Romans, is famous for being the birthplace of Emperor Constantine, the legacy of the Celts runs deep, so to say. Being traders and following the routes of the major continental rivers of Europe, Celts managed to spread their influence to the Iberian Peninsula, the British Isles, the Balkans and Anatolia in today’s Turkey where they made settlements. Those specific visitors of the territory of today’s Turkey were called Galatians, but the more familiar Celtic tribe are certainly the Gauls, popularized by the famous comics, cartoons and movies, Asterix and Obelix, with protagonists, Asterix, Obelix, his whiteterrier Dogmatix, and their tribe’s druid Getafix. The Gauls spoke a continental dialect of the Celtic language and although it is now lost to us, their name for Britain was recorded by a Greek merchant and sailor sometime in the 4th century BC as Pretannike (see Neil Oliver’s A History of Ancient Britain). Students of linguistics will have no trouble immediately substituting the plosive P for B and notice the resemblance to the contemporary variant of the name. The Gaul’s Pretani (painted people) referenced the tattooing practices of the peoples inhabiting the British Isles. The Romans would encounter a lot of those painted people and 57

Sanja Ignjatović

particularly note another Celtic tribe – Picti, or the Picts, as the soldiers referred to them for their unusual practice of going into battle completely naked, their bodies painted blue purportedly for divine protection. Whether elderberry juice paint really offered such protection is questionable, but we can only imagine the surprise and horror on the faces of Roman soldiers as the Picts attacked. Although Romans mostly destroyed Celtic languages in Europe, the British Isles allowed for some to survive – in today’s Wales, south-west England, north-west Scotland and in Ireland precisely because of the resistance of the Celts during the Roman conquest of Britannia. After the Roman conquest, the tribes now a mix of Celts and the peoples previously inhabiting the Isles (Celtic-Britons), as well as the Romans, were referred to as the Roman-Britons. In Europe, Celts got their name from the Greeks, but the problem was they merely used their word for foreigners (Keltoi) so their records differentiate between the Celts of central Europe – the foreigners, the Gauls, and those unnamed ones on the British Isles. In other words, Greek historians, much like the Roman ones, did not have the same idea about the Celts. For them, these were different tribes distinguished by certain features or behaviours exhibited in war, so the stereotype of fair skin, red hair and freckles we usually recall, probably was not significant. As you will see, the Roman soldiers gave unusual accounts of some of the Celtic tribes, and so did the peoples living in today’s Wales, who also referred to the Celts as foreigners. It appears that prior to the arrival of the Celts, the communities populating the British Isles led a relatively peaceful life, and we can safely assume that was the reason why the first contact with the Celts mostly resulted in their retreating to the fringes of the British Isles, and particularly the less accessible or desirable territories. The numerous Celtic tribes had already adjusted their lifestyle to the circumstances that spurred their migrations to various parts of Europe – the attacks of the Romans and the Germanic tribes. On the one hand, they developed trade along the major rivers of Europe, and on the other, they became well-versed in the game of war. What is particularly interesting to note against the background of the matriarchal Iberians and the Beaker Folk, the Celts’ polytheistic beliefs and the structure of the pantheon of gods and goddesses, illustrate the changes in the social organization and tell us about their evolution throughout history in different parts of Europe. Druids were distinguished individuals in Celtic tribes, priests trained in mnemonic techniques enabling them to memorize tribal history and other information relevant for their functions. In fact, being advisors to the leaders (tribal kings and queens), doctors of sorts, counsellors and overall sacred guides to their tribesmen and tribeswomen, their manifold roles established them as powerful in political and social terms, which is one of the reasons why the Romans particularly focused on their extermination. Whereas they allowed the native religious practices to be observed, they also exerted their own influence on the conquered provinces 58

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

ensuring their polytheistic view of the divine was integrated into the mainstream – if not as the norm, then significant part of everyday life. Since the Celts did not have written language, their dialects are mostly lost, and their oral tradition was not recorded until the arrival of Christianity and the literate monks. However, the abundance of oral literature was preserved in the territories of today’s Ireland, as well as some in Wales and England – in places where the Roman invaders did not venture (see Patricia Monaghan’s The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore). There are no direct records of their myths, legends and folktales, but we can make deductions on the overall shape of their cultures from the records of their more literate enemies, business partners, neighbours and contemporaries, and the Christian transcriptions of the oral tradition. Remember, even Beowulf was recorded in this manner. The Celts were not just a group of tribes either warring or fleeing, but traders as well. It is safe to assume that the contacts of various types – trade, proximity and social contact, even war – with the Anglo-Saxons, Teutonic tribes, Scandinavian Vikings, etc. shaped their culture and philosophy in such a way that despite language barriers, they shared many of the characteristics of their contemporaries. It is no wonder that the invasions of Germanic tribes vacated the British Isles of the Romans, but somehow made possible the hybrid between the Celtic-Britons and the Anglo-Saxons.

4.4 The Myth Pool It is evident from archaeological records on the British Isles that the bits and pieces of Celtic culture as left in the form of artefacts changed significantly after the arrival of the Romans. The Celtic tribes had already settled on the British Isles when the Romans invaded, and archaeology gives us an idea of Celts worshipping totems and divinities in natural forms. In contact with this polytheistic culture similar to that of ancient Greeks, their representations of the divine take human form (see Patricia Monaghan’s The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore). The Celtic pantheon at that point accommodates both gods and goddesses, and statues wear attire similar to that of the once invaders, suggesting a degree of integration of Roman beliefs, practices and even aesthetics. Moreover, the Celts’ view of the divine beings did not have the hierarchical or other structure necessary for a proper pantheon, such as those of the Romans or ancient Greeks. The word here is used rather loosely for they were so polytheistic and receptive of alterations to the existing ideas about divinities that their gods and goddesses had many names and forms: the horned god called by different names, the triple mother, various elemental divinities such as those of bodies of water – rivers and lakes, but also the landscape itself. Moreover, they would not fret about calling a deity by the wrong name, as long as they understood who the 59

Sanja Ignjatović

deity was related to. Instead of hierarchically structuring them – top to bottom, these tribes preferred to group them in families denoting their divine origin – the descendants of Danu or Dôn, mother goddesses, or according to their dwelling places – the sky, mountains, rivers, etc. Considering the value they placed on the landscape itself, it is no wonder that not all Celtic tribes had the same divinities, gods and goddesses, but that they shared an overall philosophy that had many distinct forms. Nevertheless, what the scholars appear to agree on, is that all Celts shared the same view on the significance of a goddess who made all life possible. This ancestral entity was thought to be the birth giver of entire nations, and some relate the Celtic mythical Danu or Dôn to the conjectured Dan of central Europe – a deduction based on the names of great rivers such as the Danube or Don. Does this make sense so far? Cosmology explores the myths of origins and represents an important part of a people’s identity and understanding of the world. You probably know about the Greek myth of origin, with Chaos bored in nothingness when Gaia and other divine beings emerge. Gaia – the Earth herself, gives birth to Uranus without any assistance and he then fertilizes her to produce Titans. The ancient Greeks, we can assume, believed the hen was older than the egg. The Christian god of the Old Testament similarly takes time to create the Earth, but then he creates the male first, and the female appears later on – He does not need the hen. Interestingly, either Celts had no specific myth of origin, or it was lost with the annihilation of numerous tribes for no known legends or myths could account for that particular story of how they came about. We already discussed how they assumed they came into being – birthed by a mother goddess, a divinity often associated with a body of water and triple aspects. Perhaps that explanation was enough – there existed a hen… They believed in the Otherworld, the home of various divine beings whose actions affected their lives, but only in certain ways, at certain times. No wonder druids performed their sacred rituals only in the sacred groves, and considered the oak tree to be integral to their rituals, among other things. One might suspect their observations of the depth of oak roots had something to do with the connection to the depths of the Earth. Or their penchant for sanctifying the elements they observed around them. Or it was because they believed certain places at certain times opened special portals to the Otherworld – much like some native tribes in north America. Supposedly, Otherworld creatures could enter their realm, but so could people accidentally or because a curious fairybeing so wanted, be transported to the other side. Just remember Leprechauns! In any case, regularities they observed and believed to be true, also appeared to be contradicted by curious, mysterious or miraculous events. After all, the point of this collective belief that it all somehow makes sense in spite of the nonsense remains an essential survival tool to this day. One of the earliest stories about the legendary King Arthur is a Celtic folktale about Culhwch and Olwen, but the myth itself has been so powerful over at least 1500 years, that it has accumulated 60

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

symbolism from other cultures as well, and especially so with the popularization of the myth in the form of cinematic narratives.

Meanwhile in the Balkans… Although we find the first traces of habitation on the territory of today’s Serbia dating back 40,000 years, Serbia became a formal entity under a variant of the now well-used name (Serbia) sometime in the 8th century. According to Čedomir Antić in Serbian History, at the end of the Ice Age the same groups of nomads settling western and central parts of Europe also settled in the territories of the Balkans. The first settlers, much like those of the British Isles, faced harsh conditions, and although the Balkan winters were arctic, it appears that these early communities, organized in tribes, found it convenient enough to settle here. However, before tribal communities, traces of human-like habitation date back to 10000 BC. Small communities or groups of families lived the hunter-gatherer lifestyle relying on the booming population of deer and other larger animals. The Neolithic tribes of the Balkans could more easily be compared than contrasted to their contemporaries in the isolated western islands. They used primitive tools made of stone and animal bones; they lived in caves, but apparently, they did not dabble in creating large stonework structures such as Stonehenge and Avebury. However, although these late Neolithic cultures of today’s Britain (some 3000-2000 years BC) still boast their craftsmanship millennia later, the culture the tribes settling Serbia in Neolithic times, and most notably that of Lepenski vir, represents one of the first larger communities that connected a significant number of people under the same practices. Alongside developed religious and communal practices distinguishing gender, hierarchy and status, they also excelled in animal husbandry and were the first to introduce wheats into their diet (see Čedomir Antić’s Srpska istorija). The British Isles had large stones, and these people had fish-like entity carvings symbolizing humans adorning their temples and buildings. By the time the Iberians started settling the British Isles due to the ease of crossing La Manche at the time, the culture of Lepenski vir had already evolved its different variants and represented one of the most wide-spread communities at the time sharing in polytheism and agriculture. The new ethnic mixing ushered metalwork, new trade routes and new courses in the history of the Balkans. Around 1000 BC, Greek and Roman historians recorded several tribes thriving in the Balkans simply because of the conflicts they had with them. Apparently, these tribes had established the institution of kingship and had gladly warred with the Romans and peoples of ancient Greece. In the period between 500 to 200 BC, these tribes semi-successfully maintained war-relations until gradually destroyed by enemies such as the organized Romans, Macedonians and Greeks (see Čedomir Antić’s Srpska istorija). 61

Sanja Ignjatović

Also worth mentioning are the raids of the Celtic cohorts through the Balkans around the 3rd century BC when, in fact, the armies of the Celts from the British Isles and territories of today’s northern France stormed through today’s Northern Macedonia into Greece in an attempt to annihilate Macedonians, which they did. It took around 85,000 warriors to conquer Macedonia (see Čedomir Antić’s Srpska istorija), however, for some reason, the endeavour dispersed and the remaining forces headed northwards and southwards, leaving on their path traces and monuments of their time spent in the Balkans, such as settlements and fortresses, but also culture and language. This is all happening before the supposed birth of Jesus Christ.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. What were the crucial circumstances for the population of the British Isles sometime before the Neolith? What appears to be the main reason for the migrations from and to the British Isles in the millennia before recorded history? How can we compare or contrast these circumstances with those of the Balkans? Research the accounts of the myth of King Arthur and try to identify the elements that clearly belong to the tradition of Celtic-Britons. How are these enriched or modified in cinematic interpretations? Why? How do myths change and why? What is the purpose of a myth in the first place? Research which monarch gave their firstborns the name of Arthur. Can you make an educated guess about why? How did that turn out for them?

Suggested Reading If you want to know more about the history of ancient Britain, see Jeremy Black’s A History of the British Isles, or Britain: One Million Years in the Making by Rob Dinnis and Chris Stringer for a broader view of the ancient inhabitants of this territory. Homo Britannicus by Chris Stringer is an exciting read, and also quite informative are Neil Oliver’s A History of Ancient Britain and Francis Pryor’s Britain BC. For more on the ancient history of the peoples in the Balkans, look at Čedomir Antić’s Serbian History (Srpska istorija). For more on the mythology of the Celtic tribes on the British Isles, see Patricia Monaghan’s The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore, Katie Marsico’s brief overview of legends and myths persisting to this day in What We Get from Celtic Mythology, and if you really want to go into the details of the kind of gods and goddesses these tribes 62

4. The First Mixers on the Isles

worshipped, among other things, see Katja Ritari and Alexandra Bergholm’s Understanding Celtic Religion: Revisiting the Pagan Past. Philip Freeman’s Celtic Mythology: Tales of Gods, Goddesses and Heroes offers another detailed account of the important mythical figures of the Celts, as well as a guide for the pronunciation of the Celtic names. This section of the textbook, after all, aims only to provide a very general overview and give you the basic information on the circumstances of the first ethnic mixers on the British Isles.

63

5. The Romans

5. The Romans  The Roman invasion of the British Isles started before the Roman legions’ feet stepped on the soil and started introducing order into the established Celtic tribal communities, even prior to the 1st century BC, as the trade routes to this part of Europe were already well established. Bear in mind that before the coming of the Romans, the peoples populating the British Isles had a thriving mix of cultures of their own, formed systems of beliefs, as well as desires to expand, often at the expense of other tribes. In fact, by 50 BC, which is around the time of the first attempts at invasion, there were more than twenty Celtic tribes coexisting, more or less peacefully, on the British Isles: Iceni, Belgae, Cantii, Trinovantes. Cornovii, Coritani, etc., and among them, Picti in the north. However, although they had growing population in their tribal states, and even the aristocratic elite, the extent of the Roman military and governing prowess, language and organization, far surpassed the Celtic standard, so the contact through trade represented a step forward in the cultural sense. Nevertheless, it remains quite disturbing that Celts fleeing Roman and Germanic attacks, finally settling on the territories of the British Isles, had to become targets of the Romans once again. Although too familiar with Roman warfare, having dealt with it throughout their history and Julius Caesar in the first attempt at invasion, the Celts met the second attempt with little organization. Some of the reasons the Romans decided to set in motion the invasion of the British Isles, other than expansionism, were surely the information about different resources including ores (copper, iron, coal and lead) and the potential for enslaving these Celts. The Romans were known for their mercenary armies, so the Celtic human-supply promised new soldiers and workforce. The geographical position of the British Isles at the westernmost end of Europe would provide the naval control of the coastal areas to the north-west. The Roman fleets were quite efficient and successful in taking the control over the English Channel. In a nutshell, the Romans first attempted to disembark and take over the Isles in the 1st century BC during the reign of Julius Caesar, before the so-called Pax Romana period of tempered tranquillity throughout the Roman Empire. However, the internal turmoil in the Roman Empire and the subsequent death of the empire’s head gave the Celts an unexpected lucky break. Trade routes flourished even after the first invasion attempt, which turned out to be very important for the Celtic-Britons. Since they had no written language of their own, albeit their developed cultures and existing spoken languages, the Latin language was used as the language of trade, 65

Sanja Ignjatović

and when the Roman Empire was consolidated again, with Emperor Claudius in charge, the British Isles became the target as a valuable geo-political position and economic resource in Europe. This second-coming of the Romans happened in the middle of the 1st century AD, and this time, the legions stayed until the arrival of a powerful enemy from north-west and central Europe – the Anglo-Saxons. Between 40 and 50 AD, during Emperor Claudius, the Roman legions took control over most of today’s England and Wales, yet the advancements into the northern parts of the larger islands of the British Isles, today’s Scotland, represented a challenge. Pax Romana stands for a period starting from the reign of Emperor Augustus to the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius – for about 200 years, from 27BC to 180 AD. This is the period before the Romans conquered the Isles, but it ended at least a few centuries before they left. Although it is widely defined as a period of peace that Romans were accountable for, it would be quite inaccurate to call their military campaigning and the introduction of a particular form of rule as diplomatic or pacifist. The Roman Empire practiced the enforcement of law and taxation standard in the newly conquered territories (provinces), and the British Isles were no exception. Once the native population was pacified by means of threat or force, the dangers of potential rebellions, much like external attacks, would decrease significantly. The Romans would establish a military rule that required the natives to accept the governing of the Roman army and, in return for their services, pay taxes. Accepting Roman taxation, the natives of the conquered lands would receive protection, being a Roman province, and the stationed Roman armies guaranteed that there would be no unrest in the province (order), they would protect the natives against any external enemies (safety, protection) and, therefore, ensure peace. Granted, the wise practice of Romans to allow the native population to keep their customs, laws and tradition would prove to have pacifying effects in itself, which probably explains centuries of successful rule over vast territories. When it comes to the British Isles, this went on from the 1st to the 4th century AD, which is incidentally a point in time when the Roman Empire started to rapidly decline due to internal issues, the sheer extent to which the territories extended – Europe, north Africa and Persia, but also the rise of new enemies. When the Romans set their eyes on Britain, it was already populated by a mix of tribes coming from today’s northern Spain (the Iberians) and the more belligerent Celts who had migrated from different parts of Europe, such as today’s northern France. Whereas the earlier settlers, the Iberians and the Beaker folk – cultures flourishing during the Neolith (the Stone Age) and before advanced bronze work – found their place on the fringes of the British Isles fleeing before the Celtic threats, the Celts initially had little intention of retreating before the Roman legions. In fact, these numerous tribes put at least three Roman Emperors and numerous commanders through a series of challenges and even defeats. 66

5. The Romans

One of the most recounted stories of resistance is that of the failed uprising led by Boudicca – the queen of the Iceni tribe, a national symbol nowadays, but a tragic historical figure. Around 60-61 AD, while the Roman legions were advancing towards today’s Wales, moving away from the area of today’s London, Boudicca’s husband died, leaving the kingdom divided between his wife, his daughters, but also to the Roman Emperor. The attempt at peace from the late king was disregarded, and his property seized by the Romans, not only leaving his wife and daughters destitute, but worse, supposedly flogged and raped. Still alive, Boudicca managed to raise an army, as well as so many supporters, that in total, around 70-80,000 Romans and Britons were killed in the conflicts, and at least three important checkpoints were destroyed by surprising the Roman army. Although unsuccessful after 61 AD, her efforts uncovered the weaknesses of the Roman army, purportedly unstoppable and undefeatable. Later on, in 122 AD, Emperor Hadrian ordered the building of the so-called Hadrian’s Wall, a defensive wall-fortification against the tribes that fled into the northern parts of the British Isles – the Scottish Highlands. Apparently, the idea was to defend the provinces from the Picts (the Picti) constantly attacking territories south of their settlements. By this time, there were no significant efforts to venture into the north, but to maintain control over the already conquered parts. After all, the fortified wall was well inside Roman Britannia, separating it from Caledonia – today’s Scotland. However, although the most famous, Hadrian’s Wall was not the only such fortification built in Roman Britannia. His successor Antoninus Pius attempted to build a similar structure, but not as great in length. During his reign, Hadrian’s Wall was abandoned almost entirely although it had a number of purposes other than defensive – it served as an improvised border between Roman Britannia and Caledonia, the customs, it regulated the entrance and exit to the Roman domain and therefore trade, etc. The Antonine Wall was later on used and abandoned, much like Hadrian’s, by other emperors, including Marcus Aurelius. In essence, the Antonine Wall had more of a strategic placement for attacking the north and whenever efforts inspired by such ideas failed, Hadrian’s Wall would appear useful again. Ultimately, Hadrian’s Wall became part of transnational Frontiers of the Roman Empire Heritage Site in 2005 (World Heritage Site in 1987). Roman fortifications, including what is left of the walls, the now-forgotten names of towns and settlements all over the British Isles, the Latin language and first written records, along with few remnants of other types of buildings, testify to the endurance of the Roman influence in Europe.

67

Sanja Ignjatović

5.1 Christianity Meets Paganism Emperor Constantine I was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. This happened in 312 AD, and already in 313 AD, the Edict of Milan was enforced preventing the persecution of Christians. Consequently, Christianity was recognized as a legal religion in the Roman Empire, yet the process of Christianization was only at its beginning. Prior to Emperor Constantine I’s decree, various rulers targeted Christians, either for their practices as such, or because they were not observing traditional Roman pagan practices. Emperor Diocletian was among those whose attitude towards Christians led to ruthless persecution of religious figures and practitioners. It is no wonder that the establishment of the official Roman Catholic Church later sought to consolidate power and position itself as equal to secular courts to prevent persecutions and dispossession.

Meanwhile on the British Isles Christianity reached Britain around the 1st century through the Romans, but it remained merely one of many religious practices until Christianization intensified – a century after it was legalized as a religion in the Roman Empire. Attempts at Christianization prior to organized missions ended locally and merely added to the established practices. However, the presence of Christian missionaries in the parts largely facilitated the Christianization of Anglo-Saxon kingdom in the 6th and 7th centuries.

5.2 Insular Christianity The Celtic-Briton tribes appear to have been very receptive in terms of new ideas, customs and the establishment of traditions generated by this new religion – Christianity. Celtic Christianity might have been distinct in its appropriation of the new practices, which made it distinguishable from Roman Christianity. Some scholars refer to it as Insular Christianity to emphasize that the version practiced by Celtic-Britons was not necessarily opposed to the Roman variant, but rather adapted. Starting from the 6th century, the tribes occupying today’s England, Scotland and Ireland developed their distinct forms. Celtic polytheism – the pagan and early Christian hybrid, emerged as an amalgam of spiritual practices and beliefs that found ways to complement rather than exclude each other. For a time, that is. Against the Roman Catholic dogma, this model of Christianity might have been less concerned with authority, and more in tune with nature and the rich surviving pagan practices. However, even if variations were local, the Christian churches had the tradition in common and all respected the papacy in Rome. Until Henry VIII did not anymore. 68

5. The Romans

Wales was Christianized in the 5th and 6th centuries. Saint Patrick spread the teachings of Christ in today’s Ireland, among others, and it is no wonder that he is the Patron Saint of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. A great number of saints were named in the early medieval period, particularly in the process of Christianization by missionaries such as Saint Patrick. Notably, Augustine of Canterbury’s mission to the British Isles, under the command of the Pope, recorded by Venerable Bede, suggests a rather authoritarian manner of regulating Christian practices in the process of the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. This implies that whereas prior to the 5th and 6th centuries Christianity was spreading at its own pace – seducing people with its transcendental allure, the organized missions of the Popes after proposed very strict dogmas and codes of conduct. The process of Christianization included a strong political and diplomatic dimension. Not all Anglo-Saxons liked that, which is why it took Rome a moment before they established themselves on the British Isles. The regional and local variants of Christianity differed in terms of practices around certain holy events. The famous point of contention between Rome and Insular Christianity was the manner in which the date of Easter was calculated. The monastery of Iona, founded in the 6th century by St Columba, is located in Scotland. Nowadays, the Abbey of Iona is an established religious tourist attraction with a rich program of activities and accommodation. In other words, you can stay there for a price. However, in medieval times, it was a repository of knowledge and one of the most important Christian centres on the British Isles. The Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery, located in north-east England, is a twin monastery founded in the 7th century by Benedict Biscop. Like Iona, Jarrow stands as the testament of complex monastic practices, exceptional medieval architecture and an outstanding library at its zenith. It is also associated with Venerable Bede, the author of the Ecclesiastical History of the English People. From over 500 monasteries, abbeys and friaries in Ireland built all through the medieval period – from the 6th century onwards, only a few remain. The Abbey of Kells – a 9th century abbey, is famous for keeping the Latin manuscript Book of Kells until the 1650s when the presence of Oliver Cromwell’s army in the abbey prompted the governor to send it to Dublin. The Abbey of Kells survived numerous Viking raids, and the Lord Protector. One of the oldest monasteries is Kilmacduagh, founded in the 7th century by St Colman MacDuagh. Like many other monasteries, this one was plundered for its massive wealth until the 13th century. Canterbury Cathedral was founded at the very end of the 6th century as the Roman Catholic centre in England (Kent), and it is now part of World Heritage Site. It became a popular destination for pilgrims after the murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket during the rule of Henry II. However, it had already been a very popular pillaging destination for the Vikings. Augustine of Canterbury – missionary of Pope Gregory I, was the first bishop serve in the cathedral. 69

Sanja Ignjatović

In essence, Insular Christianity followed the general tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, which is largely due to the number of Roman Catholic missionaries’ presence on the British Isles from the 6th century until the completion of the Christianization process. However, certain differences in practices and traditions persisted considering the influence and importance of the previously present beliefs on the Isles. The Roman Catholic Church had internal conflicts, ideological disputes and differences. For example, the 5th century observes the great controversy between St Augustine’s newly popularized dogma of the Original Sin, and Pelagius’ opposition to the idea that the individual acquires sin by birth. The Church had great interest to introduce the Original Sin into the daily lives of their flock, especially considering the introduction of practices such as confession, pardons, and so on. The Augustinian perception of the human being as essentially corrupt and morally irredeemable positioned the Church as the ultimate authority over salvation. Pelagius’ view of Christianity proposed that people can achieve salvation without the intervention of the Church, by mere practice of charitable love. However, the monetization of sin grew into an endeavour beyond Pelagius’ idealism. Do you pay for baptism? This is the first step to purification from the Original Sin. This is why babies are christened so early – so that if the infant dies, it goes straight to Jesus. Is there a fee for a church ceremony if you want to unite with your chosen partner under Christian god? Have you ever been asked for a donation in church? Are churches everywhere exempt from paying tax like in Serbia? How much does a prayer cost? These are just some of the questions one should think about nowadays, but many before us have wondered about the same things – members of the clergy and believers.

Meanwhile in the Balkans… Although Romans would endeavour to conquer the British Isles only later on in history, their Balkan expeditions were challenged early by the belligerent tribes settling the valley of Neretva, but also expanding to coastal areas. These were the Illyrian tribes, roaming the Mediterranean, inviting the Romans to venture into the Balkans to break the forces of their (and Greek) leaders in the late 300s BC, so at least two centuries before they would think to go after the British Isles. Later on, already a few centuries after leaving the British Isles due to attacks of the new rampaging forces of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, the Romans had to fight off more Illyrian rebellions in the Balkans, but these included the peoples settling the territories of today’s western Serbia, parts of Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Rome began its long history sometime around 1000 BC as the villages on the River Tiber started to merge, and around 700 BC the first public forum was established, which is also when Rome got its name. You know the legend of Romulus and 70

5. The Romans

Remus. The expansion would begin some 500 years after the informal foundation of the city and they would need some 700 years to start warring in the Balkans as a powerful force, and 900 to venture into the farthest west point of Europe. They did campaign in all directions…

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. What benefits could the Celtic-Britons see from the interaction and cultural exchange with the Romans? How did the Roman rule influence the religious landscape of the British Isles? How did it change the life on the Isles in terms of trade, language and culture? Imagine how many centuries the Romans spent warring all over Europe, including the British Isles and the Balkans and how vast a territory the Empire covered! How is Europe not speaking Latin today, but English? Why do you think the British named their imperial law Pax Britannia? Do you think it was because they liked Pax Romana so much or maybe there was something else to it? What do you know about the Roman legacy in today’s Serbia?

Suggested Reading If you want to know more about how Britons and Romans exchanged cultures, you should start with The Ruthless Romans by Terry Deary. The Routledge Atlas of British History offers maps and illustrations showing the timeline of the Romans’ conquest of the British Isles, but also the periods prior to their coming and after they left. Finally, Jeremy Black offers interesting details about the course of the Roman invasion in A History of the British Isles. Also, see Brian Tierney’s The Middle Ages as it offers insight into history of Britain, from the late Roman, to late medieval period.

71

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings 6.1 The Anglo-Saxons Migrations of the Germanic tribes from today’s Germany and Denmark towards the British Isles started in the period between the 5th and 6th century. With the decline of power and internal organization of the Empire, as well as attacks on the provinces – the British Isles included, the Romans began their withdrawal of legions, concentrating all their military forces in the centre, but leaving the natives to their devices. On the British Isles, these circumstances befell the unfortunate Celtic-Britons, now Roman-Britons – partly lulled into the wavering security the Pax Romana promised, but also involved in their own tribal disputes and wars. Although the Roman occupation provided a cultural boost for the Britons – in the form of language, trade, architecture, etc., it also left them entirely unprepared for the surges of Germanic tribes over decades. In other words, when the Romans started leaving in late 4th century, after 300 years of coexistence, the CelticBritons could not gather or unite to counter the invaders. Let alone powerful invaders such as the Germanic tribes. In observing the geopolitical map of the United Kingdom today, you will notice that the invasions of Germanic tribes left a lasting mark on the British Isles. Regions such as the Scottish Highlands, parts of the island where the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are, the very southwest of the Isles, and so on, have all preserved their native Celtic languages. The areas where the Celtic (Gaelic) variants of languages are present were the target destinations of the tribes fleeing before the Germanic hordes. The word migration is sometimes euphemistically used to denote the action of being forced to move location due to existential threats. British humour works across centuries. The main Germanic tribes choosing the British Isles for their new home were the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and their languages greatly contributed to what we today know as English. Moreover, contemporary English – the variant we speak today, reveals traces of all the migrations, conflicts and exchanges with other cultures – the Vikings after the Germanic tribes, the Normans and finally, William Shakespeare. No joke. Think about the names of the days of the week (Wednesday – the day of Odin or Woden, Germanic), or the name for the thing you open to let in some air or light – window (Norse), or the word literature (Old French). However, it is improbable that it was by the use of language that these Germanic tribes greeted the settlers upon their exploration of the Isles. The exchange of 73

Sanja Ignjatović

cultures between the native Celtic-Britons and the Germanic tribes escalated in conflicts that almost entirely erased the traces of the Roman-Celtic hybrid and forced the Celts to move to the fringes. The places where Scottish Gaelic or Scots are spoken, or Irish Gaelic and Cornish. Reinforced with rich cultural heritage, these languages transferred tribal histories, myths and literature for generations. Yet, the Germanic influence prevailed.

6.2 Early Medieval Kingdoms These tribes, belligerent and skilful, yet industrious during peacetime, created their own socio-political organization on the British Isles and established powerful roots for monarchy. After the 6th century, a number of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms – Kent (Jutes), East Anglia (Angles), Wessex (Saxons), Mercia, Northumbria, merged smaller ones into their territories and represented powerful forces until the 9th century when they were, more or less, united under the same name. When the Anglo-Saxons reached the British Isles, Christianity was already an established religion. However, the transition to the Anglo-Saxon era on the British Isles observed numerous territorial conflicts between the tribes that established kingdoms, as well as a powerful blending of religion and governance, as well as attempts at establishing the first legal systems. This period is referred to as the early medieval period, marked by the Christianisation of the British Isles by means of conversion of the ruler, and conflicts between kingdoms, as well as against the invading Vikings.

No-Mercy-Mercia! Offa of Mercia (757-796) ruled a powerful kingdom fuelled by his political and military ambitions, but also diplomacy skills. In the time of political uncertainty, Offa managed to assert his authority over a number of neighbouring kingdoms and lead expansionist campaigns that would grant Mercia both additional territories and resources. Along with trade routes, Mercia established diplomatic relations with continental powers, such as Charlemagne of the Carolingian Empire. However, even though Offa crowned his son in a Christian ceremony, attempting to create a connection between the secular court and the Church – which will prove quite useful to monarchs in the future, conflict with the archbishop of the time, and therefore the establishment, found its way to him. Much like the conflicts with the Welsh tribes, which he settled by building a dyke in the length of two-thirds of the border length – Offa’s Dyke. As a Christian ruler, Offa of Mercia funded the building of monasteries and abbeys as cultural and centres for learning, including the Abbey of St. Albans. In Alfred the Great’s chronicles, there is mention of Offa’s code of law. However, if the code existed, it was not 74

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings

preserved as a document. The scope of his legislative ambition remains unknown and a matter of speculation. Two centuries or so later, the Norman invasion will introduce feudalism, land law, and a completely new set of laws regulating landownership with Norman judicial authority. Bear in mind that around this time in history, near the end of King Offa’s reign, the Vikings start their campaigns on the British Isles.

Wessex The 9th century was marked by the ascension of Wessex under the rule of King Egbert (802-839). The power of Wessex already steadily growing, Egbert took the crown in 802 and immediately embarked on a series of successful military campaigns. His expansionist endeavour delivered dominance over Mercia – the most powerful kingdom under Offa in the 8th century, but also East Anglia and Northumbria. Already in the early 9th century, Egbert ruled over the territory similar to that under the control of the Romans. Egbert’s vision of the unification of all kingdoms differed greatly from the Roman model, and his efforts to spread Christianity and politically consolidate and centralize power, pawed the way for the creation of one kingdom under which Britons would gather. Well, that is, until the arrival of the Normans. Much like Offa, Egbert invested in the foundation of monasteries and dioceses as a matter of establishing and maintaining close ties with the Church and strengthening his political power. Wessex also produced the famous Anglo-Saxon ruler, King Alfred (871-899) who earned his nickname – the Great, after putting stop to Viking raids and the devastation brought on to various coastal and inland territories on the British Isles.

6.3 The Viking Invasions The raids by warriors coming from today’s Scandinavia – Norse seafarers, or simply, the Vikings, occupied the minds of Anglo-Saxon rulers for almost three centuries, culminating in one of the Vikings even becoming king elected by the Witan in early 11th century. Moreover, the Viking invasions unfolded in a number of well-organized and complex ways. Not only were the Vikings raiding and plundering – usually monasteries and villages, but they were skilful at creating settlements as the base for their endeavours. These warriors established a system on the British Isles known as the Danelaw, and similarly to any expansionist and imperialist force, they enforced their taxation law onto the native peoples. The price of peace was contained in the so-called Danegeld – the amount of tax paid for protection. In other words, paying the tax protected the natives of the British Isles from terrifying plundering campaigns. Needless to say, the raids’ outcomes 75

Sanja Ignjatović

were not only the loss of wealth kept in monasteries, but also the loss of lives and the spread of terror which greatly undermined the integrity of the AngloSaxon kings. Many rulers opted for Danelaw and the Danegeld tribute to pacify the conflicts. However…

6.4 Alfred the Great and the Restoration Alfred the Great (871-899) recognized the necessity to settle the matter of the Viking invasion with greater severity than his immediate predecessor. Much like Egbert of Wessex, King Alfred exhibited great prowess in military tactics, reforming the existing army and organizing a system of defence against raids that ensured possible advantage either in numbers, or by fortifying towns with defence structures. The goal of Alfred the Great was not only to limit the rule of Danelaw, but to empower the neighbouring kingdoms with the view of joint resistance against the Vikings. Again, much like Egbert of Wessex, whose diplomacy ensured the steady growth of the largest kingdom, Alfred the Great established negotiations with the prominent leader of the Vikings – Guthrum, which limited the boundaries of Danelaw. On the one hand, King Alfred showed his military power on two occasions, prior to the agreement with Guthrum (871 and 878), and managed to stop further human losses by isolating the Vikings in the territories the kingdoms could monitor. Initially, the Vikings’ main objective was the loot from monasteries (gold and silver), such as Lindisfarne, Jarrow and Iona. The bands of Vikings practiced warfare that relied on swift attacks. Since they were seafarers, coming to the coastal areas by ships from today’s Denmark and Norway, they needed settlements as well. Therefore, they also needed livestock, resources for sustenance and protection, as well as free labour force – slaves. In other words, monasteries might have been targeted for the wealth they kept, but villages and settlements were pillaged mercilessly to ensure the survival of the Viking settlements. In addition to that, monasteries were not only vaults of wealth, but also of knowledge, and the cultural losses motivated King Alfred to initiate reforms, rebuild the destroyed monasteries, invest in protective fortification, but also continue and improve on the project of educating the people. Or at least the wealthy men and their male children. Alfred the Great not only learned to read and write himself, but he established court schools visited by scholars even from continental Europe. The Kingdom of Wessex, in fact, was rather progressive and crucial for the project of building a united nation on the British Isles. Alfred the Great’s leadership created the grounds for the unification of the AngloSaxons due to his military prowess, resourceful and enlightened governance. The agreed border between Wessex and Danelaw ensured, at least in theory, that Vikings would not attack within the borders of the kingdom, but could not prevent them from developing in the already established settlements. In fact, these warriors 76

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings

proved to be quite adaptable and resourceful, founding settlements in territories of today’s York, northern parts of today’s England, as well as even Dublin in Ireland, where they maintained a stronghold. What is more, prolonged contact with the settlers of the British Isles enabled the development of relations that were not contingent upon conflict and violence. A process of integration of the Vikings followed the development of trade, cultural exchange and cooperation. After all, these Nordic tribes did not only settle in the coastal areas of the British Isles, but also in territories of continental Europe, including coasts of Normandy, which facilitated the creation of trade networks, among other things.

The Aftermath of King Alfred’s Death Considering his governing skills and the legacy of a strong army and defensive networks, the aftermath of Alfred the Great’s death did not create great problems to the kingdom, nor did it lessen its influence. The royal succession had already become regulated by the hereditary rule, but this practice was not religiously observed. Pun intended! We are talking about early medieval Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which were mostly Christian. These kingdoms saw great benefits from creating a symbiotic connection between the court and the church. If the Church – bishops and archbishops, supported the royal in the line of succession, their chances to rule without any resistance were much better. After all, the hierarchy of the divine order was simply translated onto mundane matters: King was God on Earth. In other words, the Church made Kings, or made them fall. Remember this when we talk about the Anjou. Nevertheless, at this time, the Witan still had a crucial role in deciding the realization of royal succession, and the successors were not only chosen for the virtue of their bloodline, but other factors as well.

Witenagemot The Witan was the council set up by the royal court of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Members of the Witan could be observed as analogous to a national assembly nowadays, or even the upper chamber of Parliament in the United Kingdom considering the status of the members forming it. However, membership was not fixed or irrevocable, which means that the Anglo-Saxons named members according to a meritocratic imperative. This council gathered advisors from the order of nobles and the clergy, with the purpose of deciding on matters of importance, governance and laws in the kingdom. Although the king had power, the Anglo-Saxon tradition relied heavily on the opinions of the council. Therefore, the Witan (Witenagemot) had the authority to approve and appoint royal successors regardless of the attempts to establish the hereditary rule. On the one hand, the role of this council appears quite logical, as their best interest 77

Sanja Ignjatović

was the appointment of a suitable ruler. However, the practice caused disputes among those who claimed right to the throne, as well as members of the nobility – council members themselves. This democratic practice was ended by William the Conqueror in the 11th century who established the hereditary rule as a matter of permanence. During the reign of Alfred the Great, the Witan played a significant role in determining the course of the kingdom’s politics and diplomacy. Moreover, it would be a body of great political influence in choosing the successors – to King Alfred, as well as later on, to Canute (Cnut) and, perhaps most importantly, to Edward the Confessor.

6.5 The Beginning of the End of Anglo-Saxon Rule In any case, after a bit of an ordeal – half a century to be more precise, the throne was split between Eadwig who kept Wessex, and Mercia welcomed Edgar, the Peaceful (959-975), his brother. You can infer that the circumstances and ability to rule earned the latter quite a nickname. His death marks the end of the long period of peace on the British Isles – 975. Edgar the Peaceful ascended to the throne after the death of his elder brother, whose ideas of governance involved a lot of conflict. When he died, Edgar’s penchant for democracy and peaceful resolution proved beneficial to the kingdom of Wessex, but also the entire British Isles, as he managed to establish peace between the nobles, unite them under one reign and gain support from all regions. Edgar the Peaceful was enthroned as the first king of England in 973, in Bath. Unsurprisingly, this king’s connections with the clergy were excellent since he, as a devout Christian – in the vein of medieval kings, appointed bishops and funded the building of monasteries as beacons of faith, as well as centres for learning. Although Edgar was probably first crowned as king of Mercia, the second ceremony appointed him as the ruler of Britain – the entire kingdom. Just like Alfred the Great, Edgar also invested in maritime trade and the navy, creating the foundations for the naval tradition that would change the course of history in later centuries. Predictably, the death of Edgar the Peaceful ushered a period of unsuccessful and short-term successions, until the unfortunate Ethelred the Unready (9781016) rose to power. At the time of Ethelred’s crowning, the Vikings’ aspiration to participate in matters of governance and politics were already very high, and this inept ruler took the throne at the time when the power of the Anglo-Saxon alliances were weakening. In fact, the Vikings started breaching the Danelaw limitations established during Alfred the Great, forcing Ethelred into mobilizing forces. The nickname – Unready, tells you enough about the outcomes of these battles. This ruler’s way to ensure peace in the kingdom was to accept the 78

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings

Danelaw and pay the Danegeld – the Viking tax. Such decisions would prove quite unfortunate. Ethelred the Unready blessed the kingdom with another king, Edward the Confessor (1042-1066), but this religious individual – the founder of Westminster Abbey, would have to wait a few decades. Soap opera material incoming! Upon the death of the unfortunate Ethelred, Canute the Great (9961035) invaded the kingdom and not only took the throne, but also married the late king’s wife, Emma (Norman by origin) to legitimize the rule and appease the nobility. Canute would go on to rule for about four decades, even producing an heir to the throne with his new wife, Edward’s mother. To digress… Due to possible threats, Edward (later Confessor) was sent to Normandy at a young age, where he spent most of his time before coming back to England to claim the throne. It would be no wonder to the Anglo-Saxon nobles that Duke of Normandy talked about Edward naming him heir to the throne after his death. In any case, Canute the Great’s death in 1035 reopened the matter of hereditary succession and made things rather interesting for the children of Emma. Hamlet? Anyone? Well, it gets even more complicated than that. The child of Canute the Great and Emma – Harthacnut, wanted to exercise his right to the English throne by virtue of heredity, even though his half-brother, Harold Harefoot (1035-1040), had already claimed the throne. He would acquire support from his mother, but would have to wait for his brother to die in order to be crowned – as unopposed as possible, in 1040. The three Danish (Viking) rulers, Canute, Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut all faced disapproval by the Anglo-Saxon nobility even though Canute the Great wisely continued the practices of the previous Anglo-Saxon kings, as well as maintained ties with Scandinavia. The sense of unity that he tried to establish crumbled after his death because the opposing lobbies of nobles – those supporting heredity and Harold as legitimate heir of Canute, and those wanting to get the power back into the hands of Anglo-Saxons, clashed in a matter of decades. The mysterious death of Harthacnut testifies to the desire of the Anglo-Saxon nobility to bring back the true king – successor of Ethelred, Edward. Apparently, Harthacnut died in the course of attending a wedding. The accidental fall off a bridge due to alcohol intoxication (at the age of 24) would perhaps be believable, if only Harold Godwinson – the brother of Edward the Confessor’s wife and leader of a powerful noble Anglo-Saxon family, would not be one of the beneficiaries of such an unfortunate event. In any case, Harthacnut drowned and Edward, later known as Confessor was crowned king of England. In his short rule, Edward paid great attention to religious matters and motivated by personal devotion, he maintained a close relationship with the Church by acting on their interests. The construction of Westminster Abbey and church dedicated to Saint Peter remain some of his most notable achievements. Additionally, though, in 1161, Edward was canonized as a saint. However, his alliance with the Godwins noble family – by means of marrying one of their own, proved to be a pestering matter in the years of his reign. 79

Sanja Ignjatović

Impetus for the Norman Conquest The root of this conflict, as well as those that would mark his last days, was threefold and contained in the fact that Edward the Confessor did not produce heirs of his own. On the one hand, the Godwins, led by Harold Godwinson – his brother-in-law, laid claim to the crown by virtue of association and their ties with the Anglo-Saxon nobility. Witan was still a relevant entity, and Harold was supported as the most suitable representative of the Anglo-Saxon tradition. The fact that his sister was the wife of the king, added to the claim. However, Edward had spent decades in Normandy, establishing close ties with the nobility there that had expansionist ideas of their own. William, the Duke of Normandy, would claim the throne upon Confessor’s death purportedly based on the promises of Edward that he would be named successor. The third angle was the Scandinavian one – Harold Hardrada, the Viking king who saw his own opportunity since the kingdom already hosted a Dane on their throne. King Edward’s death brought together three armies to a large-scale conflict as the first one to claim the throne was Harold Godwinson. The two other contenders – the Norman and the Viking, tested Harold’s military power one by one. The Norman contender set sails for England as soon as he learned the news about Edward’s death, but the circumstances of his voyage were controlled by the weather. Harold Hardrada was faster to reach the army of Harold Godwinson in September 1066, when the Battle of Stamford Bridge took place. Although Godwinson left the battle victorious, he suffered losses against the powerful Viking leader. With one adversary dead, Godwinson decided to face the Norman contender in battle. The Battle of Hastings took place in October 1066, marking the end of Harold Godwinson as king, as well as the Anglo-Saxon rule of England. William, once Duke of Normandy, was crowned on Christmas Day 1066 as the King of England – William the Conqueror (1066-1087).

6.6 The Earliest Literacy Project on the Isles Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum One of the most important projects for the preservation and dissemination of knowledge on the British Isles dates back to the 8th century and Venerable Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, the most comprehensive historical study of its time. Venerable Bede was a monastic scholar, situated mostly in Jarrow, interested in theology, history and science. At this time in history, monasteries were the only places where one could pursuit their scholarly interest. One being a male, of course, of a certain status or heredity. Bede even progressed to a deacon and served as teacher. Unsurprisingly, the Ecclesiastical History of the English 80

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings

People tells the story of the Anglo-Saxon presence on the British Isles from the perspective of the Church – its Christianisation project, the missionary campaigns and the conversion of kings and their people. This scholar set the standard at the time by using and citing contemporary sources – direct accounts of events, as well as religious and classical texts. In other words, he was not a mere monastic transcriber, but the prototype of the modern historian and author who had sound ideas about how to organize texts, when to offer religious, and when critical interpretations.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not a single body of literature, but a collection of historical writings dating back to the time of Alfred the Great, when it was officially started. It is believed that the original copy, in Old English – the language of the Anglo-Saxons, was finished around 891 and distributed to monasteries of importance. Although it is an invaluable source for historians in interpreting the circumstances of Anglo-Saxon England, many of the preserved texts have been found to lack accuracy or objectivity. The cause of this is found in the manner in which this historical and cultural project was updated upon the completion of the original book – in monasteries. Although some versions of the Chronicle contain entries from the 11th century, after the 10th century, with the rise of the Normans, the process of updating the manuscripts depended on the monasteries or entities in possession of the copies. The copying and updating work was done by monks and transcribers of various profiles, so naturally, their work varied, before and after the 10th century. This is why the Chronicle cannot be referred to in its entirety as a reliable historical source, but rather each of the entries are examined for possible bias. It is worth noting, at this point, that history – therefore writing about history and the narrativization of historical events, has not always been approached with academic and scientific rigour. Nowadays, peer review serves to keep authors in check and hold them accountable for their interpretations. Nevertheless, the nine remaining manuscripts are vital testaments of the time and circumstances that produced them – biased or not. The most complete is the Winchester Manuscript dating to the end of Alfred the Great’s reign, with entries chronologically presented to include events of significance, such as battles, deaths of kings, succession, and other events of interest to those who commanded the updating. Interestingly, this manuscript starts with the genealogy of King Alfred, and describes its contemporaneity in detail. Not all of the manuscripts are preserved in their entirety, nor do all contain interpretations of events that agree with references about them in other versions. Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People and the AngloSaxon Chronicle present two indispensable sources for the exploration of the medieval period on the British Isles. 81

Sanja Ignjatović

Meanwhile in the Balkans… While the Anglo-Saxons were dealing with the Viking invaders, unaware of the dangerous enemy lurking from Normandy, and documenting their history unaware of how permanent a mark they would leave in the region, the Balkans saw the emergence of the Serbian Principality, operating under the rule of the Byzantine Empire, with a degree of autonomy. In the same way as the Anglo-Saxon kings, and even the Danish (Viking) rulers on the British Isles, the Serbian leaders recognized the importance of ties with the Church – a connection that will remain both paramount to the formation of the early medieval Serbian identity, and problematic in terms of the attempts at secularization even in contemporaneity. The rulers’ support in founding monasteries spurred the development of culture, based on Byzantine models. Concurrently, the region saw increased efforts in the preservation and dissemination of knowledge, mostly concentrated in religious centres – monasteries. Relation of comparison, so far, appears more prominent than that of contrast with the circumstances on the British Isles. The great difference between the trajectory of development of the British Isles and the Balkans, aside the obvious difference in geopolitical factors, was caused by the immediate external circumstances. The Serbian culture and political interests were largely influenced by the Byzantine Empire, rather than Rome as the centre of Christianity, or other neighbouring European political powers. The two centres in the Serbian principalities at the time, Raška and Duklja, did not really have a choice in the matter of pledging allegiance to the west or accepting the protectorate of the eastern Byzantine Empire. By establishing diplomatic relations and alliances with the Empire, Serbian principalities anticipated immediate protection from the dangers coming from today’s Turkey and Middle East. Pinned between major interests of powerful European and Asian political and military forces, the Serbian Principality started shaping its own identity – the Slavic cultural profile, with its distinct language and (religious) literature.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. Describe the circumstances of the coming of the Anglo-Saxon tribes to the British Isles. How did these tribes’ coming change the demographic and cultural landscapes of the Isles? What was the socio-political organization of the AngloSaxons like? What is the heroic code? How does the heroic code as a set of unwritten rules about ties between the king and his warriors fit in the social organization of the Germanic tribes? What was the ultimate goal of these medieval warriors? Think about Beowulf or The Iliad. 82

6. Early Medieval Britain: Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms and the Vikings

Describe the geopolitical circumstances of the British Isles in the period between the 6th and 11th century. What was the political and social organization of the kingdoms of the British Isles like? What was happening in the Balkans in the early medieval period? What points of comparison and contrast can you identify? How did culture develop in the early medieval period? Think about points of similarity between the British Isles and the Balkans.

The Legends of King Arthur King Arthur – Arthur Pendragon appears as character in Matter of Britain – a compilation of medieval romances authored by medieval writers. These stories centre around his own and his Knights’ adventures, love affairs, quests for the Holy Grail, but also the origin story of the hero-king. Legendary Camelot, the court of King Arthur, gathers a fellowship of equals – Knights of the Round Table, chosen for their merit, honour and bravery, which remains the matrix of the innumerable variations of the tale. The controversy lies not in the stories about King Arthur – they are accounts full of improbable events, magic (Merlin, Lady of the Lake) and narrativization of the oldest story about good and evil. However, controversial is the question of whether he was indeed a historical figure. There are no conclusive historical records about King Arthur or his famous Knights. The figure of such a king first appeared in Celtic-Briton (Welsh) legends and folktales –Annwn, the great warrior, defends the lands of Britain and triumphs over evil. This story has persisted in literature and culture as a narrative positioned or received between fact and fiction, in different forms. First debates about the factuality of the existence of King Arthur date back to the 6th century when he was mentioned as the victor of two battles, but 9th and 10th century accounts disprove such claims. If Arthur truly existed, it must have been in the 6th century, but the image we have of him emerges in Welsh 12th century literature – Culhwch and Olwen romance. Why has it been so important to prove or disprove the actual existence of this legendary figure and character? What characters from Serbian medieval history correspond to the created character of King Arthur? Is there any symbolism in the story of Arthur’s ascension and end? What symbolism do medieval romances about King Arthur relate to us? How does it differ from the symbolism in King Arthur’s representation in popular culture? We often associate King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table with Christianity. Medieval romances develop stories about these knights around the theme of the quest for the Holy Grail. How does that relate to the narrative of the Crusades? 83

Sanja Ignjatović

Which royals named their sons Arthur? Do you think it is symbolic? Why? What circumstances inspire stories about these kinds of characters regardless of whether they are based on facts – actual historical figures, or pure fiction? What is the importance of believing in the existence of such larger-than-life individuals? Who are King Arthurs of our contemporaneity?

Suggested Reading For further research, first see Rory Naismith’s Early Medieval Britain, c. 5001000 (2021) and F.M. Stenton’s Anglo-Saxon England (2001). Also, see Early Medieval Britain: The Rebirth of Towns in the Post-Roman West (2018) by Pam Crabtree, Marc Morris’ Castles: Their History and Evolution in Medieval Britain (2017) and Christopher Daniell’s Atlas of Medieval Britain (2008). For more on King Alfred the Great, see Daniel Anlezark’s Alfred the Great (2019), and The Warrior Queen: The Life and Legend of AEthelflaed, Daughter of Alfred the Great (2018) by Joanna Arman. Also, Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England (2013) by Richard Abels. Also, see Lindy Brady’s The Origin Legends of Early Medieval Britain and Ireland (2022) and David Wyatt’s Slaves and Warriors in Medieval Britain and Ireland, 800-1200 (2009).

84

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain  “See – I have taken England with both my hands.” William of Normandy, upon disembarking the ship and falling into the sand of the Pevensey beach, Sussex 28 September 1066

William the Conqueror (1066-1087) was born in Normandy (1028) as the illegitimate son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy. Despite his status, upon the death of his father, William easily succeeded him as Duke of Normandy, which is probably the point at which the Duke’s ambition continued growing. In 1066, this skilful general, inspired by the alleged promise by Edward the Confessor of becoming the new king of England, the Duke of Normandy engaged in open conflict with Harold Godwinson, who had claimed the throne immediately upon the King’s death, supported by the predominantly Anglo-Saxon Witan. In October 1066, when the two armies met, Harold Godwinson’s army was already consumed by the September bloodshed with the Viking contender, and the Norman emerged victorious from the conflict. The Godwinson leader was dead. However, William’s victory was still incomplete. Even though the Anglo-Saxon contender was dead, William still faced strong opposition from the English nobility who supported Harold as king, though his reign was short. In other words, although William was crowned the King of England by the end of the year, the process of legitimizing his rule and establishing authority lasted a lot longer. The campaign involved kingdom-wide fortification and violent pacification of the dissenting English nobility who saw the event of the Battle of Hastings as an invasion, not a takeover as William had initially attempted to relate. The story of the Confessor’s desire to proclaim William as heir, since they were related, could have been an attempt at appeasing the Anglo-Saxon nobility into the Norman rule. However, with the failure of such a scenario, William the Conqueror employed other means to ensure the stability of his rule – the implementation of the Norman feudal and legal system, using force when necessary. This was the case in the north of the country, where the English nobility refused to accept his authority. King William resorted to destroying large areas owned by these nobles, to set an example. Concurrently, he appointed Norman aristocracy in positions of power, and introduced French as the official language of the court. After all, he was Norman, with close ties with the French king – a relationship that turned sour and resulted in open conflict that kept William away from England due to military campaigns. He fell ill in 1087 near Paris, during one such campaigns to reclaim territories, and died.

85

Sanja Ignjatović

The Doomsday Book However, the rule of William did not merely rely on his person as the king, but the rigid hierarchical system. One of the most notable legacies of his time is the socalled Doomsday Book, and its compilation, tells us about the nature of the Norman feudal system as effected on the British Isles in the late 11th century. The Doomsday Book is not a single document, but encompasses the records of lands and resources in England, from the Norman invasions onwards. The fact that the record was commissioned at the beginning of King William’s rule, and finished a year before his death, in 1086, testifies to how comprehensive the survey was, as well as to the size of the King’s dominion. Composed of at least two parts, it contained entries for all the necessary information for taxation – landowners, land, livestock, woodlands, mills, and all other resources that could be of benefit and use in the feudal system. It also recorded tenants. Such an endeavour involved a great number of individuals who conducted officially commissioned inquests, and the completion of the book provided the base for record keeping, administration and taxation. Something William the Conqueror’s grandchildren would rely upon heavily. Some more than others. Today, the Doomsday Book is used to trace ownership, and for historical and genealogical research since it has survived for 9 centuries.

Norman Feudalism Feudalism in England was a socio-political system based on the hierarchical distribution and exchange of land for loyalty and military service. This system places the king at the top of the pyramid of power as the owner of all land in the kingdom. How cool is that? Probably not very cool if you are the average commoner in medieval England, let alone a woman, or child. By virtue of his position, the king had the discretion to distribute land at will, which means that everyone wanted to be in the king’s good graces. It was not as simple as that, but bear with me. Upon taking the crown, William the Conqueror disbanded the English nobility by taking their land by force or by turning them into allies by giving them the rights to land – manors. In turn, these vassals, or barons, acquired position of power over those who did not own land – the common people (serfs) who produced food for everyone’s existence. The vassals of the king could give parts of their land to their own vassals – lesser lords, and so on. However, the generosity of the king and the nobles had to be paid in military service during war campaigns or defensive actions. This system, as you can notice, was highly centralized because the king held power over the nobles by granting them land, and the principle was replicated to the last serf in terms of the lords under the king. The serfs – located at the bottom of the feudal pyramid, paid rents and fees to the lord of the manor, where they worked and lived. This highly exploitative system began to decline with the rise of towns and major migrations from rural into urban areas. 86

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

Nike: Just Do It! The Church did not mind replicating the hierarchy established by the feudal system and playing according to the rules introduced by the Norman ruler. In fact, ecclesiastical courts were formed to resolve issues involving the Church property and land rights, as well as other matters pertaining to Church laws and issues either involving, or concerning clergy members. By the time of Henry II, the ecclesiastical courts had a developed system of authorities. In fact, the power of the Church in England grew so strong, that they exerted authority even in matters involving laity, according to their own rules and practices, based on religious principles. The punishments ranged from penalties and fines, to forms of spiritual discipline and excommunication. Think about the Inquisition. Although the secular courts had interest to keep the Church in their good books, one of the major issues behind the idea of the separation of the court and the Church were the points of juridical overlap. In other words, the Church was becoming too strong – taking authority over secular matters and undermining the institution of the King. What a pickle! The king needed the support of the Church to have tangible power over people, yet the Church weakened the power of the king by not recognizing their authority as arbiter of justice.

7.1 The Legendary and Not so Legendary Anjou (1154-1216) William the Conqueror’s death was followed by two clear successions, yet the entire story of his children and grandchildren’s conflict will take about a century to settle. Married to Matilda, the Norman king of England produced eight or nine children, four of which were eligible for the throne as males. Robert, the eldest, was the ruler of Normandy – the territory he pawned to his younger sibling – William II, and eventually lost. Robert’s life ended under mysterious circumstances, and he left one son. Richard, William’s second child, was killed in a hunting accident, much like William II, who ruled over England briefly (1087-1100). Coincidence? If only we could have been a fly on Henry I’s wall! What luck! Although William II met an untimely and unfortunate death, he was described as cunning and shrewd – a proper ruler of a vast kingdom.

Band of Brothers and Their Hunting Accidents Finally, Henry I, Beauclerc (1100-1135), William’s youngest son, ascended to the throne of England as the next in line after William II. His rule was mostly peaceful and successful in terms of maintaining the unity of the kingdom, and even adjoining Normandy – the territory his father had bequeathed to Robert. Nevertheless, Henry I did not leave male heirs, and his death in 1135 incited a civil war. 87

Sanja Ignjatović

With the male heirs potentially scheming against each other, William II and Henry I against Robert, Henry I against William II, and Richard magically being out of the game, the Conqueror’s daughters must have had extensive experience of life in court. William the Conqueror’s daughters, Adeliza, Cecilia, Matilda, Constance and Adela (mother of Stephen, Count of Blois), were the female children for whom the records of paternity are clear. The eldest two would go on to live monastic lives as a nun and abbess. However, Adela’s son would see Henry I’s death as the ideal opportunity to come back from Normandy and snatch the throne, even against the Norman nobility’s wishes. Interestingly, William I’s daughter, Adela, could not have the throne although she was next after Henry I – in the succession of William the Conqueror’s legitimate children. Henry I’s daughter, Matilda, was not even considered for succession, but she had a son.

7.3 The Problem of Heredity, Even If You Are a Man Hereditary rule refers to the legal principle that favours the male heir in receiving rights to govern inheritance, titles, property and other privileges in familial terms. In terms of the commoners, hereditary rule established the practice and procedure for the male heirs receiving all the material possessions, as well as rights and responsibility within the family. However, hereditary legal practices were also modified by male primogeniture that granted privilege to the eldest male heir. This means that the eldest male heir inherits the totality of titles and possessions, whereby other siblings, be they male or female, are excluded from the inheritance. It is quite clear why the matter of succession was the trigger for civil wars and bloodshed among siblings because the very principle behind male primogeniture placed siblings on unequal grounds. Inheriting the totality of the family’s wealth and rights also implied stripping all other siblings of any part in it. Furthermore, other male siblings would have to remain in a position of subjugation in order to share resources. After all, imagine a typical family in medieval England – producing for a living as a unit, only for the eldest to take possession of it all upon the father’s, or other patriarch’s death. Well, welcome to women’s club, boys. The male primogeniture principle perpetuated an unfair system of dependency – of females to males, and males to the eldest male. Moreover, bear in mind that this principle also translated into other matters – such as marital property and assets. Women had very little control over their own property even when male primogeniture stopped being observed as the principle of the highest order. Why do you think the fight for women’s rights focused not only on the right to vote, but also financial independence? In terms of royal succession, women were not eligible by law to be in the line for the throne. It took a millennium after the Norman Conquest, for the lawmakers to evaluate the discriminatory primogeniture principle, although male primogeniture was rendered obsolete in the 16th century, with the ascension of Elizabeth I to the 88

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

English throne. The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 introduced gender-neutral succession to the British monarchy. This means that Queen Elizabeth II must have considered the possibility of Prince William’s daughter becoming a monarch one day, or someone else’s down the line.

Boys Will Be Boys Back to the aftermath of Henry I’s death, as no male heir could claim the throne, Matilda – his daughter, attempted to challenge the male primogeniture principle and take the throne for herself. Unfortunately for her, it would take another four centuries for such a thing to become less outrageous. On the other hand, Adele’s son, Stephen – raised on Henry I’s court, appeared to have the right to claim the throne as the grandson of William the Conqueror, which he swiftly did, with little initial resistance from the nobility in England. As she found no legal grounds to persist with the claim, Matilda transferred the ambition onto her son – another Henry. The war between the two, however, would create chaos in the kingdom. King Stephen, Count of Blois (1135-1154), ruled through the period of instability and civil war caused by his cousin’s attempts to take over England. Like his grandfather, William I, Stephen organized his coronation on Christmas Day and was generally accepted by the Norman aristocracy as King, even though Henry, son of Matilda, had great support from France and part of Norman nobility. Although the period of his reign is known as Anarchy, King Stephen avoided acquiring any gruesome nicknames. In fact, his desire to establish peace and end the bloodshed and warfare caused by the problematic succession, testify to the opposite sensibility of this ruler. Stephen’s two sons, Eustace and William, did not get their chance on the throne. The former died before Stephen, and William fled to Normandy following a plot against him. In any case, the Treaty of Wallingford, signed by Stephen in 1153, clearly designated Matilda’s son as the rightful successor. The treaty (almost) allowed King Stephen to peacefully end his reign and put a stop to the conflict. Almost, because although the conflicts between the two cousins officially ceased, unofficially they were very active. Stephen’s attacks on Henry’s allies received answers from Henry, and the vicious circle resulted in Stephen losing Oxford and Stamford to Henry. Up until King Stephen and Henry met at Winchester in November 1153 to ratify the Treaty, that is. Upon solemn announcement that Henry would be the successor, that his son William would officially respect this decision and renounce any claim, and that Henry would demobilize and dismantle the mercenary armies, the conflicts stopped, and Henry waited.

89

Sanja Ignjatović

7.4 Anarchy, Misrule and Pacification Soon enough, in 1154, Henry II (1154-1189) got his opportunity to be crowned, unopposed by the nobility or any other claimants to the throne. To digress, though… King Stephen could not manage his kingdom in the same manner Henry I did. In fact, his failure to calculate the risks brought on by conflicts with Matilda and her son, future King Henry II, not only greatly undermined his authority, but also emptied the treasury. His losses in years prior to his death affected the nobility in terms of losses of lives and resources, to the extent of their revolt against the King. This situation found the newly crowned Henry II – unruly nobility that refuses to pledge allegiance, but wants to retain the privileges guaranteed by the feudal system. In short, the new King’s reaction to this anarchy in the order of nobility remained known in history as the so-called pacification of nobility. Henry II pulled their castles down, forced the nobility into a more subordinate position as manor house owners (a demotion of sorts), and made them pay duty to their king in the form of shield-money – something that John the Softsword would later exploit and misuse. Shield-money guaranteed that the king would get support from his barons, if not in the number of people they would send to his defensive or offensive campaigns, then by filling the state-purse with gold necessary for mercenary armies. After all, Henry II spent years paying mercenary armies against the former king, and to him, loyalty was secondary to professional soldiers.

When You Marry Her for Her Norman Lands Like many rulers before him, excluding Stephen who perhaps had to think about succession in other ways, Henry II married the famous Eleanor of Aquitaine and ensured that his line would not end. How ironic. It was a marriage initiated for political and economic reasons. Eleanor, the Duchess of Aquitaine was a wealthy heiress, previously the Queen of France due to marriage to King Louis VII. Her dowry included valuable territories in France, which Henry II would exploit and his line eventually lose. She also had to marry because how else could she keep or protect the lands!

Momma’s Boys (Papa, ou t’es?) The royal couple had eight children, some of whom remain famous and infamous in history. The five sons with Eleanor and three daughters were legitimate, but Henry II also kept mistresses, and had illegitimate children who all had vested interest in his generosity or death. The story of the bitter disputes between Henry II and his children is controversial and many interpretations are offered to explain 90

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

why such a successful ruler could not manage to pacify his own family. In truth, the circumstances of legitimacy and illegitimacy proved less complicated than the matter of succession. Henry II might have simply lived long enough to create too many enemies. Certain details of the relationship between Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine remain unclear. However, it is acknowledged that for the first part of their marriage, until 1174 and the Great Revolt against him, the relationship was one of respectful cooperation, and the Queen had a level of autonomy and independence from Henry II. Even though Henry relied on his mother, Mathilda, as well as his wife to rule England while he was away, this sort of trust was not extended to his sons. Historians speculate that the point of contention within the family could have been Henry’s desire to limit Eleanor’s rule of Aquitaine in later years, and keep his sons dependent and under his control. Just because he was paranoid about them forcefully taking the throne, does not mean he was wrong. The argument over her Duchy probably turned Eleanor against her husband. However, it additionally complicated the balance of power in their relationship with the children since they too had very pragmatic minds. The five sons, William (died as a child), Henry, Richard, Geoffrey and John sporadically allied against their father’s policy of not sharing any real power. The eldest, Henry, was Henry II’s co-regent, but without any executive authority. King Henry neglected Geoffrey in favour of John, who occasionally turned against his own brothers, and Richard rebelled against his father spurred by careless governing of Aquitaine. Henry II invested great energy in his expansionist ambition, and the access to the Duchy of Aquitaine created grounds for major conflicts within the marriage, family and with England’s immediate neighbour – France. Eleanor of Aquitaine kept the sons of Henry II not only in constant conflict against their father, but also nurtured animosity between them, much like their father. Favouritism caused Richard to enter conflict with privileged John. Henry II not being the most agreeable of personalities, made it easy for his sons to plot against him and take their shots for the throne sooner rather than later. Imagine the gold spent on their intrigue and warfare…

7.5 The Becket Controversy  The year 1170 marks the point in Henry II’s reign, when his authoritative ways might have gone a bit too far. By this time, the relationships with his sons and wife were visibly problematic and rapidly deteriorating. Remember, within a few years, at least two of his sons would openly turn against their father in the Great Revolt, supported by their mother – her resources and French connections. His sons’ and wife’s main issue was his unwillingness to relinquish total power 91

Sanja Ignjatović

over all dominions and assets, and allow them a degree of autonomy. This issue appears as the common theme of many of Henry’s relationships, including that with his former close friend and chancellor, Thomas Becket.

‘Cause You Gotta Have Faith… To digress, the Anglo-Saxon kings established close relationships with the Church and introduced the brilliant practice of coronation as symbolic of the symbiosis of the secular court – the King’s power, and the Church – emissaries of the Christian god. In the course of several centuries, this relationship adapted to the power dynamics of the institution of kingship, as well as the growing power of the Church. In the 12th century, the Church exerted great influence over the secular court considering its power to mobilize people, affect the course of sociopolitical circumstances and propose its own narratives on the commoners – laity. In other words, the institution and authority of the king greatly depended on the support of the Church. Conversely, the Church’s activities relied on the interdependence of the two courts. However, the problem that eventually led to the scandal with Thomas Becket reflected the fact that the Church’s influence had surpassed that of the King. Do not forget, Becket used to be Henry II’s chancellor and friend.

Old Friend – New Archbishop, New Problems In 1162, Thomas Becket was appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury by Henry II – a major function in the hierarchy of the Church, and one usually held by individuals of influence who had the support of the ruler. Whether Henry II believed that the appointment of his friend would resolve the issue of the Church’s interference with the secular courts of justice, or whether no such illusion was harboured in the mind of the already frustrated ruler, the outcome would turn detrimental for both parties involved. Becket’s new function created a noticeable rift in the friendship and instead of working towards mediation, the Archbishop of Canterbury demonstrated loyalty and commitment to the interests of the Church, curtailing Henry’s authority in matters involving the clergy and Church overall. On the one hand, Henry II’s penchant for resolving problems by means of force and persistent restriction and control, like the pacification of nobility or familial disputes, could not have come as a surprise to the former friend. On the other hand, Thomas Becket’s refusal to accept the jurisdiction of Henry II’s courts in circumstances where the members of the clergy were accused of crimes, represented an unacceptable show of power on the part of the Archbishop. Becket’s position was to defend the rights of the Church and its members – the clergy, while Henry II’s was to limit the power of the Church 92

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

by passing laws that limit their judicial power – clergy would be tried in royal courts for transgressing the laws of the kingdom. The Church and the clergy, especially the higher orders, zealously supported Becket in refusing to endorse Henry II’s legislative restrictions. After all, their activities relied heavily on the independence from the secular courts. Becket was forced to flee Canterbury and look for support from even higher orders – the Pope. He was supposedly granted sponsorship and resources to go back to England, not only by the Church, but also by Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II’s sons. The enemy of my enemy… sort of thing. Upon his return to England, negotiations took place that were supposed to lead to reconciliation between the Archbishop and the King, however, the stay in England was cut very short as Thomas Becket was assassinated in the Canterbury Cathedral by the king’s knights.

Careless Whisper… He Would Never Dance Again Supposedly, Henry II had publicly expressed his frustration with Becket using a specific phase that related a message to the knights who would go on to murder the Archbishop. Who will rid me of this turbulent priest!? Admittedly, we cannot know whether he indeed uttered these words, and nor whether it was a question uttered in exasperation or a command given in anger. Regardless, after Becket’s death, Henry II suffered a major backlash from the public, and especially from the Church, whereas the late Archbishop was canonized in 1173 – the year of the Great Revolt against Henry II. This is how Canterbury became a holy place and pilgrimage destination. Moreover, the death of Thomas Becket and the growing dissatisfaction with the King only exacerbated the familial disputes and rendered the conflicts quite public in the next couple of years. Although Henry II refused to admit to ordering the murder of his former friend, he publicly repented for his sins in 1174 by accepting the punishment of flogging by the bishops and monks, gifting them and paying homage to Becket. Imagine… Damages for the pain inflicted on the Church? Whether indeed the murder of Becket encouraged Henry II’s sons to revolt against their father, or they merely found the moment the perfect opportunity, makes little difference. Equally, the fact that Henry II officially repented in 1174, at the time of the revolt against him – three years or so after the actual murder, suggests how few allies the King had at the time, as well as how valuable the support of the Pope was.

7.6 The Grass Is Always Greener – In the Holy Land By 1189, when Henry II was at his end, his eldest sons – Henry the Young and Geoffrey were already dead. Richard I, Lionheart (1189-1199), was next in line to the throne, even though John, the youngest son, remained the father’s 93

Sanja Ignjatović

favourite. Because of his involvement in the Crusades, Richard I earned the nickname Lionheart. Immediately upon taking the throne, Richard I announced his plans and collected a significant amount of money for his campaign in the Holy War. The expense of this endeavour would prove to be detrimental to the people, as well as only worsen the situation upon the next succession. The other nickname was probably equally as true of his rule. Spending the entire decade of his rule abroad, the Absentee King left the kingdom in the hands of advisors, and the circumstances without much interference or influence. Eleanor of Aquitaine interfered to an extent, which ultimately led to Richard I’s death in captivity. It is not what you think. Or maybe it is, but bear with this. The status quo caused by his absence was probably the unplanned outcome of his military campaigning – the Crusades and the tumultuous trip back home. However, being an exceptional knight – educated at the famous court of his mother in Aquitaine, the people might have not seen the real person, but they surely developed a vivid image of the ideal knight and king – inspiration for legends throughout centuries, and even in contemporaneity in relation to representations in popular culture. However, if you think about the famous cinematic interpretations of the Robin Hood story, the critical rationale about the King’s absence is rather problematic. While this knight is away – chasing after the Holy Grail, or something, the bad sheriff terrorizes his people. Good King, indeed.

Janus, Judas or John? The crux of the matter was Richard I’s decision to appoint as the heir someone other than John. Imagine – throughout their lives, they fought to get some of their father’s power, and now Richard would leave it all in the hands of someone who is not John. The only remaining brother of the lot of five. Before leaving to join the Third Crusade, Richard I named Arthur, the son of Geoffrey, the heir-apparent. While the King was away, the kingdom was in the hands of many counsellors and advisors, and when their influence started to decrease significantly, John found it momentous to enter conflict with his absent brother. To form an alliance with France, John even disposed of his first wife and entered a politically beneficial marriage. A nose for interest, just like Daddy. Mind you, Richard I had issues with Philip of France, which was the reason why John hurried to form a closer business relationship with his brother’s enemy. John, as strategist, turned out to be quite inept. He was forced to leave England and his chances to snatch the throne from his brother were very low. However, it does appear that he had success in manipulating his living parent. His mother pleaded with Richard to allow John back to England. Sneaky. For a short moment, upon the release from captivity, Richard faced the forces of his brother, but emerged victorious from the conflict, which remained opened and its roots clear – Richard I favoured their nephew as the successor, which did not sit well with John. When Richard I died from a 94

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

wound in 1199, John found little opposition in England and was soon crowned King of England. However, this was only because the opposition was in France. According to the Angevine law, John was not the rightful heir to the throne. In support of Arthur, King John’s lands in the territory of today’s France were under attacks. The Anjou strife during Henry II revealed another one of its ugly faces upon Richard I’s death. The kingdom received its new crown – John Lackland (11991216), who like his brother received not one, but two nicknames, and lived to see and provoke some of the most transformative moments in history in socio-political terms. John Softsword, was suspected to have killed Arthur, his nephew. Interestingly, before his death, suffering from dysentery, he would attempt to ensure the ascension of Henry III instead of someone who potentially had more claim to the throne – the descendants of Geoffrey. The practices established by his father and brother, in the form of efficient administration helped John little since his military ambitions clashed with his ability to lead. Moreover, the practice introduced by Henry II as the measure to pacify the nobility – shield-money, encouraged John to increase taxes to afford mercenary armies. King John gravely abused the treasury to support his military campaigns to recover the lost lands, but with little success. John Lackland lost the Duchy of Normandy and most of his Angevine lands. However, he managed to keep the dowry of his mother. The Duchy of Aquitaine caused the most problems between Henry II and his family, the brothers and later with the French as well.

7.6 The Magna Carta Libertatum The aura of failure and John’s overall inability to hold authority over the already overtaxed and oppressed barons, led to their first organized rebellion. As things usually go, the event that followed the King’s failure to control his lands and vassals, proved to be beneficial to the people in the long run. To limit the power of the King, the barons forced the signing of one of the most significant documents in British history – the Magna Carta Libertatum, or the Great Charter. Defeated on many fronts, John signed the Great Charter in 1215, not really understanding the long-term implications for the institution of the King. Perhaps this was because he was illiterate, or perhaps just obstinate. Certainly, King John never intended to endorse the document, which led to the First Barons’ War. The peace-making royal charter, drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, observed the interests of the Church and the barons, primarily. Shocker! Limiting feudal tax of the barons to the King, the Great Charter also restricted the King’s authority to imprison the barons or keep them in captivity indefinitely. It stipulated the conditions of attaining justice in royal courts, and the Church pushed the agenda started under Henry II – equalization of the status 95

Sanja Ignjatović

of the ecclesiastical courts to the royal courts. Some of the most important stipulations referred to liberty – barons as free men, and some of the articles also reflected on the rights of serfs. Interestingly, the articles of the Great Charter also included the role of the barons in monitoring the activities of the King, which was quite progressive for the time. Even though the document would not be of use to the common people for a long time, it problematized the hierarchical nature of the feudal system and the institution of kingship in it. John’s successors – the Plantagenet line in England, will deal with this conflict with varying success. Whereas even Henry II managed to keep the divine aura of kingship – that is, the relationship with the Church after the Becket scandal, and Richard I committed to campaigning in the Crusades, John succeeded in getting excommunicated by the Church for the period of 6 years. During this time, all religious services were discontinued. However, even if we disregard the fact that national and personal identity at the time was strongly built on religious denomination and the Church had powerful influence on the people, his poor relationship with the Church and Pope had detrimental effect in the political sense. The dissatisfaction with King John’s reign was such that it gradually paved the way for the disintegration of feudalism and the restructuring of the economy.

7.7 When Going to University Was Pretty Cool – For the First Time The two oldest universities in the world, Oxford and Cambridge, were founded during John’s reign, and these became university towns by 1250. Oxford University was founded in 1167 and Cambridge in 1209, and students were taught in matters such as law and the humanities. John’s son and successor, Henry III, issued the royal charter for the foundation of the University of Northampton in 1261. However, the trajectory of the development of these universities was quite unpredictable. Northampton had its charter rescinded at some point by Henry III himself, on the advice of Simon de Montfort, since it became too competitive with Oxford, teaching matters pertaining to humanities. In fact, the development of universities testifies to an emancipatory struggle that was happening concurrently with the rise and expansion of towns. Universities attracted not only students, scholars and tutors, but also communities offering a wide range of services and developing new trades and professions. Instead of remaining isolated in the confines of manors, migrations of people in search of better living conditions – spurred by poverty and crises, gathered to organize their lives in urban areas that allowed a new kind of freedom. Remember (male) primogeniture? The old way of life was at its last legs. The enforcement of male primogeniture under Henry II led to unequal division of wealth and resources and left many men, as well as women, destitute and in search of opportunities. 96

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

Unable to control these migrations into urban areas in ways other than regulating the activities of towns through tax, the so-called Charters of Freedom were issued to new settlements. Charters of Freedom were documents that regulated the autonomy and self-management of the town-community, and they were obtained with the assent of the reigning monarch, for a price. The towns offered a completely different lifestyle that demanded the development of new skills and trades, as well as social mobility – in contrast to feudalism.

7.8 The Crusades Although the Crusades represent a complex endeavour that changed form over the course of two or so centuries, they were mostly inspired by the so-called Great Schism that happened in 1054 – the escalation of conflict and separation within the Christian Church into the Roman Catholic Church and the Christian Orthodox Church. The separation of the Christian Church is emblematic of the political and economic situation in Europe in the 11th century with Western Europe becoming a powerful force and the Byzantine Empire its silent counterweight. However, it was a political entity whose internal cracks were starting to show especially under the attacks of the Ottomans. The third factor was the Islamic Empire in the Middle East and parts of Africa who attracted the attention of the Europeans for its expansionist potential, but also for its wealth. Whereas the Byzantine Empire – the eastern part of the former Roman Empire, largely accepted the authority of the Christian Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic centre in Rome first initiated campaigns against the Islamic Empire in the Middle East as a means of aid to the Byzantine Empire and Emperor Alexius. Although not yet formulated as the Crusades, Pope Urban’s pleas in 1095 to the Council of Clermont in France, to regain control over the now-Muslim territory – the Holy Land, started the narrative of the Holy War. Therefore, the Crusades officially began in 1095 and ended in 1365, with varying accounts on the matter of success. Generating narratives about religious duty in terms of defending Christian faith from the Muslim influence in the Middle East, missionary work and Christianisation of the heathens, as well as persecution of heretics, the Crusades attracted a great number of military leaders who participated in the total of eight or nine holy wars, depending on who you ask. Moreover, it also attracted ordinary people and members of the clergy – all wearing the sign of the Cross in their pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Kings of England, such as Richard I – Lionheart (the Third Crusade) and Edward I – Longshanks (1217 – the Eighth or Ninth Crusade), who most likely also saw these military campaigns as a means of acquiring wealth for their kingdom. If observed without critical cynicism and the obvious economic and political benefits the Church extracted from the Crusades, the 11th and 12th centuries’ 97

Sanja Ignjatović

campaigns focused on the liberation of the holy places and the suppression of the Islamic Empire. However, the very end of the Crusades – the 13th century, opened doors for the extremism and deplorable practices. The established narrative of the Holy War created the climate for the persecution of heretics and nonbelievers, as well as other dissenting voices, in Europe. The damaging legacy of this narrative can be observed in the span of the millennium following the Great Schism.

Meanwhile in the Balkans… A dynastic shift happens in the medieval Balkans in the second half of the 11th century, much like on the British Isles. However, this change finds the smaller kingdoms on the territory of the Balkans disunited and under the weighty control of the Byzantine Empire. Stefan Nemanja ruled from 1166 when he deposed his brother, until 1196 when he retired to a monastery (Saint Simeon). The Great Prince showed exceptional leadership in founding the Serbian medieval state. Wrapped in a complex relationship of conflict and cooperation with Byzantium, the Serbian medieval state sought to strike a balance between maintaining a level of independence, as well as expand by uniting neighbouring territories. The Nemanjić line, with Stefan Nemanja at its head, established itself as the force that would unite the kingdoms encompassing the territories of today’s Serbia and Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, and even the eastern part of Bulgaria by 1184. Seeking more independence from the Byzantine Empire, Stefan Nemanja entered alliances against Byzantium when necessary, but also employed diplomacy to prevent losses. He did not keep all his eggs in one basket, nor did he like omelette every day. Reliant on the support from the Church and invested in strengthening its influence, Stefan Nemanja served as the protector of faith, even driving heretic sects out of the territories. In return, the Church aided the state-building process by encouraging and developing vernacular literature and a distinct artistic style that would serve as the base for Serbian cultural identity in the centuries to come. The consolidating influence of the Church, and its close ties with rulers proved indispensable for the preservation of the Serbian culture and the formation of identity in the centuries under the Ottoman rule. The rule of Stefan Nemanja provided the foundations for the creation of a more independent medieval kingdom in the 12th century. The administrative reforms and territorial integrity established under him ushered the period of consolidation of power as centralized, with all authority vested in the institution of the grand prince or king. Initially the Grand Prince of the Serbian Principality, Stefan Nemanja led expansionary military campaigns into neighbouring territories, which his son, Stefan the First-Crowned continued. Stefan Nemanja’s son, Sava, became the first reformer of the Church, securing the autonomy of the Serbian Orthodox 98

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

Church. He governed it as the first Archbishop and invested in the Church’s role to develop religious, cultural and, most importantly, educational institutions. Both the Archbishop Sava and his father funded the construction of monasteries as religious and cultural centres. Some of these are Studenica and Žiča, but Stefan Nemanja also supported the reconstruction of Hilandar, where he eventually died. Canonized, they are celebrated even today. Stefan Nemanjić, initially a Grand Prince (1196-1217), ended his rule as the First-Crowned – the first King of Serbia (1217-1228). He was the first ruler to introduce a legal system, with the so-called Stefan’s Code based on the Roman tradition. However, upon his death, rivalry between brothers, internal divisions and conflicts due to matters of succession weakened the kingdom. Sounds familiar? Maybe it was a generational thing.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. How did the Norman invasion change the course of history for the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the British Isles? Were there any differences in the newly introduced Norman organization and the Anglo-Saxon one? How did the Conquest influence the development of language? What ties did the Kingdom of England have with the French throne after the Norman Conquest? Why do you think the Angevin lands were so important to the kings of England – descendants of William the Conqueror? What did it matter to them what was happening in France? Who were the most significant Norman rulers – the Anjou? Why? Are there any points of comparison or contrast between the Serbian rulers in the 11th and 12th century to those of England? Who would you compare Stefan Nemanja to? How do you see the role of the Church in the two regions?

The Legend of Robin Hood Robin Hood is yet another legendary character of English oral and written literature, and contemporary popular culture – a thief with a heart of gold, who stole from the rich to give back to the poor. Read a few ballads about Robin Hood, though… You might be surprised how popular culture romanticized this, after all, criminal. Just like the one about King Arthur, the legend of Robin Hood invites the question of whether the stories are based on a historical figure – an individual who served as inspiration, or whether the idea of a noble-criminal 99

Sanja Ignjatović

who comes to the rescue of an oppressed people is merely fictional. Think about the contemporary depictions of Robin Hood – usually set in 12th or 13th century England, with starkly contrasted Sheriff who terrorizes the people, and Robin Hood as the saviour. When stories about Robin Hood merge the period of the rule of the Anjou – Richard the Lionheart and John Softsword, the symbolism doubles. Not only is Robin Hood the anti-hero, saving his people, but Richard Lionheart also returns to stabilize the country, as if he were King Arthur, or something. The Crusades… But these are contemporary interpretations. The first stories about Robin Hood appeared in the 14th century, potentially based on events that might have transpired in the 13th century. Dispossession and expropriation of a yeoman under that name who became a fugitive at the beginning, and another record in the second half of the 13th century of a William, whose last name and occupation might have inspired the subsequent stories. The latter was an outlaw. Moreover, records from the reign of King Henry III also mark a Robin Hood, as imprisoned and awaiting trial, which could have been the source considering the time in which the story became popular in medieval England. Some historians suggest that the name itself was used as a label for outlaws and criminals for 5 centuries, from the 10th to 15th century. The name suggests a masked robber, so it could be that a great number of references stems from that. Whatever the actual case, the underlying mechanism of legends such as that of Robin Hood is to contrast the oppressor to the outlaw-protagonist. Initially, Robin Hood’s cause was rather nationalist, and defined against the Norman conquest – he sided with the Anglo-Saxon nobility. Remember the Peasants’ Revolt against Richard II? Imagine the tax collectors going door to door, forcing people to give over their last cent – would not the legend of Robin Hood be revived in such circumstances? Remember the Protestant Reformation and the Dissolution of Monasteries? Well, we will learn about that soon enough. If the people perceived the Roman Catholic Church and their clergy as the enemy, would that not justify their dispossession? At some point, Robin Hood even becomes a bit of a communist – the rich are the cause of all problems, regardless of the manner in which they obtained wealth. In any case, each period appears to have invited its own reinterpretation of the legend in their oral and written literature, and culture. Who were the members of the legendary band of Robin Hood? What is the symbolism of their outlaw status, regardless of the changing context? Why does Robin Hood, with his band, reside in the forests outside of settlements and towns? Whose property was this little band squatting? What does Robin Hood stand for in essence? What messages do contemporary interpretations of the legend of Robin Hood relate? Can you relate the character of Robin Hood to any Serbian characters? 100

7. The Norman Conquest of Britain

Suggested Reading For further research see Hugh Thomas’ The Norman Conquest: England after William the Conqueror (2008), Arthur Wright’s English Collusion and the Norman Conquest (2020), and Silk and the Sword: The Women of the Norman Conquest (2018) by Sharon Bennett Connolly. Also see 1016 & 1066: Why the Vikings Caused the Norman Conquest (2016) by Martyn Whittock and Hannah Whittock, and Matthew Bennett’s Campaigns of the Norman Conquest (2013).

101

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents 8.1 The Plantagenet Kings The rule of the Plantagenet line begins with Henry II, even though this king and his two successors – Richard and John, are often referred to as the Anjou due to their Angevine lands and relations. The period marked by the rule of the Plantagenet line, from the 13th to the very end of the 14th century, is described as one of the bloodiest in English history, and it may well be the source of inspiration for the popular novels and TV series Game of Thrones. In fact, these men, and sometimes women, did all things imaginable and unimaginable that we today like to think of as fiction. Henry III died of illness, and although there was no violence, his heart was taken out to join his family in France – apparently a perfectly normal practice in medieval times Europe-wide. Edward I died of dysentery, which seems quite a nice death in contrast to Edward II’s alleged death by means of hot-iron poker. Edward III succumbed to abscesses and died eventually of a stroke. Richard II, the child king, probably starved to death in captivity, although historical gossip tells the story of a possible strangulation. A peachy bunch.

A Cautionary Tale about Faith and Friendship Henry III (1216-1272) succeeded his father, John Lackland, at the time when the country was in a financial crisis caused by the late king’s unsuccessful attempts to retrieve the Duchy of Normandy and other Angevine lands (still Duke of Aquitaine). Moreover, this king was crowned twice – first in 1216, in a modest ceremony due to the unstable political situation at the time of his father’s death, and then in 1220, at Westminster Abbey – his legacy. Henry III had no success in waging wars, and perhaps he should have kept to renovation projects. He continued the legacy of Edward the Confessor, who he celebrated as a patron saint, and reconstructed Westminster Abbey, which cost a senseless amount of money. It was his religious sentiments that led him to form a friendship with a religious zealot Simon de Montfort, to his own detriment. Simon de Montfort was a man whose propensity for vertical ascension was unabashed. Soon upon befriending King Henry III, Montfort found ways to support his personal interests at the expense of the King, or rather – using his aid and resources. Henry III allowed him to marry his sister thus granting him the status, and soon turned him into a baron. Social mobility was contingent upon knowing the right people, and 103

Sanja Ignjatović

Montfort was quite successful at gaining the trust and affections of the King. A former crusader and religious zealot, Montfort, on the one had sided with the Church, but also had an insatiable appetite for money, which caused the initial clashes with the King. Whatever leverage Montfort felt he had over Henry III, the friendship started to dissolve when the King refused to abide by Montfort’s wishes. Making him a baron, Henry III provided this man the social and political power to influence others, and soon Montfort started undermining the King’s authority, as well as organizing rebels against him. The First Barons’ War, during the reign of Henry III’s father, began due to the general dissatisfaction of the barons with taxation and the scope of royal authority, and ended somewhat peacefully with the signing of the Great Charter (Magna Carta). The Second Barons’ War (1264-1267), led by Simon de Montfort against Henry III and the royalists, was the direct result of the King’s recklessness and inefficiency. Not only did Henry III invest absurd amounts of resources into his religious interests, but he also had irrational ideas about starting military campaigns that would cost his barons and people dearly. Much like his father, John the Softsword, Henry III’s foolishness in embarking on a military campaign that could amount only to defeat, was the very reason for the breakout of the Second Barons’ War – the ludicrous plan to attack Sicily (today’s Italy). The barons, already displeased with the blatant ignoring of the deal that ended the First Barons’ War, sought ways to keep the King in check. Henry III’s inability to govern the kingdom or lead army, enabled Simon de Montfort and the rebel forces to defeat him in the Battle of Lewes in Sussex in 1264, capturing him and his heir, Edward I. The captivity was brief, but instructive. We could say that Henry III learned a lesson, but that would be far from the truth. In 1215, John signed the Great Charter, and similarly, Henry III was offered the Provisions of Oxford – the document that was made specifically to contain and restrict his power. In the vein of his father, Henry III would never recognize it as valid, but even ask for arbitration by the king of France. Called upon to mediate in the conflict between Montfort’s rebels and royalists, the French monarch unsurprisingly annulled the document since it could have created a precedent in other countries as well. Why would a King limit his own authority? The failure of the mediation might have inspired a special sort of spite in the rebels against Henry III. Perhaps King Henry III had more luck on his side than anything else, because the reasons for his liberation did not rely on his sword, nor his intelligence. In fact, when Simon de Montfort’s forces imprisoned the King and his successor, the leader of the rebellion also took upon himself the burden of the office, representing it as an attempt to govern in the place of the King. On the one hand, the control of the King was one of the articles the barons had presented to John. On the other hand, no one had died and made Simon de Montfort new king. With the taste of 104

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

kingly power, Simon de Montfort started making mistakes and very soon he was observed as a tyrant and oppressor rather than liberator, as it initially seemed. For some reason, history will remind us of Montfort when Oliver Cromwell takes office proclaiming himself the Protector of the Republic. Also, the British just love their kings. As the nobility – the barons, realized that Montfort would only pursue personal interest, their loyalty and allegiances started to shift towards Edward I. Somehow, Henry III’s son cunningly managed to escape and just at the right time – to convince the rebelling barons who were wondering whether imprisoning their king was the right thing to do, that their leader would be a worse choice than the inept King. It is interesting that the King and Edward I were kept as royals, and the latter was allowed to ride and his guards treated him well. This is why and how he managed to escape. Such mistakes would rarely be repeated in the future. Once imprisoned, few would survive. In 1267, the future King – Edward I, defeated the rebels with the help of an army composed of both royal-supporters and the rebels who he managed to turn against Montfort. You would think Edward I had no issues with the barons switching sides… The records say that the killing of Simon de Montfort, in the Battle of Evesham, when Edward I rescued his father, was so gruesome, it demonstrated not only the cruelty that Edward I will later exploit, but also the strength of the Plantagenet revenge. The body of Simon de Montfort was mutilated after he was killed, and his head severed and displayed as a trophy, but not before he was fed his own testicles. Game of Thrones.

8.2 Long Live Longshanks! Edward I – Longshanks (1272-1307), was already proving to be a man of great military prowess and diplomacy – focused on stabilizing the country and devising a program for legal and administrative reform. The inquest he commanded was documented in the so-called Hundred Rolls – a volume detailing corruption and abuse of power by royal officials, as well as barons. Edward I’s strategy after the Second Barons’ War, although he had successfully supressed the rebellion, was to permanently remove the possibility of more uprisings. Instead of limiting the barons’ authority as King, he made sure it was from the position that observed the good of the people, as well as kingdom – a decentralization of power, of sorts. Therefore, he replaced sheriffs and officials suspected of corruption or abuse of power. What his father and grandfather failed to do, yet gave impetus for, Edward I took with great gravity and responsibility, so that Parliament, in session for the first time officially during the Barons’ War, was now an established institution. The institution and office of the King, with royal authority, was reestablished after years of misrule by his predecessors. Moreover, Edward I’s concern, even before ascending to the throne, was to secure finances for his country. It may well be said that he was thoroughly and responsibly 105

Sanja Ignjatović

prepared not only for the death of his father, but for any potential issues in his own reign. Therefore, alongside French royalty, he participated in the Crusades after the Second Barons’ War. Coincidentally, on his coming back from the Holy War, his father died in 1272, and Edward Longshanks embarked home from Sicily. It is ironic that the news found him there… Sicily, after all, was one of the causes for the escalation of the rebellion.  

Prince of Wales, (Welsh) No More The war with Wales officially started in 1276 and ended in 1284. However, the conflicts escalated on two occasions – the year following the declaration of war, and in 1282, lasting for two years during which the Welsh rebel forces lost the so-called Dafydd’s Rebellion. The conflict ended with the death of Prince of Wales, Llywelyn, and the title was taken by the King to be bestowed on the heir-apparent. Currently, it is the title of Prince William, who received it upon his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II’s death in 2022, from Charles – the reigning monarch. Alongside the territories that belonged to the crown at the time, other territories maintained a level of autonomy contingent upon vassalage, though these were few. Llywelyn the Great (1200-1240), the Prince of Wales, first had conflicts with John, who wanted to expand his territory to the south. However, after sporadic conflicts and reversals, the two reached a peace agreement. Prince Llywelyn had to negotiate peace with John’s successor, Henry III as well, and Treaty of Worcester allowed the Prince to keep the territories that he had occupied in the conflicts with John, among others. However, this ruler avoided alliances and conflicts that would bring into question the Treaty signed with Henry III. Dafydd succeeded Llywelyn the Great as Prince of Gwynedd, but Henry III did not have the same trust in Llywelyn’s successor, and allowed him only to keep the lands owned before the succession, whereas the matter of his father’s lands remained stuck in a hostage situation. Literally! Henry III imprisoned Gruffydd – Dafydd’s brother, in the Tower of London as collateral for the possible territorial disagreements. The man died trying to escape, and Dafydd died soon after, without legitimate heirs. This led to the ascension of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Gruffydd’s son. He used the title Prince of Wales, and members of the Scottish nobility acknowledged it, which probably motivated the Prince to try to maintain independence. However, the Prince of Wales’ alliance and further association with Simon de Montfort eventually led to his demise. When Edward I was imprisoned during the Second Barons’ War, Montfort offered the Prince the deal about keeping his father’s lands and controlling the territories under the Marcher Lords (powerful 106

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

noble families appointed by the Normans). The Treaty of Pipton in 1265 gave the Prince of Wales hope that Montfort might win the war and that he could keep independence. With Montfort’s death, of course, the deal fell through. Yet, the Prince of Wales furthered the association with the Montfort family due to an arranged marriage with Eleanor de Montfort – daughter of Eleanor of England, John’s daughter, and Edward I’s cousin. When Edward I was crowned King of England, instead of paying homage to the new king, the Prince of Wales rejected to acknowledge his position and vassalage to him. In turn, Edward I prevented the marriage from happening by imprisoning his own cousin in 1275. In 1282, in the conflict between the forces led by the Prince of Wales and his heir-apparent, Dafydd, and Edward I, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was killed and his successor captured and later executed. It would take more than a century for the next attempt at independence to happen, equally unsuccessfully.

Scotland: No, Thank You, England! In the light of the recent calls for the referendum in support of leaving the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is important to note that Scotland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 in an agreement between the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland. The formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in the Act of Union happened during the reign of Queen Anne of England and Queen Anne of Scotland, who both gave their assent. Before the Act of Union of 1707, the two kingdoms had separate and independent legislative, judicial and executive bodies, as well as different religious systems. The English were already Protestant, while Scotland remained Catholic. The union was motivated by the necessity for political and economic stability. However, many Scottish voices dissented recognizing the dangers of Protestant domination on the British Isles, as well as the loss of independence in joining parliaments. Therefore, the Scottish maintained their separate institutions and the national Church – the Church of Scotland. However, the road to 1707 and agreeable ascension was rather long and winding.

This! Is! Scotland! Sort of… Perhaps inspired by the learning experience with the Welsh, when Margaret, Maid of Norway – the daughter of Alexander III, died, Edward I wasted no time asserting himself as the authority on the matter of the succession to the Scottish throne. Surely led by his advice, the Council chose and crowned John Balliol in 1292, also popularly known as Toom Tabard – the empty coat, a nickname suggesting the scope of the new King of Scotland’s qualities. By virtue of his position of power, as well as the fact that Edward I made sure an impressionable head was 107

Sanja Ignjatović

governing the Scottish, the King of England continued to pressure the north for military support. The Scottish nobility were already fully aware of Edward I’s attempt to weaken Scotland, and they fully supported another contender to the throne – Robert Bruce. Decisive in deposing the ineffective leader, the Scottish nobility formed an alliance with France, which led to the abdication of the King of Scotland, but also Edward I’s invasion in 1296. In the Battle of Dunbar, the King of England took the famous Stone of Destiny from Scone Abbey as war trophy. This denigrating act on the part of Edward I sent a clear message to the Scottish that their independence was lost. The Stone of Destiny symbolized the power of the Scottish monarchs, and Edward I kept it under his own coronation chair. In 1297, a rebellion led by William Wallace gathered a number of nobles into the Battle of Stirling Bridge where the army of Edward I was defeated. However, in 1298, the Battle at Falkirk ended in severe defeat of the Scottish forces, silencing the voices advocating independence. With Wallace in exile, the Scottish nobility relied on the diplomacy of the Scottish nobility, their allies in France and Robert the Bruce. In 1305, William Wallace was curiously captured and taken to London for a public execution. Robert the Bruce was crowned King of Scotland the following year. In the next two decades, Robert the Bruce will show power in defeating the English army, especially under Edward II who did not accede to recognizing Scottish independence. In the decade prior to Robert the Bruce’s death (1329), the Pope recognized him as King of Scotland, followed by the French nobility. Finally, in 1327, Edward II was deposed and Edward III crowned, which lead to the treaty that ended the conflict. In 1328, King Edward III officially recognized Scotland as a sovereign state, acknowledging also Robert the Bruce’s status.

8.3 A Cautionary Tale about Romance and Marriage When Edward II (1307-1327) inherited the throne, the country was fairly stable, with the exception of the rebellious Scottish who did not seem to like the taste of the English boot, or was it the French one? Perhaps it is a matter of technicality. The nobility and the Court spoke predominantly French, as the official language, and it was only the peasants who spoke the Anglo-Saxon hybrid that we call the English language today. It would take two more Plantagenet rulers for the common English folk to awaken and start considering that they might, in fact, have a culture of their own outside those courts occupied by foreigners. The news of the death of King Edward I created the momentum for young Edward II to start exerting his own power. Instead of immediately taking care of his country’s business, he reverted his father’s banishment of Piers Gaveston, and invited his friend back from France. 108

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

The historic gossip labels the two as a romantic couple, however, the king’s sexual orientation was not considered particularly problematic. What was challenging, for a lack of a better euphemism, was the fact that Gaveston appeared arrogant and disrespectful towards barons, and that Edward I considered him a negative influence on his son. Soon after ascending to the throne, Edward II married Isabella, a woman who bears the nickname the She-Wolf of France. At the time of marriage, she was only a young girl. During the wedding ceremony, instead of dedicating his attention to his wife and guests, Edward II communicated only with the purple-clad Gaveston – the symbolism that did not go unnoticed, behind them banners celebrating their friendship instead of that with his child queen. In the years to follow, Gaveston would be the fracture that not only turned some of the most influential barons against the King, but also the reason for a horrible defeat against the Scottish forces. In an act of unlawful and political murder, Edward II’s cousin, Thomas Lancaster executed Gaveston. In the years to come, he would also betray Edward in the battlefield and conspire heavily against him. The King, on the other hand, somewhat distraught and irrational in his loss, would make a series of disputable decisions. These included enlisting the services of the so-called Dispensers, an army of mercenaries who were known to have caused the pogrom of the Jewish population, but who, under Edward II received the carte-blanche to pillage and raid territories they saw fit. In one of such instances, they transgressed against a high-ranking baron, Roger Mortimer. This presented the momentum for another civil war, which was diffused by the intelligent, or instructed, Isabella, who provided her husband, yet again, with a way out through diplomacy. Peace was ensured with a promise that the Dispenser army would be discharged from the service of the King. Edward II did not keep that promise for long. In fact, his alliance with Hugh Jr. of the Dispensers was so strong that the two ruled together for a significant period, and the country was devastated and left in a state of unlawfulness. The Lancaster cousin being killed and now revered by people – with reported miracles at his grave and such, and Isabella herself being forced to flee from the Scottish forces on a number of occasions, among other things, the King was truly friendless. Edward II met his end, so to speak, in such a manner that would bring into question the divine aura of the king and lead to the awakening of the people to the idea that royal heads roll like any other. The records of his death, mixed with gossip, involve gruesome details about imprisonment, starvation, torture, probably disease as this was a process rather than an event, and eventually sodomization with a hot-poker, which supposedly did the trick. However, it is noted by many historians that the particular information came in timely to amortize the transition to the new King – Edward III. The exact date of his death, much like the details, may well be unknowable, but Edward II did receive an extravagant and king-worthy procession and funeral. 109

Sanja Ignjatović

8.4 The Successful Medieval Manager and Black Death Edward III (1327-1377), also known as Edward of Windsor, ruled England successfully for fifty years ensuring peace and stability, restoring the authority of the Court, but also consolidating the power of Parliament, which is a commendable achievement after the reign of Edward II. He outlived his son, Edward the Black Prince, and was succeeded by his grandson, the unfortunate Richard II, also known in history as the child-king who terrorized his people. On the other hand, an optimist would think of Richard II as an individual who fiercely motivated his people to become inspired by the idea of freedom and solidify their national identity against the oppression suffered under his rule. A great difference between Edward III and his father, as well as some of his other Plantagenet predecessors, was that instead of alienating the nobility (barons), he heavily relied on them. On the one hand, the barons provided military support and assistance, and on the other, they were allowed more power in the decision-making processes, in Parliament. During his reign, the romantic ideas related by the Arthurian legends were implemented as a modus operandi of his court. Whether only in image or potentially in practice as well, but Edward III kept his court as a fellowship similar to that of legendary King Arthur’s round table, and it is during this period that the proliferation of romances sharing the theme of Arthur’s knights’ exploits took place. Great-grandma Eleanor of Aquitaine would have been proud.

Paint It Black The Black Death refers to the period of the pandemic of the bubonic plague that decimated the English population, regardless of class. Between 1346 and 1353, the plague caused immeasurable losses in the population, which in turn incited socio-political changes. Labour was in demand considering there were less people available to work – in agriculture, but also all other trades and professions. Moreover, the momentum enabled an unexpected redistribution of wealth, as well as created grounds for workers to ask for higher wages. Working conditions will wait a few more centuries. The class of free farmers emerged as feudalism was becoming an obsolete system – the Great Charter promised a degree of freedom that the commoners never received, but after the Black Death, the idea of rights was becoming increasingly appealing.

Boy King No More With Edward, Black Prince dead, the throne of Edward III went to the late Prince’s son, Richard II (1377 - 1399) – only 10 years old at the time. The delicate nature of the circumstances in which the newly crowned King, merely a child, inherited 110

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

a kingdom ridden with problems required the formation of a council that would not only provide guidance and counsel to the King, but rule in his place. These problems, such as the toll of the Hundred Years’ War and the losses of territories in France, resulted in the need for heavy taxation. However, another problem was that this time it was not only the barons who dared to organize against the King, but the commoners as well – the rising class of yeomen. These people were positioned somewhere between the menial workforce – labourers, and the nobility. You could say they were the rising stars of the 14th century. The intellectual and spiritual awakening of the people and the gradual gentrification in the fall of feudalism caused a social shift of unexpected nature – the English nation was being born, and one that no longer suffered oppression in silence. Richard II’s council included his uncles, John of Gaunt – Duke of Lancaster, and Thomas of Woodstock – Earl of Gloucester. Unsurprisingly, the two uncles would eventually turn against each other, and their nephew. Also unsurprisingly, Henry IV, son of John of Gaunt, will take the throne at some point, followed by some more Lancaster rulers – Henry V and VI. Have you ever wondered why they just added numbers to their names? So they could confuse us, of course. Considering his role in the Hundred Years’ War during the reign of Edward III, John of Gaunt had enough influence to establish himself as the advisor to his nephew. Moreover, the marriages John of Gaunt formed, occasionally out of interest, we could assume, placed him in control over tangible dowry that he placed under Lancastrian name. Nevertheless, the Duke of Lancaster never really won the popular, or the vote of the nobility in England since nepotism and self-interest guided his decisions. Remember, Edward I established Parliament for the first time, and Edward III created the climate for administrative and legal reforms. Now, with John of Gaunt as Richard II’s advisor, corruption was the modus operandi again, and the nobility made serious attempts to limit his power.

8.5 Power to the People: The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 In 1377, the expenses of the Hundred Years’ War with France forced the unfortunate King Richard II to resort to heavy taxation. However, in 1380, this took the form of the unpopular poll tax. This form of taxation required a fixed amount of tax to be paid for every living person in the household, so Richard II made living in his kingdom rather expensive. The people had already been deeply dissatisfied with the working and living conditions, and the Black Death mobilized them to seek higher wages. The King’s reintroduction of a high tax that would economically devastate the people erupted in a revolt led by the famous Wat Tyler. Moreover, what was problematic was that Parliament passed the tax, which implied that the common people were not represented. Richard II’s uncle, Thomas Woodstock, supported the rebellion, which led to his murder. 111

Sanja Ignjatović

Knock, knock! The actual incident that incited the rebellion was the collection of tax by the officials. The people had, of course, found ways to pay lower taxes considering that the same amount was charged to all classes. This ran the risk of creating a greater gap between people. Mortality unexpectedly and suddenly rose during tax collection. As the mob turned against the tax collectors, they were supported, both by the commoners and by a part of the nobility who had also felt restricted from participating in the legislative and administrative matters. Violently escalating in Essex, the protests spread all over the kingdom, reaching London. The infuriated protestants burned administrative records and entered open conflict with royal officials, but also the Church when the attempt was made to pacify them. The Lord Chancellor at the time was a member of the clergy, Archbishop Simon Sudbury, who was executed by the rebels along with Lord High Treasurer, Robert Hale. The manner in which the protestors acted presented a precedent because they were not merely an angry mob, but rather an organized group with grievances and demands, and no issues with taking the power over their lives by force when necessary. Led by Wat Tyler, the protestants – who were people of all social standings, marched to London to negotiate their demands with the King. Initially, the King promised Wat Tyler that he would accede to their demands. However, the peaceful negotiations were just a ploy by the King as Wat Tyler was killed and the rebellion suppressed violently, with many members of the nobility and Parliament executed in the process. In other words, the King did not want to lower taxes and end serfdom. Why Wat Tyler allowed himself to be killed by the King, you might ask. Well, most of the English military forces were stationed elsewhere due to campaigns in the Hundred Years’ War. Richard II found a way to gather a small army that could easily counter the forces of the rebels. However, even though the rebellion resulted in failure to force the King to observe the needs of the people, the manner in which people came together and organized around a collective cause prevented further increases in tax. In fact, Parliament argued and voted against further tax increases. This probably greatly affected the Hundred Years’ War since without funding no serious campaigning was possible.

Lancaster in the House When John of Gaunt died in 1399, Richard II was aware that his son, Henry Bolingbroke would attempt to take the throne by force. Go figure! His cousin Henry was spared in the aftermath of the revolt of Lords Appellants – the group of nobles who tried the restrain the impulsive and unpredictable nature of the King’s rule. However, upon Gaunt’s death, the King immediately confiscated the Lancaster estates to limit the passing of his uncle’s impressive resources to his son. This played out poorly for Richard II, and marked the beginning of the so-called Cousin’s War – 112

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

the War of the Roses. Bolingbroke actually deposed of Richard II and potentially kept him in captivity for months, until his death in 1400. Considering the personality of King Richard II, it is no wonder that historical gossip mentions the stories of strangulation. After the Peasants’ Revolt and the bloodshed – from Wat Tyler to the commoners he led in a just cause, people fantasized about revenge.

Dropouts and Reforms Lollardy, as a religious and intellectual movement, emerged in the 14th century with the objective of reforming the Western Church. The popularization of the movement, and the increase in its membership in England and Western Europe, correlates with the rise of universities and the development of an entire class of people who, in the effort to acquire education, also accidentally caught the bug of critical thinking. However, one of the main reasons for the movement’s urging for reforms in the religious institution was the visible corruption and inaccessibility. John Wycliff was one of the first leaders of the movement – a theologian who studied at Oxford University and advocated for the reformation of the Church as influenced heavily by the Roman Catholic Church. He was Catholic. The idea behind the movement was progressive not only for its time – the 14th century, but also for the centuries to come, and perhaps even contemporaneity, because it invited people to read on the matters of faith and religion, Christianity and Christ’s teaching on their own. Such a proposition was essentially dangerous, because it disregarded the Church as medium between the individual and god. Moreover, it generated the idea that perhaps the Church was not essential in one’s religious feeling, therefore salvation. Imagine the horror of the clergy at the idea of drop in sales of pardons, or the prospects of no fear mongered. During King James, the Bible would be translated into the English language for the first time, some century or so after Henry (Bolingbroke) IV has already destroyed the movement – either literally or by sending them into hiding and exile. The Lollards problematized the very essence of how the institution of the Church obtained power and wealth, and the institution of the King of England relied heavily on the symbiosis with the Church. An obedient believer would follow the Church blindly, as well as their King if the Church so pleased. The necessity for maintaining their respective positions of power was paramount for the survival of the system. For a witty criticism of the corruption within the institution of the Church, do read Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. Lollards understood that the limited understanding of faith was the challenge to emancipation from the corrupt version of Church’s teachings and practices. This is why they engaged in the project of translating the Bible into English – the language actually spoken by the people (vernacular). John Wycliff’s translation of the Bible was banned, and the Lollards were persecuted not only by the Catholic Church, but also by the King Henry IV. 113

Sanja Ignjatović

8.6 The Hundred Years’ War In 1337, Edward III started The Hundred Years’ War, probably at the time when he was still enthusiastic and vigorous, for in his later years, he emanated the opposite image and behaviour. The war lasted until 1453, and although failure was not immanent, due to its length and other circumstances, the hatchet was finally buried by Henry VI, at least on paper. The Hundred Years’ War, the Black Plague, the Peasants’ Revolt and the general change in the socio-political and cultural climate of England, render this period one of the most transformative in English history. That is, if one manages to disregard the pervasive bloodshed, infectious disease and the looming presence of death – as merely some of the force majeure matters the average person had to deal with. The Hundred Years’ War is the collective name for the territorial conflicts between the Kingdoms of England and France from 1337 to 1453. Initiated on the account of the lineage of Edward III – his connection to the Normans who occupied the British Isles, the Kingdom of England entered an expansionist campaign to reclaim their lands. After all, Edward III already held territories – the Angevine lands, Gascony, Normandy and Aquitaine, which in turn, the French wanted to control. In a nutshell, it was a long and loss-ridden military campaign on both sides to establish territorial and administrative control over the vast territories. After all, the Crusades were no longer as trendy, and economic interests on both sides, motivated by gaining dominance over trade – resources and markets, played a part. The English nobility held territories in France which they needed to protect, either by siding with one, or the other side, which rendered these relationships quite tense and complex to navigate. Additionally, the rise of nationalist sentiments required a national agenda, which the war against the neighbouring kingdom provided. The war could be approached in terms of its three phases – the Edwardian (13371360), the Caroline phase (1369-1389) and, finally, the Lancastrian phase (1415-1453). The first phase, under Edward III, gave the English the motivation to further their ambitions after the Battle of Crecy (1346) and the Battle at Poitiers (1356). Before the end of the war, the Battle of Agincourt (1415) inspired another four decades of conflict, although victory seemed out of reach. The war took an especially negative turn for the English with the outcome of the Battle of Orleans (1429) and the famous French peasant woman (later saint), Joan of Arc, not only leading the French to victory, but securing the position of the new King of France – Charles VII. With a different outlook on the conflict, now inspired by her divine guidance and the new monarch, the sense of morale, patriotism and determination increased in the French army. Ultimately, the Treaty of Paris (1453) ended the conflict. The English retained only the port of Calais – a major failure. However, massive expenses that monarchs had with military campaigns during the conflict gave rise to the dissatisfaction within the English 114

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

commons who started to organize and fight for their rights – against regressive taxation under Richard II, for example.

Swords and Roses The Norman feudal rule had allowed for a number of appointed nobles to gather considerable resources and control over territories, which they maintained by means of private armies, with the help of mercenaries. This meant that the King and the nobles, in fact, shared power – a decentralization of sorts, although most of it was in the King’s hands. However, personal interests and the foreign diplomatic playground allowed nobles to acquire new lands by means of marriage or alliances. This gave rise to several powerful figures who had vested interest in appointing one branch of the Plantagenet bloodline, or another. The Wars of the Roses started in 1455 (the Battle of St. Albans) with Henry VI’s mental illness shaking the royal throne and causing rifts of political instability. His unfortunate circumstances created the atmosphere in which the York branch of the Plantagenet line found grounds to challenge the King’s authority. Both Lancaster and York houses were descendants of Edward III. The conflict ended in 1485, with Henry Tudor defeating the infamous Richard III, the last of males in the York branch, in the Battle at Bosworth Field, marking the beginning of British modern history.

8.7 English-Speaking Kings – The Lancaster Line Henry IV – Henry Bolingbroke (1399 to 1413) famously or infamously did away with Richard II after he tried to confiscate the Lancaster estates and prevent him from ever seizing the throne. Lancastrian, Henry IV was the first King of England whose mother tongue was actually English, and not French. He was the first in line of three Lancaster kings – Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI, from 1399, until 1471, although technically, the Lancaster line lost the throne in 1461 with Edward IV – a York, deposing of King Henry VI. The symbol of the House of Lancaster was the red rose, whereas the white rose was the symbol of the House of York. Henry IV had the luck, or cunning, to be spared by Richard II when he protested against him – in the function of Lord Appellant, to limit the power of the increasingly obstinate monarch. The exile to France ended with the death of his father, John of Gaunt, and Richard II’s swift dispossession of the Lancaster estates belonging to Henry IV’s father. Forced to act, Henry IV returned from France under the pretence of the inheritance claim. However, he had already arranged for an army to follow him and considering the misrule of Richard II, he received support from a significant part of the nobility, which allowed him to challenge 115

Sanja Ignjatović

not only Richard II’s act of unlawful appropriation of Lancaster property, but also the throne. Henry IV’s claim to the throne was valid, but not with the current King alive and well. He gained support of the nobility because they probably expected him to be a better ruler than the inflexible and self-willed Richard II. Whether indeed Richard II was starved or strangled, remains unknown, and the mystery ran in two opposite directions – if the King met an untimely and cruel death, many rejoiced for the justice. However, some contested Henry IV’s right to rule considering it remained unknown whether at all or how the previous king died. The first Lancastrian ruler faced rebellions in the territories of Wales, since there were still certain territories that the Plantagenet line never adjoined to the English Kingdom in terms of offering them to the nobility – to control and exploit in the true spirit of feudalism. The conflict dragged on for years, until Henry IV suppressed the rebellion by doing away with the discontented nobles who supported the Welsh rebellion out of their own interest. Henry IV died in 1413, leaving the throne to his eldest son – another Henry. Creative.

Aversion to the French Henry V (1413-1422) had already been involved in governing the kingdom as his father was ill for the last years of his reign. This would prove useful in terms of establishing administrative order, and gaining respect and admiration of the people due to successes in military campaigns. The Battle of Agincourt (1415) was fought under his command and the victory – against the odds due to resources, numbers and state of his army at the time, granted him the status of one of the best English kings. Henry V’s defeating the French army might not have been entirely his doing since the French were dealing with internal struggles and problems with invasions unrelated to the English. Nevertheless, the French signed the Treaty of Troyes recognizing Henry V and his immediate successors as entitled to the French throne even ahead of the son of King Charles VI. Something Joan of Arc would complicate. Being a diplomat as well, Henry V ensured his claim to the French throne and peace by marrying the daughter of the French King, Catherine of Valois with whom he produced the heir to the English throne – Henry VI. The rule of the kingdom transferred into the hands of Henry V’s brothers as protectors of the successor after his early death – most probably due to dysentery or another disease contracted during a siege.

Je suis malade… Henry VI (1422-1461, 1470-1471), King of England and heir to the French throne, was only nine months old when he inherited the throne and legacy of the beloved Henry V. The Regency Council was already an established practice 116

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

in cases such was Henry VI’s – immediate relations and advisors to Henry V assumed the responsibility to govern the country until the child was ready to take over. Henry VI, after all, was the only English king who wore two crowns – the English and the French when Charles VI – his grandfather died. He was 9 years old at the time. However, although this Regency Council, as opposed to other ones in the past, fulfilled its role in maintaining stability in the country, as well as keeping the territorial integrity of the now expanded kingdom – all in line with Henry V’s legacy of the diplomatic marriage to Catherine of Valois, the genetic make-up of the successor deprived him of the opportunity to live up to his father’s stature. The madness that brought France into internal disorder and allowed Henry V to force Charles VI into signing the Treaty or Troyes, was also the illness Henry VI had to bear, and England with him. Young Henry VI emanated an image opposite to his father – pious and incompetent in matters of governing or the military, the King had no authority or prominence, and this only worsened with time. Although his rule was fairly long – or longer than that of his father, the second part of Henry VI’s rule was marked by the loss of all the territories conquered by his father, including the French crown (1453). He could have got the Peacemaker title, if only the loss was not a blow to the English economy and pride. The role of the Regency Council being rendered invalid at the time when Henry VI came out of age, his advisors – or shadow rulers of the kingdom, were the Duke of Somerset, his cousin, and Margaret of Anjou – his wife and Queen Consort. With great expenditures of the unsuccessful military campaigns in France, Henry VI gathered the anger of the people and the nobility. In fact, Richard – Duke of York, the formerly named Lord Protector, found this an opportunity to state his claim to the throne publically. After all, they did all come from the same Edwardian line. However, the York family was not the only one with vested interests. The powerful noble families merely waged which side suited them better, which is how the so-called Cousins’ War escalated into conflicts and switching of loyalties, until 1485. During this period, the economic issues that had previously worsened under Richard II, became unbearable to the common people due to incessant tax increase and shortages. Rivalry between the noble families, however, blossomed. Considering Henry VI’s bouts of mental illness, Duke of York was entitled as Lord Protector on an occasion, which lead him to attempt to proclaim himself Lord Protector once again in 1459, forcefully. The alliance between Duke of York and Earl of Warwick was probably established on the basis of Henry VI being incompetent, yet with heirs to the throne uncontested. In a coup attempt, a number of Council members were killed, and King practically abducted and deposed. Duke of York’s mistake was that by killing members of Council belonging to the nobility, he and his conspirator also caused major suspicion by the nobility taking seats in Parliament. This political entity rejected Duke of York’s self-proclaimed title, and reinstated the King. On the one hand, there were 117

Sanja Ignjatović

institutions that held power and authority over matters of legislation, governing, and the institution of the King was still held in high regard – as tradition and practice that prevented anarchy. However, the Queen Consort, forced to fend for herself, the King and their heir – Edward, Prince of Wales, organized a preemptive strike against Duke of York and the nobility allied to him in an effort to subdue any further attempts at their position or lives. In 1460, Duke of York was killed in battle, but this would not be the end of the conflict. Quite the contrary…

8.8 Paper Crown Will Not Do - The York Rulers Descendant of the Plantagenet King Edward III, Edward IV (1461-1470, 14711483) – son of Duke of York, inherited his father’s resources in the aftermath of the Battle of Wakefield in 1460 – the battle fought to ensure the rule of Henry VI’s heir, Edward. It took Edward IV a year to defeat the forces of King Henry VI in a series of conflicts and a major battle. Defeated, Henry VI was captured and imprisoned, and Edward IV crowned King of England, almost uncontested. Not the son of Henry VI, but the son of Duke of York! What is more, learning from the trajectory of his father’s demise, Edward IV realized that sustaining the power of the crown also implied the support of the majority of the nobility. This was not the circumstances that he found upon crowning himself, especially considering that the legitimate king was alive and (somewhat) well in the Tower of London. Tradition and hereditary rule were broken, so Edward IV used diplomacy and enticement in granting pardons to those who had been defending Henry VI. His manner was pragmatic, rather than tyrannical or cruel, so instead of punishment, he rewarded the newly awakened nobility who pledged allegiance to him, with land and titles. This was regarded as merciful and generous, considering that he could have easily executed them upon taking power. This insight into how longevity of rule is achieved, also translated to other aspects of his rule and he reinstated authority and respectability in the institution of the King. Whereas he problematized succession, the manner in which Edward IV governed the kingdom, and the temperance he showed his opponents, produced stable political and economic atmosphere. Nevertheless, Margaret of Anjou and the Prince of Wales alive and free – in exile, ultimately in France, their existence was a reminder that the conflict would persist.

A Man’s World This is a good time to digress and remind you of all the women who participated in the making of history – from Matilda, Eleanor of Anjou, Isabelle of France, to a few in this chapter who, although unburdened by power against the background of male progeny, made their way up the social ladder, ensuring survival. These 118

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

women, whose fate was decided on the basis of their fathers’, brothers’ or spouses’ diplomacy and political objectives, played crucial roles in the fall and rise of kings. Just like certain male Kingmakers. The strife between the Lancaster and York families could not be contained in the Tower of London for as long as there were surviving heirs with at least moderate connections on the mother’s side. Margaret of Anjou was in France, keeping the Prince of Wales safe from impending death if he set foot in England with his father imprisoned and dethroned. Far from sight… Edward IV’s diplomatic gift was probably due to certain humanist qualities that led him to also fall in love with a woman from the Lancaster line, against better political judgment. His marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, turned his own greatest promoter, cousin, and the man who helped him accomplish the coup – Earl of Warwick, named Kingmaker, against him. Whereas pardoning nobles was a brilliant and cunning move on the part of Edward IV, and supported by the Kingmaker, the filling of the court with nobles who bore Lancastrian ties, was seen as recklessness and foolishness on the part of the King. In fact, senior members of his court – the very same ones who enabled him to transgress the practice of succession, regardless of the motives behind it, saw the King’s efforts to humour his wife as a sign of utter weakness. Moreover, the King succumbed to the influence of the Queen’s counsel and replaced his chief advisor with one of her own family members. This advisor’s perception of foreign politics was dangerously different from that of Warwick. The Kingmaker, among other nobles of authority, sought authority over certain matters, which is probably why he supported Edward IV in taking the throne in the first place. Such was the nature of interests of the nobility, even if they were family, that the Kingmaker allied himself against the King, and attempted to depose and replace Edward IV with his younger brother – Duke of Clarence. In a wondrous turn of events for Edward IV who was captured and imprisoned by his younger brother and his former biggest ally and supporter, it was Parliament who saved him by refusing to allow the King’s younger brother power of reign. In his manner, Edward IV pardoned the traitors, which only led them into an alliance with Henry VI. After all, if the king is mad, one can surely rule in their place, which was what Duke of York, Edward IV’s father, had attempted to do with unfortunate Henry VI. When this particular alliance did not work, the Kingmaker had to flee England and ally himself to the next best contender. Well, the mother, at least. The alliance between former Queen Consort and Earl of Warwick created the foundation for another attempt at establishing the old king considering that in that case, his attempts at the Lancaster nobles would be entirely forgotten. Moreover, he would have their support. How deep was the Kingmaker’s love of kings? How deep was his purse?

119

Sanja Ignjatović

Life Is Fleeting… In 1470, Henry VI was temporarily reinstated when Edward IV’s forces were overpowered and he forced into exile in Flanders. However, a year later, Edward IV cunningly returned to England, and officially fought for crown again in the Battle of Tewkesbury (1471), which marked the end of Henry VI’s reign. Both the ambitious Kingmaker – Earl of Warwick and Henry VI’s son were lost in the battle, whereas Henry VI met his final hour in captivity, in the Tower of London. It was obvious that Edward IV’s merciful ways were only proving to cause problems, and his peacekeeping tactics appeared to make him weak. Earl of Warwick had attempted to depose him at least three times, and the nobility’s loyalty was fragile and contingent upon interests that sometimes diverged from his own. In 1471, Edward IV’s determination to once and for all remove the potential contenders and their allies proved wise, as the rest of his rule was marked by stability.

All the Ghosts Haunting the Tower of London In 1483, Edward IV died of fever leaving his youngest brother, Richard III (14831485), Duke of Gloucester as the Protector of his young successor – Edward V. However, immediate circumstances of the king’s death and the appointment of Duke of Gloucester as the ruler in the name of the young King, uncovered dormant ambitions and plans that did not coincide with the wishes of the late king. The Queen, Elizabeth Woodville and the Council made now mostly of members from her family clan, sought to limit the power of Richard and keep it within the boundaries of the title and function. However, this did not sit well with Richard, who somehow imagined that he would simply rule in the place of Edward V, not only until his coronation, but forever. As this was not possible, obviously, Richard resorted to radical action. When Edward V was 9 years old, he was imprisoned by his uncle, although the act was not observed as such at the time. In the spirit of escalation, the future King of England was joined in the Tower of London by his 5 year old brother soon enough. Considering that coronation of Edward was imminent, Richard’s actions revealed the motivation for attempting to dissolve the marriage between his late brother and Elizabeth Woodville, as well as remove the young princes from the court. Eager to take the throne, Richard chose to annul his brother’s marriage and declare his children – the princes in the Tower, illegitimate. With a little help from God on Earth – the Church, it worked! The invalidity of the marriage proclaimed with the help of the Church, led to the commons and nobles to draw a petition asking Richard to take the throne. This he gladly did, in 1483. Nevertheless, when the heir to the throne, Edward V and his brother were killed in the Tower of London, the attitude of the nobility towards Richard changed significantly, for the worse. In fact, whether it 120

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

was their uncle, or another pretender to the throne – and there were others, the death of the princes caused major dissent among the people and nobility. Richard had already alienated the nobility by drastically removing opposition, and the nobility found no redeeming qualities in a ruler who dared so swiftly kill his opposition. In other words, Richard was no Edward IV.

Mother Knows Best The kingmakers at this point were, apparently, women – the controversial Margaret Beaufort, yet another exiled descendent of Edward III, but also the incensed Elizabeth Woodville. Historical speculations suggest that it could have been Margaret Beaufort who ordered the killing of the princes. However, it remains uncorroborated. In contrast, Beaufort and Woodville’s correspondence through a shared physician suggest that the two conspired against Richard III. Accounts of Beaufort describe her as a shrewd politician of her time who might have been capable of disposing of the two children, but other suggest she was a pious woman of great moral core. The truth is probably somewhere in between. In any case, Beaufort was the mother of Henry Tudor who announced his claim to the throne by virtue of ties to Edward III of the Plantagenet line. His coming out of exile was initially unsuccessful, but in 1485, his luck changed. The Battle at Bosworth Field marks two important events. Lord Stanley who had claims to the throne patiently observed the conflict and waged whether he should engage. When he did decide to openly support Henry Tudor as the new king, it was his army that changed the course of history and led to Henry Tudor’s victory. The second event was the death of Richard III. The year 1485 and the Battle at Bosworth Field marks the end of the Wars of the Roses, the founding of the Tudor royal line, as well as the start of modern history. The Lancastrian rule of Henry IV, V and VI, and the York interlude with Edward IV and Richard III, left the country divided and in need of stabilization. It was Henry Tudor, on the advice of his mother, who initiated a new period of internal stability and peace by marrying the daughter of Edward IV, Elizabeth of York, ending the conflicts of the Cousins’ War.

Meanwhile in the Balkans… Stefan Nemanjić – Stefan the First-Crowned, was succeeded by three of his sons who ruled one after the other, until Stefan Uroš I – later known as Uroš the Great (12431276), took over. His rule ended in abdication forced by his son, Dragutin (12761316). In the Serbian version of the Cousins’ War, Stefan Uroš III Dečanski finally succeeded to the Serbian throne, only to be deposed by his own son – the Mighty one. 121

Sanja Ignjatović

King and then Emperor (Stefan Uroš IV) Dušan of Serbia (1331-1355) acquired the nickname Mighty because of the extent of territories conquered under his reign. Moreover, Dušan the Lawgiver, also sought to consolidate the administrative practices started by the Nemanjić dynasty, and even enforced a set of laws of his own – the so-called Dušan’s Code. The beginning of his reign is marked by a coup against Stefan Dečanski – his father. King since 1331, in 1346 he became the Emperor of the Serbian Empire that included territories of today’s Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. His court was sophisticated for the period, regulated by his own sets of laws by which he internally organized administrative structures in the vast Empire. By proclaiming himself the Emperor of Serbs and Greeks, he also openly declared hostility to the Byzantine Empire. Moreover, Emperor Dušan laid claim to the Byzantine throne. As the patron of arts, he sponsored the construction and renovation of many churches and monasteries, among which Visoki Dečani represent one of his most important legacies. He died in 1355 in mysterious circumstances considering he was merely in his forties. His death happened during the planning of the conquest of Constantinople, and it remains only a matter of speculation what the map of the world would have looked like in the 14th century, as well as today, had Emperor Dušan lived. The memory and legendary status of the Emperor is still so powerful that the story of his father’s alleged curse during the coup persists as an explanation of how such a powerful empire could have dissolved after his death so easily. The power of the Empire transferred into the hands of his son. Stefan Uroš V (1355-1371) was the last of the Nemanjić dynasty and his reign and person remain in great contrast to those of his father. Uroš, later nicknamed the Weak, faced internal and external problems immediately upon succession. On the one hand, it was the contestation of ruling rights by his father’s half-brother, the gradual dissolution of the empire by virtue of the nobles forcefully dissenting from the Empire due to their own rising power. On the other hand, the conflicts with external enemies who sought to take over the outer territories of the Empire greatly disadvantaged the young ruler. At this time, the Ottomans were on the rise and despite Emperor Uroš’s diplomatic efforts, the disunited Empire could not properly evaluate the severity of the threat. During this time, Vukašin Mrnjavčević proclaimed himself King of a part of the Empire, giving other powerful nobles an example that would prove disastrous. In 1371, the Battle of Marica took place, leaving devastation in the parts ruled by the self-proclaimed King Vukašin. It marks the moment of the major decline of the Serbian rule in the parts, and the last Nemanjić ruler, Emperor Uroš, died by the end of the year. The defeat in 1371 would be only the prelude for the devastation of the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans in the 14th century. Lazar Hrebeljanović, who had remained loyal to Emperor Uroš in his conflict with King Vukašin, took control over parts of the Empire as Prince Lazar (1371122

8. The Plantagenet Line and Their Many Discontents

1389) considering that Serbian lords would not recognize the authority of King Vukašin’s son. For the most part, among themselves, they created alliances, but the former empire was in disorder. In 1386, the Ottoman attack was well expected and a number of rulers – kings, secured the north, whereas others prepared for the attack of Sultan Murad. His massive army reached the Kosovo Field, near today’s Priština, in the summer of 1389, where the armies of Prince Lazar, aided by the troops of a few other lords and kings, met an army of around 30,000 Ottoman soldiers. Accounts of the battle itself vary, from the supposed number of Prince Lazar’s joined troops – ranging from 10,000 to the number equal to those of Sultan Murad, to accounts of them being outnumbered by the Ottoman army, and so on. In essence, both Prince Lazar and the leader of the Ottomans died in battle, and both armies faced heavy losses. The difference was that the loss of the forces led by Prince Lazar left the territories of Serbia largely unprotected. Serbia was proclaimed a Despotate of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, and in the centuries that follow, other rising forces would attempt to take the territories of the former Serbian Empire, piece by piece, causing great migrations of the population. The Battle of Kosovo and its symbolism as the last resistance to the conquering Ottoman forces, rose to the level of national myth, especially in the turbulent conflicts in the 20th century, both against Nazi Germany, and the civil wars with neighbour-states. The myth of Serbian heroism as emanated by Prince Lazar has altered over centuries to formulate the core of a unique national identity and vision. From the religious standpoint, it represents a heroic sacrifice in the defence of the Christian faith. The historical narrative has served as grounds for the development of nationalist narratives as well, considering the time distance from the period of the Serbian Empire, and the present moment. Throughout the centuries of struggle for the deposing of the Ottoman rule in the territories of the Balkans, it has served as the central myth of honour and liberation. However, the act of heroism and unflinching bravery of the men who gave their lives in the Battle of Kosovo after the turbulent 1370s and 1380s, although unquestionably noteworthy, nowadays produces political, militant and nationalistic narratives that have sustained decades of conflicts between the people of the Balkans. One of the reasons is the matrix of the very myth in which forces of good and evil meet (Prince Lazar and the Sultan), and the matter of alleged betrayal is weaponized to mark any dissent from the nationalist cause as treason. The Balkan nations, united by language and history, remain disunited and confrontational as they were at the time of Emperor Dušan’s death. However, not all parts of the former Empire succumbed to the Ottoman rule at the same time. It took a bit under a century for the Ottomans to establish power over all formerly Serbian lands. Former western allies faced their own struggles with the rise of the Ottomans. The Fall of Constantinople, led by Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, marks the period when the Balkans was lost to the Ottoman Empire, 123

Sanja Ignjatović

as well as other neighbouring territories. The year of 1453 is also taken to mark the transition into modern history of the world.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. The Plantagenet line is one of the most famous and infamous ones in British history. The descendants of this particular line started some of the most infamous and damaging wars in history, but the Plantagenet House produced monarchs of great stature and importance as well. Who would you place in the category of the infamous, and why? Which rulers would you single out as the most noteworthy for their kingly legacy, and why? How do you explain the roots of the conflict behind the civil wars called the Wars of the Roses? What was the basis for the two houses’ conflict? How did King Richard II light the fuse that started this conflict? How did the noble families influence the conflicts and the royal succession in general? How did these conflicts affect the Serbian circumstances? Do you see any points of similarity or contrast with the situation on the British Isles at the time? What is the background of the Hundred Years’ War? How is the Norman Conquest connected to this issue?

Suggested Reading For more on the turbulent times of the Plantagenet rule, and its aftermath, see Desmond Seward’s The Demon’s Brood: A History of the Plantagenet Dynasty (2014), Derek Wilsons’ The Plantagenet Chronicles (2011) and Alison Weir’s Queens of the Age of Chivalry (2022). For more on the dynamics between King Henry II’s court and the Church, see The Cult of St Thomas Becket in the Plantagenet World, c. 1170-c.1220 (2016) by Paul Webster and Marie-Pierre Gelin.

124

9. The (In)Famous Tudors (1485-1603)

9. The (In)Famous Tudors (1485-1603)  Although with the Lancastrian kings – from Henry IV to the unfortunate Henry VI, the people thought they would finally have English kings, the one who united the kingdom was Henry Tudor, Henry VII (1485-1509) – practically French. Henry VII spent most of his life in France, exiled as one of the potential Lancastrian heirs to the throne. His claim to the English throne was contested on a number of occasions partly because there were rumours of Richard, son of Edward IV, surviving imprisonment in the Tower of London, and partly because Henry was one of many descendants of John of Gaunt, but on the illegitimate side of things. Regardless, Henry Tudor’s marriage to Elizabeth of York –the daughter of Edward IV, was an attempt at stabilizing the volatile situation with the nobility who could still potentially change alliances. At least in image, Henry Tudor united the symbols of the houses by choosing for the Tudor line the combination of the Lancastrian and York roses – red and white, merged. The image that Henry VII tried to project about his reign was under attack for a number of years. His position was not only contested by the alleged surviving heir of Edward IV, but also the son of the Duke of Clarence – the same Duke who attempted to overthrow his brother, Edward IV, with the help of the Kingmaker. This went on until 1499, when he executed the person who apparently pretended to be Richard, Duke of York. Allegedly…

Good Times! Henry VII stabilized the kingdom by first establishing order in the ranks of the nobility whose action and inaction during the civil wars left the kingdom in a state of chaos. Moreover, improvements in state administration and the limitation of expenditure of the court showed this monarch’s economic sense, appeased the nation, as well as provide the grounds for the creation of an economically more powerful social stratum – the middle class, whose development he further motivated by investing in trade and diplomatic relations with European countries. To create long-lasting peace and strengthen the relations with Spain, Henry VII arranged for Arthur, the Prince of Wales to marry Catherine of Aragon. When Henry VII died of tuberculosis in 1509, the throne went into the hands of his son, Henry VIII who was the eldest surviving son. However, as diplomacy goes, the premature death of Henry VII’s eldest – Arthur, did not 125

Sanja Ignjatović

ruin the wedding plans with Spain. Henry VIII’s first of six infamous marriages was with said Catherine of Aragon – the Spanish connection that would prove to be tricky and bloody business for England later on. She was already the widow of Arthur, Prince of Wales, and Henry VIII made sure the Church granted him the right to marry her. Contemporary royalty still has issues with the Church pertaining to marriage. When King Charles III wanted to marry Camilla Parker Bowles – both once divorced, the Church vetoed the attempt and suggested a civil marriage. However, after the civil marriage, King Charles III – Prince of Wales at the time, found a chapel who would do service for them. Where there’s will, there’s a way, even after thirty odd years.

Hit Me Baby One More Time Henry VIII (1509-1547) is notorious for the turbulent relationships, marriage and post-breakup manners. However, this monarch – the image of the true Renaissance man in his early years, was also a well-educated individual, interested in art, literature and music. The court of Henry VIII was not only one of the most powerful courts of the time in Europe – counselled by the four namesakes, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas More, Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell (Lord Chancellors), but also a cultural centre of the kingdom and Europe. Additionally, Henry VIII was a devout and outspoken Catholic, who publically criticized the Reformation movement, and Martin Luther ad hominem. In other words, he worshipped in the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church adorned this King with the Fidei Defensor title – the Defender of Faith. Ironically, soon enough, Henry VIII would constitute the Reformation Parliament to change the constitution and pronounce himself King and Head of the new Church. The cause of his conflict with the Church was the marriage inherited from his brother Arthur with Catherine of Aragon, his brother’s widow. The concession made so that he could marry his brother’s widow was the last one the Catholic Church would make for this monarch. At the same time, the reason he wanted a divorce from the first wife was the male heir. Catherine of Aragon married Arthur in 1501, and spent the next 8 years waiting for her function. She was 40 years old in 1525 when the divorce happened. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon had Mary, the future Bloody Mary, Queen of England, but the prospect of them conceiving another child – a male heir was incredibly low. After obtaining divorce by means of constitutional force – denouncing the Pope of the Catholic Church and founding the Anglican Episcopal Church, Henry went on to marry five more times. With the constitutional changes ratified by the Reformation Parliament, Henry was the authority of both the secular court and the Church. Henry II would have envied him, as would many other rulers… In the event of the Reformation Parliament, the Pope excommunicated Henry VIII from the 126

9. The (In)Famous Tudors (1485-1603)

Catholic Church and ties with Rome were severed officially, though unofficially the war between the Catholics and the followers of the new religion would persist, well into the 20th century. For the King, the act of dissention and event of excommunication meant independence. Henry VIII apparently did not think much about the political implications and relations with powerful Catholic neighbours. After all, unlike his father, Henry VIII was an extravagant spender. Also unlike his father, Henry VIII thought more about his own than the image of the kingdom. Finally, with the Dissolution of Monasteries and the attempt at severing ties with Rome completely, Henry VIII invited the anger of the people and clergy who observed the conversion as heresy. Also, the clergy and the Roman Catholic Church lost a lot of money and land during the Dissolution, and that could not be forgotten. Ironically, this King would produce one of the most powerful and legendary monarchs in the world – Queen Elizabeth I, by trying to beget a son. The short marriage to Anne Boleyn, which ended in her execution, resulted in him fathering another daughter named after his mother – Elizabeth of York. The day after Anne Boleyn was executed, Henry VIII was already engaged with Jane Seymour – the mother of his only son, Prince of Wales – Edward VI. Other marriages, with Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr, leave testament of the tyrannical power of King Henry VIII and his treatment of women. Would he have been proud of his daughters becoming queens after divorcing and executing so many women as if their lives amounted to nothing more than being incubators for Henry VIII’s ambition? In any case, Jane Seymour died giving birth and Catherine Parr outlived the King, but the latter also mediated the reconciliation between Henry VIII and his daughters, as well as possibly the Third Succession Act which put both heiresses in the line to the throne in 1543. The high hopes for Edward VI might have made Henry VIII think that introducing the possibility of female heirs would never have to be realized.

Short, but Not Sweet Edward VI (1547-1553) ruled for a short time due to his poor health. He died at the age of 16, barely old enough to take the throne in the first place. As much as Henry VII was faithful and dedicated to his wife – Elizabeth of York, his son did not seem to catch a long-term love-bug. In fact, his dedication ensure the male succession created rifts between the siblings, not only because they were born to different mothers, but because they were raised by the court and placed under different influences. This also explains how they turned out different in terms of religious sentiments and therefore the politics that they would later on enforce. Not much love was lost between them in the power struggles following the death of their father. Edward VI, in that respect, was a fanatical Protestant. 127

Sanja Ignjatović

Who’s Your Daddy?! The foundation of the Anglican Episcopal Church started a long, tedious and bloody religious conflict that has still not entirely diminished on the British Isles. After the death of Henry VIII, albeit the conversion into Protestantism, England was by no means predominantly Protestant. In fact, the majorities in separate constituent kingdoms varied from Catholics (Ireland), Methodist (Wales), Presbyterian (Scotland) and officially Protestant (England), which became the bone of contention between them, and the population in the centuries to come. This became particularly problematic in the 17th century, with the Catholic Stuarts assuming the throne after the death of Elizabeth I. Edward VI continued what his father had started – the major conversion of the population into Protestantism. The so-called Edwardian Reformation resulted in England officially becoming a Protestant kingdom. The problem of the Reformation was not the fact that it produced conflicts, but also political, economic and cultural issues. The plots aimed at re-establishing Catholic supremacy, or the dominant Protestant religious core, were planned and enacted by powerful people – members of the nobility whose ties and allegiances were either with the old Church, or the new. The Roman Catholic Church had vested interest in the matter and, therefore, exerted its power in order to stop the Reformation. This process was the so-called Counter-Reformation, as a movement organized to once again establish Rome, the Catholic Church, as the religious authority on the Isles. The outcome of this amalgam of diverging interests and ambitions was a general confusion in the population resulting in countless deaths caused by the country forces, church forces, and probably conflicts within the population due to varied, but predominantly economic interests. The Counter-Reformation, as a religious movement, resorted to brutality in order to counter the possible influences of Luther and Calvin – the Reformation movement spreading its influence in Europe and the time, and the Inquisition was a tool used to impose St. Augustine’s dogma, among other things, onto the confounded population. What would the Church do if there were not that many sinners? It would create them… Edward VI died of tuberculosis only 6 years into his reign, but the entire period was marked by power struggles within the court.

Playing with Fire Mary I, Bloody Mary (1553-1558), appeared on the scene when Edward VI gave up the ghost. His older sister, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, was raised strictly Catholic, which granted her the support not only by certain currents in England opposing Henry VIII’s wilful and apparently preposterous rejection of the Pope, but also by the kings of Spain and France. The two countries certainly had an 128

9. The (In)Famous Tudors (1485-1603)

active role in aiding pretenders to the throne and generally influenced the throne of England since the Normans. Moreover, it was for that very reason that Henry VII tried to arrange the diplomatic marriage to the princess of Spain. The first thing Mary I focused on, beside getting pregnant, was the suppression of Protestantism and the resurrection of the Catholic tradition in England. This zealousness and fanatical insistence on the Catholic dogma, and mind you, after Henry VIII and Edward VI’s conversion into Protestantism, caused major upheavals and resulted in the death of more than three hundred people by means of being burned at the stake. The unpopular Queen worked diligently at acquiring the nickname Bloody Mary. Her marriage to Philip, the King of Spain did not result in a child, which added to the tension between her and the younger sibling – Elizabeth. Queen Mary I probably died of ovarian cancer or a similar malignant disease. The historically recorded bloating was the cause of false hopes of pregnancy and progeny with Philip of Spain, but also subsequent depression and worsening of the illness when Mary I’s husband simply left her. During the time the Queen thought she was pregnant, Philip of Spain was proclaimed Regent in case of her death at childbirth. In essence, Mary I was of no use to her husband alive and childless, which tells us about the nature of political and diplomatic marriages. Mary I, on the other hand, saw false pregnancy as God’s punishment for not persecuting enough heretics. No one had it easy back in the early Renaissance, it appears.

To be or not to be, amused? Elizabeth I, Virgin Queen Mother (1558-1603) – the last of the Tudor dynasty, ascended to the throne immediately upon Mary I’s death with the support of the nobility, although their trust was invested in her court advisors more than young Elizabeth I. Mary I’s reign had negatively affected the image of the kingdom, but also caused great dissatisfaction within the population and nobility. Her cruelty was extended to Elizabeth as well, as she was held in a house arrest of sorts. The learning curve of the future legendary monarch involves stories of maltreatment and molestation in youth, but also great intelligence and astuteness in navigating the waters of the court in the years leading to Mary I’s death, and her coronation. In a stroke of luck, Elizabeth I was tutored by teachers who did not believe in corporal punishment and rigid methods. Moreover, she started learning languages at the age of 4, which resulted in her being fluent in French, Italian, Latin and Greek. Ironically, Elizabeth I seemed to have taken after her father, in his early years – a true Renaissance spirit. Adopting a neutral attitude towards religion, she appeased the escalated tensions during her sister’s rule. In order to survive the court intrigues and the reign of her sister, she needed help from the elders at the court, including her many tutors, and was indeed strongly supported by all those who witnessed the madness caused by Mary I’s imposition of religious 129

Sanja Ignjatović

fanaticism. Upon taking the throne, Elizabeth I was hailed as the queen of true English blood, which she maintained as part of her public image until the very end. This idea of there being true English blood led to the age of nationalism, the Golden Age of England under Elizabeth I. Interestingly, upon the news of Anne Boleyn’s pregnancy, Henry VIII consulted an astrologist who guaranteed the birth of a future king – a male heir, so Henry VIII organized a Christening worthy of the long-awaited heir. Despite the disappointment at fathering another daughter, the luxurious Christening took place to welcome Elizabeth. In retrospect, the Christening worthy of a king fits the course of history. Initially regarded as potentially dangerous, being six-toed and the daughter of the (in)famous Anne Boleyn, the Queen turned out to be quite diplomatic in matters pertaining to faith and religion, placing them in the sphere of the subjective and personal, and subordinating them to national interests. Not even Henry VIII’s smear campaign due to Boleyn’s inability to bring to term a male heir, managed to damage Elizabeth’s integrity, and we are talking about the time of the Inquisition. She was accused of being a witch. With the emphasis on the national in all spheres of politics, economy and culture, Elizabeth I’s moderate attitude earned her the love of the people. On defeating the Spanish Armada in 1588, aided by Captain Drake among others, she became a national hero. Military expeditions in Ireland were also successful. What is important to note is that Elizabeth I was not a sole paragon or strategist. Her strength was in the intelligence of loyal counsellors and aides, as well as the elaborate network of spies and agents. She was able to uncover threats in time to ensure her future as queen, and so, in 1587, she executed Mary, the Queen of Scots, for treason. Regarding the matter of her private life and certain executions and beheadings, historical gossip brims with stories of romance and intrigue, yet it is difficult to discern the truth. However, what is certain is that very early on in her reign, Elizabeth I understood that marriage would damage her power and influence. Therefore, she opted to maintain the image of the Virgin Queen and keep the power in her own hands at the cost of failing to provide England with an heir of her own blood. Instead of being a mother, she was the Mother of the People. Surely, this image of Elizabeth I serves as the source of legends and romanticized images of the powerful monarch – epitome of fortitude, grace and dedication. The death of Elizabeth I marked the end of the Tudor dynasty.

Meanwhile in the Balkans… A part of the lands previously conquered by Emperor Dušan, and lost by Uroš the Weak, continued to function under the organization of the Serbian Despotate 130

9. The (In)Famous Tudors (1485-1603)

in a manner similar to the home-rule the English imposed on the Irish before the willing, or less willing, merging occurred. The Serbian despots were subordinated to the Ottoman Empire directly, which granted them little space for manoeuvring. The Ottomans dictated the economy, politics and the development of the Serbian society was challenged by the newly established system. Feudalism empowered a number of new powerful nobles, and created a greater division between the poor and the upper classes. Ties with Europe were cut not only because the Ottomans established their own system in the lands they conquered, but also because Europe itself was in a great crisis. Nowadays, people in Serbia enjoy exploring the Turkish culture as a form of entertainment. However, it is probably safe to say that the 15th century population experienced a cultural shock, among other more tragic shocks of conquest. A cultural vacuum was created between the 15th and 19th century. When Serbia finally regained independence, its image was no longer modelled against the West, or Byzantium, but according to the model of the Ottomans who had colonized and exploited it for resources, ores and source of their infamous Janissary armies. Instead of moulding its own image in accordance with models of good practice and progress, the Serbian Despotate adopted the Ottoman attitude towards its colonies – a survivalist mentality, unable to envision a civil society, well into contemporaneity.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. What political, economic and cultural changes occurred in the Kingdom of England after the Battle at Bosworth Field in 1485? How were the rulers of the House of Tudor similar, or different, to those before them? What were the circumstances of their rule? How does religion fit in the paradigm of a little over a century of their rule and the period after them? What affected their relationship with France and Spain – their immediate neighbours and competitors? Why did the Tudors invest so much in the navy? Was it only trade? How did the process of colonialization of the Americas influence foreign relations of England with its neighbours – France and Spain, both great maritime and naval forces? Who founded the Anglican Church of England? Why? What is the main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism? How did the circumstances in Europe influence the religious movements in England? How did the foundation of the Anglican Episcopal Church of England disturb internal and foreign relations of 131

Sanja Ignjatović

England? Where do we see the consequences today on the British Isles? Research Elizabethan England and the first colonial endeavours. Who were the notable figures supported by the court of Queen Elizabeth I at the time?

Headless Mary – Queen of Scots Mary Stuart – Queen of Scots (1542-1587), was Queen of Scotland (1542-1567) and Queen Consort of France (1559-1560). One would think that the two royal positions she held would make for a solid 16th century CV. However, Mary Stuart was a woman of controversy who happened to develop ambitious plans during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I – a ruler who had interests of her own to protect. The primary source of Elizabeth I’s discontent with Mary were the rumours and reports of the former plotting against the Queen of England. The animosity that might not have been entirely personal, escalated with Henry VIII’s last will to exclude the Stuart line from succession rights due to their Catholic confession. Supported by a part of the Scottish nobility, Mary Stuart dared to lay claim to the throne of England as the senior descendant of Henry VII. However, this was merely the case in Scotland. Mary had been Queen Consort to the French King Francis II who died of an ear infection in 1560, leaving her unprotected and her ambition to gain the support of the French to claim the English throne unfulfilled. Resourceful, now widowed Mary negotiated two more marriages – one to the heir-apparent of the Spanish, and the other to the Archduke Charles of Austria. However, neither deals went through – the former due to her previous marriage to Francis II, and the latter apparently by her own dissent. However, noticing the threat that Mary Stuart might pose if one of her marriage plans pans out, Elizabeth I attempted to broker a marriage between her courtier, Robert Dudley and Mary, as a means to achieving peace. Additionally, Robert Dudley being a Protestant, Elizabeth I sought to neutralize the Catholic threat, as well as potentially ensure succession through Mary. After this failed attempt at pacification, Mary married the grandson of Margaret Tudor – her half-cousin Henry Stuart, becoming Mary Stuart. This husband, however, did not like being King Consort and potentially shortened his own life. It is a matter of historical speculation whether Lord Darnley – Henry Stuart was smothered in the garden by mere chance, or if it was the turbulent years between the couple who had considered divorce, discussed potential extramarital affairs and paternity of son James, and so on. What do you think? Do some research… In other words, she had allegedly noted that she needed a way out of the marriage, and deliverance came. Her husband, also known as Lord Darnley, had previously sided with Protestant nobles against Mary, and his death sparked an awful series of events. James VI of Scotland had been baptised before his father’s death – a 132

9. The (In)Famous Tudors (1485-1603)

Catholic, which would prove problematic later on. The same year Darnley was murdered, Mary Stuart was potentially ambushed and abducted by Lord Bothwell who allegedly married her against her will – a Protestant no less. On the other hand, the murder of her husband could not have been merely a lucky circumstance for him because he had divorced his first wife only several days before the alleged ambush. The fact that Mary Stuart married a Protestant did not achieve what she might have hoped for – the marriage caused an outrage of both Protestant and Catholic nobility considering that at the time it became obvious that Lord Bothwell and Mary Stuart had planned the murder of Lord Darnley and the swift marriage. In other words, the Scottish nobility did not like the idea of having a murderer for a future King, even if Consort. Moreover, they did not like the idea of Mary as their Queen either. Mary Stuart was put to trial for the murder of her husband, but the intention was not to convict, but rather to destroy her character in court. After all, after such an event, she could only remain under the supervision of Elizabeth I, in England.

Let us play detective! Do your own research and draw conclusions about some of the questions below: What happened to Mary Stuart after the trial? What did her imprisonment in England entail? What was her involvement in the so-called Ridolfi Plot? What was the significance of the casket letters and their publication? How did these letters discredit Mary Stuart? What was happening to her son James – future King of Scotland while she went through the trial and imprisonment? How is the Act for the Queen Safety, passed by Parliament in 1584, relevant for the period? Why did Parliament pass such an act? How is it related to the future execution of Mary Stuart? What was behind Mary Stuart’s Association with her son, James – in Scotland at that time? What did she promise her son, and why? Was there any awareness on her part about Queen Elizabeth I’s plan to name James as heir? What is the story of the Babington Plot of 1586? How did that turn out for Mary? Was the decision of Elizabeth I’s court to execute Mary Stuart justified? If you were Mary Stuart’s lawyer, how would you have defended her? Better yet, how would you have prosecuted this former Queen? 133

Sanja Ignjatović

Suggested Reading For a better understanding of the circumstances that led to the rise of Henry Tudor, see Nicola Tallis’ Uncrowned Queen: The Life of Margaret Beaufort, Mother of the Tudors (2020), and Timothy Venning’s The Tudors (2022). Also, see Elizabeth Cleland, Adam Eaker and Marjorie Wieseman’s The Tudors: Art and Majesty in Renaissance England (2022), and Sam Willis and James Daybell’s The Tudors (2019), from the Histories of the Unexpected Series.

134

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind 10.1 The House of Stuart (1603-1714)  Prior to her death, Elizabeth I arranged the succession matter by naming the son of the executed cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, as heir. The coming of the Scottish King to the throne marked the end of the Tudor rule of England, as well as the beginning of the turbulent rule of the House of Stuart. Conflicts, oppression, plots and instability characterized the period of the Stuart rule, although the courts of King James I and Charles I were the intellectual and artistic beacons of Europe, shining as bright as Tudors’ courts. The Republican Interlude interrupted their rule, and the event of the so-called Glorious Revolution, with the joint ascension of William of Orange and Mary II to the throne of England, marked the break from the direct male line, but the descendants of the Stuarts will be present through the Houses of Hanover and down the line to contemporaneity. The crux of the fall of the Stuart rule was the clash between the interests of the kings, the manner in which they valued personal interest, as well as interests of the Catholic Church and Scotland in the parliamentarian conflict, and the people’s interests. A lot of factors… However, it would be a gross simplification to term James I, his executed son – Charles I, and the remaining two Stuart successors in the years after the Republican Interlude, as utterly failing in their tasks as kings. Rather, the circumstances following Henry VIII’s rule, the massive religious conflicts becoming the focus of all areas of life including foreign relations, Elizabeth I’s moderate yet decisive maintenance of the religious status-quo, and the Stuarts’ subsequent promotion of an unexpected agenda (the Scottish supremacy), could not unfold without sacrifices – royal and common, so to say.

King Charming James VI of Scotland, James I of England (1603-1625), had a right to claim the throne as the descendent of Henry VII, which Elizabeth I acknowledged. James I’s father, Henry Stuart was the grandson of Henry Tudor. Additionally, his mother, the (executed) Mary, Queen of Scots was the former Queen Consort of France. James VI of Scotland, at the time, appeared as a good choice that would unite the kingdom and serve people as equally neutral in matters of religion. He was officially a Protestant, but secretly partial to Catholics, and a bit too much for the English taste as it would turn out. Whereas Elizabeth I, much like 135

Sanja Ignjatović

her father and grandfather, invested in the navy and economy, James I had no patience or sensibility for governing. For the most part, he found ruling England to be quite different from ruling Scotland – due to the vastness of the land, the complexity of interests of the nobility, etc. By the beginning of the 17th century, the practice of selling monopolies and the colonization of North America was already at its full swing and James I did not find these waters easy to navigate in terms of balancing the interests of his extravagant court, the nobles that supported him and Parliament as representatives of the people. Moreover, it appears that the Scottish monarch had a different idea of what ruling over the entirety of the British Isles implied, and it came as a shock to him that Parliament would counter his decisions, or even worse, back those whose interests would go against the King’s. On an occasion, the merchants refused to pay taxes, backed by Parliament, damaging, from the King’s point of view, the treasury that he could have used for personal purposes. The King had imposed a customs tax that would directly go into his own treasury, which was welcomed neither by the merchants, nor by Parliament considering that such funding policies would not ensure proper budgeting for the kingdom. The war with Spain had been set aside in the last years of Elizabeth I’s reign, but the Spanish Catholics, on the one side, and the French Catholics on the other, threatened England with their growing navies again. Whereas Elizabeth I created the atmosphere in which Parliament had the last word, also relying on the counsel of her advisors, James I had the ambition to restore the divine right of the crown and found no need to pass his decisions through the vote of members of Parliament. This is not to say that Elizabeth I left impossibly high standards for James I to meet. Quite the contrary, during her reign, veterans participating in the battles that made her a national hero were left in the streets to starve after wars, and her whims and capricious outbursts invited serious criticism. However, James I’s predecessor found ways to compromise with Parliament, whereas the newly appointed King sought ways to better exercise his authority. Most importantly, Elizabeth I did not endorse Catholic emancipation. His conflict with Parliament can be rooted in the preconceptions about the nature of the office of the King, the visible bias towards Catholic interests, as well as favouritism he blatantly displayed towards a number of noblemen throughout the years. The word of the time was that it was the romantic interests that James I rewarded with titles and wealth, including the Duke of Buckingham who ascended the vertical ladder too quickly for their contemporaries’ taste, and influenced James I’s decisions, especially in terms of the Spanish problem. James I also had seven children with Anne of Denmark – the Queen, with whom he apparently maintained a wonderful relationship. Whether it was romance or interest, James I made a number of issues trying to sustain the lifestyle he deemed worthy of King, so he even started selling the baronet titles, which changed the landscape of the nobility and influenced shifts of power in their ranks. 136

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind

Instead of relying on Parliament for internal and foreign policies, he had his own counsellors. This led to the summoning and dissolving of three sessions of Parliament, wasting public resources, and manipulating this political body to his own intentions, ultimately unsuccessfully. On top of that, he silently attempted to equalize the position of Protestant and Catholic population, which generated more hatred than his inaptness in other areas, and his efforts to do so never ended. At the same time, James I’s inability to reintroduce Catholicism through the back door, so to say, albeit his sympathy and efforts, was the impetus for an assassination attempt referred to as the Gunpowder Plot. The suspected leader of the Catholic order, Robert Catesby, and a dozen other men, financed and supported by Spain and the Catholic Church, hid barrels of gunpowder in the tunnels under Parliament. Guy Fawkes was the explosives expert who was supposed to ignite the prepared barrels. Upon his arrest, Guy Fawkes was brutally executed by Protestants in London, which further led to massacres in the streets. All thirteen of the men involved in the Gunpowder Plot were either killed as they tried to escape the justice of James I, or executed for the crime. The attempt at the assassination and the subsequent violence was the sign of countless more conflicts emerging motivated by religious reasons. On the other hand, James I’s Catholic sympathies and ties allowed for the war with Spain to end even if the price for the peace-making event was the execution of Sir Walter Raleigh who had been in poor relations with the Spanish for decades. During James I, the fourth version of the Bible in vernacular was published, King James’ Bible (1611), and it is the most sold one to this day. James I died in 1625, after a long period of health issues that destroyed his authority and image. Finally, after a stroke, he also contracted dysentery. Suffering like a true Catholic, one might add.

Grandma, can you hear me? Charles I (1625-1649), the ill-fated king who was not even supposed to take the burden of the throne, continued his father’s agenda, which ultimately led to the parliamentary take-over and the establishment of the Lord Protector as Head of State – Oliver Cromwell, the strongest of the parliamentarian contenders to the office. James I’s eldest, Henry, had met an untimely death in an unwise athletic endeavour – he contracted a disease competing in a swimming contest in the river Thames. According to historical accounts, Henry was favoured by his father because of the qualities the young man emanated – educated, athletic and knowledgeable in the arts, James I saw him fit to rule in his place. In contrast, Charles I was a man of ill health, a pronounced physical deformity, and no athletic skills or charming looks his father so admired, especially in men. His stutter and overall comportment promised very little for the position he was about to take after his brother’s death. However, Charles I had the motivation and enthusiasm to continue the Stuart legacy and applied himself to learning 137

Sanja Ignjatović

and training so he could create the image adequate for a ruler before his father’s death. Charles I was crowned King of England as the second son of James I in 1625. Where James I had the luck to escape assassinations and manage to pacify people on occasions when his ways were too autocratic or controversial, Charles I either had poor advisors or the bad luck for things to turn against him. The same year he was crowned, he passed the Act of Revocation forcing the nobility to pay annual rent for the title, which became a major point of discontent, especially for the old nobility. Just like James I, Charles I exhibited wilfulness and lack of regard for Parliament of England, managing to alienate it and lose its support as soon as the crown touched his head. Much like King John and his son, Henry III, Charles I had the misfortune to fail to solve the majority of problems inherited from his father. In retrospect, Charles I’s inept rule changed the course of English history, and some would say for the better. The practice of selling monopolies started by the Tudors became a highly elitist and corrupt custom allowing the minority to accumulate profit at the expense of everyone else. James I was recognized no limitations to his power as King, and therefore it did not seem to him that Parliament could ever sanction the activity beneficial only to the few. The problematic attitude towards Parliament was transferred to Charles I who not only remains known in history as the first publicly executed English king, but also the one who signed the Petition of Rights (1628) – the document that puts Parliament above the King. In that sense, the series of attempts dating back to 1215 and the Great Charter and the Provisions of Oxford, among other, finally culminate in this legal document that strips the monarchs of their divine authority and right. Nevertheless, just like John and Henry III, Charles I cared very little about the document he signed. After all, these kinds of documents never hurt anybody… Until they hurt him, that is. Charles I’s lack of diplomacy with Parliament or the will of the people, is one of the causes of his deposing and execution, but there was also his failure to establish peace with Spain in the final years of King James I’s rule. Charles I’s lack of charm could not be compensated with enthusiasm, though there was a lot of it in the man. The embarrassing fiasco with the proposal of Infanta Maria Anna of Spain – the so-called Spanish peace-making match, aggravated the members of Parliament who had sought open war with Catholic Spain. The very act of peacemaking through a political marriage was problematic, and the failure to achieve it created grounds for a division in Parliament incited by the idea that the future king would not be apt for the function. Like other monarch who signed documents limiting their rights, Charles had no intention to abide by the Petition of Rights, and his ambitions openly turned against Parliament. Years of discontent within Parliament and among the nobility caused a social and political rift, and created fertile grounds for the division into two distinct fractions. The first were those loyal to the King or the institution of 138

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind

kingship. The second group was comprised of those who stood for Parliament and the limitation or even abolition of kingship. In other words, Royalists and Parliamentarians were formed as the first political parties in England, which is the legacy of Charles I’s obstinate ways. However, the idea of the republic was also born out of this rift, and it would take the republican experiment after the two civil wars, for the people on the British Isles to taste peace and freedom again, and find out that they still prefer parliamentary monarchy – a balanced compromise.

Beginning of the End In 1630s, Charles I attempted to impose religious laws on Scotland against its Parliament and their Church’s – the Kirk’s consent, which lead to a religious conflict that would escalate in a series of poor decisions and the socalled Bishops’ Wars. The introduction of Episcopal practices and laws went against the religious tradition and practices in Scotland, and Charles I, despite his Scottish origins, had little contact with the reality of life in the parts. Additionally, the King’s ideas about new Protestant policies were suspiciously reminiscent of Catholic ones. Instead of treating the Scottish rebellion as disagreement against the newly introduced practices, Charles I saw it as disrespect of his authority. Respect my authority! South Park, anyone? Around this period, the 11-year period of Charles I not summoning Parliament ended, but only because of the unrests in Scotland. Unsupported by Parliament to engage in conflict, he started a war funded from his own treasury, and raised an army that could not successfully sustain long-term conflicts. Charles I summoned English and Irish Parliaments twice in an effort to raise funds, but unsuccessfully considering any amounts offered would only further the crisis. The House of Commons refused to vote in favour of Charles I’s demands, although he did have support from the House of Lords. Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament proclaimed its independence seeing the King’s inability to establish consensus pertaining to the handling of the conflict. In 1640, the dissent of members of Parliament increased, and the act against the monarch’s authority to call and dissolve Parliament was passed, rendering Charles I’s many taxes invalid. The laws Charles I imposed pertaining to the Church could not be revoked due to the support from the House of Lords. It is in these tensions that the seed of the Civil War was contained. The King managed to establish temporary peace with Scotland by allowing independence of their Church, however, his position and authority remained fragile. In 1641, the House of Commons passed the Great Remonstrance against the ministers of Charles I, which essentially listed the grievances of the House of Commons as representatives of the people against the King’s ministers and dealings. The tension in the country was caused by the Irish Rebellion and the confusion as to who the instigators of the rebellion were. Both Charles I, 139

Sanja Ignjatović

and the Queen, were suspected to have had to do with the strengthening of the Catholic forces. On the other hand, the King’s asking Parliament for more funds led members to believe that this army could be turned against them, especially considering the political arrests commanded by the King against members of Parliament. Any trust between King and Parliament was lost when he entered the House of Commons to conduct one of these arrests, unsuccessfully. The fractions that had been forming within Parliament started arming in the wake of the First Civil War (1642). The first serious conflict – the Battle of Edgehill in 1642, already proved the delicate and unwise position of Charles I, as he went against the advice of his commanders. With serious losses on both sides, the battle’s outcome remains open for interpretation. By 1645, the Parliamentarians had already formed their so-called New Model Army, initially comprised of militia and volunteers, which led to a number of defeats for Royalists. Charles I fled potential captivity and turned himself to Scottish forces, who held him captive for months, negotiating ransom with the English Parliament. However, Charles I appeared to be quite adaptive and cunning, for during his captivity in Scotland, he explored the divisions within the Scottish internal organization and fractions desiring independence from England, and better yet – those desiring supremacy over it. Siding with such fractions, Charles I managed to organize the Second Civil War in 1648, with his Royalists attacking on the one hand, and the Scottish invasion of England on the other. Bold! However, this endeavour failed miserably – with Scottish forces countered and Royalists defeated, the exiled King could only negotiate, again.

Hasta la vista! Upon his return to England, the Trial of Charles I (1648) challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity in which the previously implied divine right of the king was contested – the King was not a god-sent person to rule over all people, but an Office that aids in governing the country abiding by the rule of law and will of Parliament. The King had, after all, attacked his own, and now with extreme losses on both sides, and particularly in the ranks of those who supported him, he had little to hope for. Charles I was executed in January 1649 after the House of Lords was abolished, and already in March, the House of Commons passed the act to abolish the Office of the King as an unnecessary, and probably very costly, function. In the third decade of the 21st century, questions are raised about the need for such an office. Two of Charles I’s children were still in England when he was executed, but the heir-apparent, Charles II, had already fled to Scotland. There are many accounts of the manner in which Charles I walked outside – to his place of execution, minding to wear enough shirts so that the people would not see him shiver. However, this was a man who waged wars for his own gain. Any such romanticization would be unwise. 140

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind

10.2 The Interregnum (1649 - 1660) The abolition of the Office of the King was a radical move on the part of Parliamentarians who established the republic, with Lord Protector as the new title of the Head of State. Oliver Cromwell (1649-1658), a prominent Parliamentarian who emerged as a figure with the most power after the Civil Wars, took the governing position and introduced the Puritan Regime. Although the idea of parliamentary rule – a republic, involved the abolition of the Office of the Monarch, Cromwell’s rule started with authoritarianism, overwhelming military action and control as deterrent to rebels. The immediate neighbours showed great discontent with what had happened prior to the establishment of the Protectorate – the republican rule, not only because of the abolition of monarchy and execution of Charles I, but also because of their distrust in the individual who emerged out of the conflicts – Cromwell. Although he held most of the power in the civil wars, his ranks also expressed dissatisfaction, and he lost parts of his army and navy due to mutinies. Similarly, Ireland rebelled, again, as well as some of the established colonies. On the other hand, Scotland’s way of expressing dissent was the crowning of Charles II, the son of the executed king, King of Scotland. The uprisings and conflicts with Ireland and Scotland aggravated the already problematic relations, but considering the despotism of Cromwell, it was directed towards him, which would later help in the endeavour to establish monarchy. Cromwell’s support in the Parliament gradually decreased as the necessity for resources to maintain and control conflicts grew. Like his two predecessors, Cromwell had to dissolve several parliamentary sessions, exacerbating the general dissatisfaction. On the other hand, the workings of the Puritan Regime caused not only the two chambers of Parliament to contend over financial and legislative matters, but the people expressed great discontent with the ideology that deprived them of the established practices pertaining to everyday life. The theatres were closed and activities monitored amongst not only the clergy, but also the common people to ensure the realization of Cromwell’s spiritual and moral reform of the country. In other words, it was all about war and control, and the common people had little to look forward to. In 1653, the so-called Instrument of Government – a law, granted Cromwell lifelong rule. Although the entire idea behind the republican experiment was to abolish the exasperating practice of royal authority and strengthen the power of Parliament as representatives of the people, Oliver Cromwell’s actions proved that the substance of the ruling practice did not change. The difference between an absolutist monarch and Cromwell was merely terminological, as he was Lord Protector. The Republic lived only a few years longer than Cromwell, who even named his son, Richard Cromwell as the succeeding Lord Protector. What a king! However, unfit to rule, the position was transferred to its, apparently, rightful claimant in 1660 – Charles II, King of Scotland. 141

Sanja Ignjatović

10.3 Restoration of Monarchy Burning Desire In the so-called Restoration of Monarchy, a process by which the Protectorate was abolished, Charles II (1660-1685) was reinstated in the position of King. The period brought great relief to both people and Parliament, considering that the Puritan Regime, with its objectives of spiritual and moral purification – bathed in conflicts, failed to observe the needs of the people. Although one would think that Charles II would learn from his father and grandfather’s experience, he still struggled with Parliament in matters pertaining to religion and the equalizing of the status of Protestants and Catholics in England. Charles II was officially a Protestant, which was the main reason why he was so readily invited to take the throne back and release the nation from the clutch of a political establishment that could not be handled. However, Charles II’s was a Catholic at heart and sought to become the champion of their rights. It was a matter of righting the historical injustice towards the Catholic population. In 1673, the proposed Declaration of Indulgence was rejected, and the Test Act passed instead, taking away the right to hold offices under the English Crown to Catholics. In other words, not even a monarch could hold their office as a Catholic. The problem was the Anglican Episcopal Church and its fierce reaction to the proposed Declaration of Indulgence that led to the enforcement of new restrictions against the propagation of the beliefs that were not line with its own teachings, which clearly targeted the Catholic Church. The conflicts between Charles II and Parliament spurred the formation of the two political parties. Parliament was no longer a united entity, but a noticeably divided one – in ideology and loyalties, due to the issue of King’s ideological and spiritual inclinations, the involvement in governing and legislative work and wilful decision-making. Former Royalists and Parliamentarians evolved into the so-called Tories and Whigs, respectively. The idea of restricting King’s power remained with the latter, whereas the same ideology drove Tories with endorsing the interests of the King and the Anglican Church, especially through the House of Lords. How did that turn out for them when the King and the Church did not see eye to eye… Some people see the Interregnum – the 11 years of the republican experiment, as the impetus for positive change, considering that the kingdom desperately needed someone like Cromwell to take down Charles I, only to be deposed himself. Similarly, the Great Fire of London (1666) is retrospectively observed as equally beneficial. If one disregards the numbers of human casualties, in both cases. It engulfed London and persisted for 4 days, destroying parts of central London as it uncontrollably spread. The fortunate circumstances would have it that it coincided with a wave of the plague (1665) which had been 142

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind

devastating London. The Great Fire, however, stopped the spread of the plague and purged the city of, at least that, disease.

Love Me Like the Stuarts Love Catholicism The death of Charles II represented a challenge of sorts in terms of succession. Ultimately, the Test Act of 1673 was overlooked so that James II (1685-1688), the younger brother of Charles II could be crowned, although he was Catholic. After all, James II had become a reputable soldier, although the armies he fought for were French and Spanish. A perfect candidate! The successful passing of the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687, allowed James II to be an open supporter of religious tolerance, even for a short moment. It allowed religious freedom to all non-Protestants, and it could have relieved the tension of the Test Act provisions forbidding Catholics from taking the crown. However, James II’s engagement in the very same matters that led to the downfall of all Stuarts putting English crown on their heads – his grandfather, father and elder brother, revealed the intentions behind Parliament’s decision to allow the Test Act to be ignored and support James II as Catholic. The King’s daughter, Mary was Anglican, and married to William of Orange – Protestant. James II was in his 50s when he was crowned, leading Parliament to believe that his existing children would be in line to the throne. However, in 1688, James Francis Edward was born – the baby who had greater claim than Protestant Mary – being a tiny male heir. Although fathering a son cannot be termed as a mistake, the boy’s existence greatly unsettled Parliament and the people. The English, Scottish and Irish parliaments refused to pass his legislation and expressed dissent openly. On the other hand, much like his immediate predecessors, James II showed no subtlety in showing Catholic bias, which led to the Seven Bishop’s scandal in which he persecuted and put on trial members of the Church. Ultimately, the threat of Catholicism paved the way for the so-called Glorious or Bloodless Revolution.

10.4 The Bloodless Revolution Gathered around the idea that there could be no Catholic monarch on the throne, the influential political elite of England organized the invasion of William of Orange and Mary, James II’s daughter. Chosen by Parliament and supported by the people for Mary’s fair claim of the throne, William of Orange came with an army in 1688 encountering no resistance. Charles II had proclaimed Mary as heir as he had no legitimate heirs. Considering that no life was lost during the transition – succession of monarchs, the event is referred to as the Bloodless Revolution. With William III (1688-1702) and Mary II (1688-1694) officially supported by Parliament as equal rulers, James II could only flee to France, with his heir, 143

Sanja Ignjatović

where he remained under the protection of the King until his death. Although he made a few attempts at regaining his position, they all ended unsuccessfully and Parliament finally established power over the Office of the King conditioning the new rulers to abide by the Bill of Rights (1689). England became the first parliamentary monarchy. The period also saw England enter the so-called Great Alliance or the League of Augsburg against France (1688-1697) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1715) started a year before William III died, and ended with the Hanoverian takeover (George I).

Anglican and Unionist Anne Anne I (1702-1714) was the Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland, and after 1707, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1706, the Acts of Union were passed by the English Parliament, and in 1707 by the Scottish one, regulating the conditions of the union of Great Britain. Although England and Scotland had shared the crown since the ascension of James VI of Scotland to the English throne in 1603 – the so-called Union of Crowns, England and Scotland remained separate kingdoms, with separate administrations, Churches, etc. With the Acts of Union, the two parliaments were joint into the Parliament of Great Britain, based in London. Historical accounts describe the relationship between Mary II and Anne as estranged. However, this does not appear to have influenced Anne’s succession after the death of William III, Mary II’s husband. Anne was an Anglican with great connections with the Tories, which rendered her succession quite smooth and successful. The temperate engagement in governing the country granted her great popularity and love of the people even though tragic events followed her from childhood to her late years. Queen Anne suffered from health issues all her life, and the 17 unsuccessful pregnancies also left her heirless. Yet, upon William III’s death, she dedicated herself to her country as the patron of arts and science. She was the Queen who knighted Sir Isaak Newton in 1705, and the patron of George Frideric Handel. Moreover, Queen Anne saw the founding of the Bank of England, the ratification of the union with Scotland in 1707, and the Treaty of Utrecht (1713-1715) which halted the conflicts of the War of the Spanish Succession and greatly alleviated the tensions in the European political and economic circumstances. Moreover, Great Britain and Ireland became a maritime force, which would lead to the great British expansion – the Empire. The succession claim was granted to her second cousin, a Hanoverian. George I was eligible under all provisions, including the Act of Settlement (1701) which excluded Catholics from the line of succession. In other words, those in line of 144

10. We’d Rather Have a King, If You Don’t Mind

succession could marry Catholics, nor be one. After Queen Anne’s death, there were around 50 claimants to the throne, all rendered ineligible by this law.

Meanwhile in the Balkans… Still under the Ottoman Empire, the Serbian population also had to endure the Austro-Ottoman War (1788-1791). In the game of dodgeball, where the ball was the commoner individual of the impoverished territory held under the firm grip of the Ottomans, the Serbs played a major part in defending the West from the Ottoman expansion. The Habsburg recruited the so-called Serbian Free Corps to defend the areas of today’s Banat. Austria joined the game, but as things go, eventually the West withdrew and the population was left to the Ottomans’ mercy. Serbia actually wanted to be occupied by the Austrian forces in the 18th century! Later on, it was a bit of an issue. After the Habsburg-Ottoman conflicts, the Ottomans formally granted a greater level of autonomy to the Serbs in an attempt to pacify them. However, the Janissaries who had been disbanded, attempted to take over control from the local nobles establishing their own position in aftermath of the war. Nevertheless, there were the Austrian-siding Serbs on the one hand, and the former Ottoman soldiers on the other. Their efforts to take control over from the nobles escalated after the event in which a great number of Serbian leaders were killed. The tragedy would usher a new era for the Serbs – one of resistance and defiance, for the First Serbian Uprising was already in motion, led by Karađorđe Petrović (1804). For the next two decades, the uprisings escalating in open war with the Ottoman Empire would sift out the leaders of a different Serbia.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. What was the main point of contention between the Stuart kings and Parliament? Why do you think the Stuart rulers all advocated so forcefully for the emancipation of Catholics – their decriminalization, freedom of confession and so on? Which Stuart rulers lost their throne (or head) because of this issue? What was the root for the tensions between Catholics and Protestants? What does the Roman Catholic Church have to do with it? How has the conflict evolved over centuries? How did the republican experiment change the British monarchy? Since the Norman Conquest, several documents regulated the limitations of the authority and power of the reigning monarch. Which documents are those? What is the significance of the Glorious or Bloodless Revolution? 145

Sanja Ignjatović

Suggested Reading To learn more about the turbulent rule of the Stuarts, see Jonathan Healey’s The Blazing World: A New History of Revolutionary England, 1603-1689 (2023), George Macaulay Trevelyan’s England under the Stuarts (1996) and Religion and Society in Early Stuart England (2018) by Darren Oldridge. Adam Marks’ England and the Thirty Years’ War (2023) is an interesting read for those interested in exploring the religious and economic tensions between England and Spain. You might find Claire Jackson’s Devil-Land: England under Siege, 1588-1688 (2022) useful in understanding how Europe experienced England under Tudor and Stuart rule.

146

11. Germans All over the Royal Halls

11. Germans All over the Royal Halls Although the Restoration of Monarchy after the Interregnum re-established the Stuarts as the ruling royals of England, their Catholic inclinations, and the Protestants’ inability for tolerance, caused tensions with Parliament. The history of religious conflicts testifies to the economic and political interests of the nobility, the Church and the emerging parliamentarians – future Whigs, who saw danger in promoting tolerance. Had the royal interest really been merely religious tolerance and the emancipation of Catholics, as a way to correct the injustice of Henry VIII’s excommunication and the foundation of the Anglican Church, the Stuarts might have been remembered by history as peace-makers and promoters of civil rights and freedoms. However, they had their own interests to think about, and the cumulative score of their actions resulted in the 1701 Act of Settlement, in addition to the earlier Test Act (1673). The Glorious Revolution ushered a Protestant line of royals, as well as the conditions of their rule under the Bill of Rights (1689), and enabled the House of Hanover to take the throne upon the death of Queen Anne – ruler of Great Britain and Ireland. The office of the monarch was now regulated as a public position with symbolic and formal authority. The conception of the monarch as the ultimate authority was restrained by Parliament and Bill of Rights, which additionally granted civil freedoms and rights to the citizens of the union. Except the Catholics. That story would go on. Interestingly, though, the Hanoverian royal newcomers painted the records of history in their own peculiar way, and despite all parliamentary regulations, they led the monarchy into unexpected directions. George I might have emitted Henry VIII vibes, but he did not speak English. George II put the daddy in daddy issues, but was the last English king to enter a battle. George III remains known as the Mad King, but also Patriot King because he was the first of the lot to consider English his mother tongue. However, this one also lost the American colonies. George IV is another controversial figure – handsome and charming, he turned into a villain category of his own. William IV, George IV’s younger brother, remains known as Silly Billy. Finally, Queen Victoria contributed to this family’s history by holding the title of the longest reigning monarch for quite some time, among other significant, peculiar and bizarre things.

11.1 Second-Cousin Rule Unfortunately, Queen Anne’s tragic personal struggles with health and infertility placed the Kingdom once again in an heirless situation. Therefore, upon her death, 147

Sanja Ignjatović

the greatest claim to the throne was that of George, son of Sophia – the granddaughter of James I and the closest relative to Charles I. The paternal line of the future king, George I, belonged to the Elector of Hanover, the royal line started by his father. The descendants of the Stuart line did still claim right to the throne – son and grandson of James II, for example. However, by the time Queen Anne died, the mechanics of succession were regulated by Parliament, according to the suitability of the future monarch. At least male primogeniture was abandoned entirely. Apparently, the Hanover line, endowed by singular looks throughout the succession of the four Georges and then William IV, had its quirks. The Hanoverian rule in England began in 1714 with the ascension of George I and continued until 1901, when the last of the Hanoverians, Queen Victoria, died.

Sprechen Sie Englisch? George I’s (1714-1727) short reign was marked by dramatic displays of impulsivity and aggression. It is as if he possessed the Stuart penchant for drama. He divorced his first wife, and cousin, on the basis of alleged adultery, and imprisoned her with the consent of her father. And the West likes to criticize the East. The dissolution of this marriage gave George the space to have a number of illegitimate children with at least two known mistresses. Even though the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland could barely speak English, the period itself did not necessitate such a personality in the office that would competently tackle the state business. By this time, England, with Parliament well-established and running the country, merely needed a symbol of stability and a protector of tradition, however incongruously that could have been emanated by the German-speaking King. The economic interests were settled by means of diplomacy and force – War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1713) united Holland and England against France and Spain and ensured the supremacy of the British maritime force. The Treaty of Utrecht, made possible by the Duke of Marlborough, ended temporarily, at least officially, the incessant conflicts over colonial possessions and terms of commerce. However, throughout the 18th century, England entered new open conflicts with Spain and France. The colonial and expansionist ambitions were too great on all European sides.

I Will Always Love You, Crown King George I’s troubles were the Jacobite Rebellions (1715 and 1745) which unsuccessfully attempted to restore the exiled Stuart heirs, although in Scotland the second one took a more serious shape and had to be suppressed with great force. The son of James II, James Francis Edward Stuart (the Old Pretender) found allies in the Catholic Highlanders, concentrating his efforts in the north 148

11. Germans All over the Royal Halls

of England and Scotland as the base for the rebellions. Moreover, the Young Pretender – Charles Edward Stuart, led the later ones as the son of the Old Pretender, still supported by the Highland clans. Overall, outnumbered and supported by the minority of Scottish clans, neither of the pretenders could seriously endanger the throne. However, George I’s troubles were not limited to the Old Contenders or the New, because his relationship with his son, George, also suffered tension. The Prince of Wales, future King George II, stood in opposition to his father’s politics for years – undermining his authority, which eventually led George I to deny him regency during his absences or in the case of death. George II did not even travel to Germany to attend his father’s funeral in 1727.

Do you need a hug, my Lord? During the reign of George II (1727-1760), the cabinet of the Prime Minister was already an established institution, which implied no need for the monarch to be involved in any administrative or governing matter. Contrary to what the public presumed he would do, based on his prolonged disagreements and conflicts with the late King, upon coronation, George II kept Robert Walpole as the Prime Minister, ensuring the sense of continuity and stability. Walpole was an economist whose expertise solved the so-called South Sea Bubble scandal. It was an investment scheme pertaining to slave and whale trade that threatened to shake up the economy of the entire country. The number of investors whose funds were already participated in the project was quite great. When the project turned out to be a scam, Walpole managed the aftermath and possible consequences to the economy, as well as other matters, rendering George II’s time spent wearing the crown peaceful. However, George II took part in the Battle of Dettingen in 1743, against France showing his patriotism to the public, as well as fulfilling the role of emanating the ideal of the English people – even in battle. He presented himself as the protector of the people. Additionally, the lack of meddling into the affairs of Parliament and the full cooperation with the cabinet of the Prime Minister, established a good practice for the parliamentary monarchy. The Seven Years’ War with France started in 1756, during the reign of George II, and ended in the defeat of the French in 1763, under George III. Although the entirety of the late 17th and 18th century was marked by Europe-wide conflicts, with traditional and unexpected alliances, it was this conflict that halted the French expansionist ambitions. However, much like his father, George II managed to estrange his son – Frederick, Prince of Wales. As a child, Frederick was left in Germany, for whatever political or other reason, and was brought back to England only after 149

Sanja Ignjatović

14 years (1728), when George II was already the King. History repeated itself, and the Prince of Wales did exactly what his father had done bearing that title – created opposition to his rule in England. George II, in return, did the same thing to his son, denying him regency. This family ordeal ended in Frederick being banished from the court. Perhaps George II did not have the time to deal with the state business considering the problems with his own family. Frederick died in 1751, and his son, Prince George, became the heir apparent – yet, still a minor. Apparently, upon his son’s death, the King’s heart softened towards the male descendants. A Regency Act was passed to ensure that Frederick’s brother would rule until George III comes out of age. With much love for his daughters and even daughter-in-law, George II remains somewhat controversial for having such strenuous relationships with the sons he produced.

11.2 The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, and George III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland George III (1760-1820) was the grandson of George II, ruler not only of the territories of Great Britain and Ireland, but also colonies in North America, West Africa and the West Indian archipelago. During his reign, the union between Great Britain and Ireland evolved into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801). He was the first of Hanover monarchs to be raised in England and speak English as mother tongue, which granted him the nickname Patriot King, probably because he was in such stark contrast to his predecessors culturally. However, the accounts of him vary and it seems impossible to pin down the character and qualities of this Hanoverian. For what is known, George III did not stand by and watch Parliament and the Cabinet of the Prime Minister manage the country. In contrast to George I and II, the Patriot King was keen on restoring the Crown and the power entirely lost with the signing of the Bill of Rights. He relied heavily on the lobbying of his Tory supporters and was involved in the matters of the state, undermining the power of Parliament and rendering the Cabinet useless.

The American Dream George III remains the monarch who, incidentally, incited the American Revolution. In other words, his treatment of his own people in the mother country, instigated an unexpected and irreversible revolt of the colonies. The American Revolution (1775-1783) is the name for the conflict between Great Britain and Ireland, and its American colonies. The cause of the conflict was the impact of the British Imperial policies and taxation on the growing colonies who felt restricted and limited by the crown they did not see, and invisible to the 150

11. Germans All over the Royal Halls

Parliament that did not represent them. George III’s meddling in the business of Parliament in 1770s, by means of lobbying or direct engagement, was motivated by self-interest. In fact, in the spirit of the notorious Stuarts who insisted on the divine right of kings, George III’s obstinate unfair treatment of the people, pressuring Parliament and exhibiting wilfulness of unexpected measures, culminated in the unlawful treatment of John Wilkes who was denied the seat in Parliament. The King had devised taxation, price rises, etc. but the Wilkes incident incited the formation of the new political left – the opposition of the Tories, and their objectives included countering the tax increase without regulation – which had become regular under George III, introduction of measures against the use of force against people, freedom of the press, more rights (political and human), among other things. However, one of the most important points of the new left party was the cause for American Liberty, which advocated the equalizing of rights of the British and the population in the colonies. The status of the people in colonies had not previously been considered from the perspective of rights, which is unsurprising considering they had no representation. In 1776, after the unexpected Boston Tea Party in 1773, the American War of Independence (1775-1783) was crowned with the Declaration of Independence signed on the 4th of July. In 1783, George III was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris and accept the independence of the American colonies. George III was surely aided by the Prime Minister, Lord North, in the debacle, but considering the obstinate nature of his meddling in the business of Parliament, he will be remembered as the King who lost the colonies and allowed for the disruption of the British Empire. The situation in Europe only motivated the colonies to consider ideas of freedom and liberty – the democratic ideas that had been growing popular for decades, even before the escalations in the colonies and Europe. The French Revolution, after all, turned France into a republic in the same period. With the rise of Napoleon in France, and the persecution of the French royalists, the United Kingdom had a lot to lose entering the war. For one, the King had his office to maintain. The Napoleonic Wars (1805-1815) were the continuation of the conflicts that had been burning quietly in Europe, but also in France itself. Having undergone a transformation, revolutionary France developed strong nationalist objectives. It was in the interests of France and their allies to suppress the United Kingdom as a naval force, especially considering its worldwide influence. The loss of American colonies was a great blow to the United Kingdom, but also a great opportunity for Napoleon to attack. The Royal Navy of the United Kingdom played the crucial role in blocking French expansionist ambitions. Two of the most important victories of the British in the war involve the Battle at Trafalgar (Spain) in 1805, under the command of Nelson, and in the Battle of Waterloo (Belgium) in 1815, under the command of Wellington.

151

Sanja Ignjatović

11.3 Abolitionist George – The Regent George IV (1820-1830), son of George III, officially ruled for a decade, but he had already become Prince Regent in 1811, when it became apparent that his father’s madness was a terminal issue. The first signs of madness in George III were obvious during the war with France, and parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland granted George IV Regency duties. Whereas at the beginning of his reign, as regent, he was quite a promising figure among fifteen children, it turned out that he would be overwhelmed by position and office. The promise of grandeur in George IV was owed to the active role in politics while his father was still alive, which created very high expectations. Prince Regent supported the abolition of slave trade and the radical opposition in Parliament led by Charles Fox. He allowed the Cabinet of Robert Peel, the Prime Minister, to do its designated work, and it can be assumed that George IV learned from his father’s mistakes and limited his personal involvement in matters Parliament should decide on. However, the seclusion in the years of his reign as king related a message of disinterestedness. During his reign, but not necessarily due to his efforts, several important events took place. The industrial revolution had already begun, though its marvels would be seen a few decades later, the Civilian Police was established by Robert Peel (Bobbies), the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed in 1829 as a concession to the Irish and a token of good will since Henry VIII’s foundation of the Anglican Episcopal Church. Additionally, the Parliament became more vertically accessible to different classes of representatives. George IV died at the age of 67, and was succeeded by his younger brother, William IV.

No Time to Die William IV (1830-1837), George IV’s younger brother, also known as Silly Billy, was crowned at the age of 64. The nickname and the reputation in the public reflected the desire of the people for a different image of the King as their representative. However, his reign was also marked by significant events and progressive ideas. In 1832, Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act (Reform Act) which raised the number of total voters and introduced a more democratic electoral system. Moreover, it caused major changes in the electoral systems of England and Wales. Although only men could vote, the Reform Act extended voting rights to a greater number of people belonging to different social classes. Nevertheless, it was also the first document that explicitly rejected women their right to vote.

152

11. Germans All over the Royal Halls

11.4 The Victorian Age Empress of India, but an Introvert above All Queen Victoria (1837 - 1901) was the longest British reigning monarch until 2015, when Queen Elizabeth II set a new record. The 63 years of Queen Victoria’s rule saw unprecedented changes in the socio-political circumstances of Europe and the world. Moreover, her 1840 marriage to her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha granted her the nickname Grandmother of Europe. In the 22 years of their marriage, the royal couple had 9 children, many of which married into other European royal families. Queen Victoria’s diplomatic assets, her children, provided the United Kingdom with some of the most noteworthy monarchs in its long history. At the same time, the ties with the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line forced her descendants to change their family name in the years of World Wars.

Mommy Issues Victoria succeeded William IV soon after her 18th birthday. The historical records note disagreements between William IV and Victoria’s mother, Duchess of Kent. The manner in which William IV’s death coincided with Queen Victoria’s coming out of age – her right to rule as adult rather than her mother or advisors assuming the function, raise speculations that the King saw it as duty to live long enough to leave the throne in safe hands. The succession to the throne had been problematic considering William IV’s daughter died, and the heir had to be from the line of George III’s remaining sons. The problematic nature of William IV’s relationship with the Duchess of Kent, might have been caused also by the parenting methods of Queen Victoria’s mother. The so-called Kensington method prevented young Victoria from socializing with anyone rather than her mother and her advisor. With conditions of limited socialization, which included restricted contact with her father’s family as well, it is possible that the Duchess of Kent, Queen Victoria’s mother, had ambitions of becoming Regent in her daughter’s place – an idea that apparently terrified William IV out of dying. The reign of this powerful monarch is also known as the Victorian Age due to a number of significant and extraordinary events, such as the Industrial Revolution (1820-1840). The United Kingdom’s deposits of coal and iron facilitated the development of great infrastructural projects that forever changed the appearance of the Victorian urban areas, improved transport (the railway) and created the basis for further technological development. Additionally, the growth of the Bank of England set standards for the turnover of capital following the 153

Sanja Ignjatović

expansion of the British Empire. The coinciding of all these events, including the appearance of a great number of scientific and technological innovations at the end of the Industrial Revolution, show how the British Empire thrived. A hungry monkey at the back of its colonies, but regardless. As a maritime force and navy, the British Empire’s share in global commerce was immense. It held a great number of international routes that enabled significant accumulation of capital. Some of the most significant technological innovations date to the Victorian age, such as the locomotive, the telegraph and telephone, and the steam engine. Therefore, the story of the Victorian Age, aside from the disappointing stories of Her Majesty and Prince Albert’s parenting skills, is a story about major changes in the 19th century society. The economic changes and rapid progress led to social stratification that now included the lower classes of workers – the working class, the bourgeoisie as the middle class, and the nobility surely survived all the monarchs and wars, and remained well positioned in the upper stratum of society. In 1845, the Enclosure Act dealt with the disintegration of villages due to new economic platform, and previewed the population of towns. However, it also spurred a dysregulated process of urbanization because of the growing number of people and the speed at which the very landscape changed. Industrialization produced the working class whose new occupations demanded a change in the living conditions. Trade unionism was born out of the necessity to regulate the matters of healthcare and working conditions. Nevertheless, trade unionism was rendered illegal until 1824, which heavily impacted the immediate circumstances of people, especially due to long hours, unhealthy working and living conditions, and the rise in criminal behaviour. Certain groups, like the Luddites, blamed the machines for unemployment and poor social standing. The movement, albeit short lived, got its name from one of its leaders, Ned Ludd. Other groups publicly fought for the improvement of working conditions on the basis of human and political rights. The People’s Charter of 1838 drew the base for the act that would provide equal representation of the working class in the House of Commons. The Charter was rejected by the lower chamber of Parliament on all counts, marking the beginning of a century of struggle for more humane working environments, social and healthcare.

Meanwhile in the Balkans... The Great Serbian Migrations, caused by the oppressive Ottoman rule led thousands of Serbs into the territories controlled by the Habsburg Empire – from the frying pan into the fire, one could say. After the Austro-Ottoman War, the Ottoman Empire proceeded to loosen their control over a number of territories, granting autonomy to parts of Serbia, such as the Belgrade Pashaluk. However, the second half of the 18th century also saw the backlash of the Ottoman repressive system. With a number of influential leaders at the very beginning of the 19th 154

11. Germans All over the Royal Halls

century, aspirations of liberation were transforming into reality. The First and Second Serbian uprisings, marking the first two decades of the 19th century, were crucial for the creation of the autonomous Principality of Serbia after the Serbian Revolution. Independence was fully won in 1867, when the Ottoman army actually left Belgrade. Nevertheless, it took another decade for the international community to ratify Serbia in the Treaty of Berlin. Serbia became a kingdom in 1882. The British tested their first locomotives the same year Serbs started their revolution against the Ottoman Empire. The building of the first railroad started in 1823 in England. Although today’s Vojvodina benefitted from the Austrian investment in the railroad, Prince Milan Obrenović approved the building of the Serbian Railroad in 1881. Almost a century behind Europe after the Ottoman conquest, but free and able to enjoy a proper soap opera and learn the Turkish language in the comfort of our homes today.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. What events would you single out as the most significant ones during the reign of Queen Victoria? How was the title of Empress of India relevant for Queen Victoria’s status, and how for the British Empire? What economic, social and political changes did the rule of Queen Victoria observe? At the end of Queen Victoria’s rule, the British Empire was home to around a quarter of the world population. How do you think the British economy benefited from its Dominions?

Suggested Reading To know more about the Jacobite rebellions and the Stuarts’ attempts to reclaim the throne, see Desmond Seward’s The King over the Water: A Complete History of the Jacobites (2021). Also, see Nick Harding’s Hanover and the British Empire, 1700-1837 (2007) and Justin McCarthy’s A History of the Four Georges and William IV (Volumes 1-4). For more on the Victorian Age, see The Oxford Handbook of Victorian Medievalism (2020) – edited by Joanne Parker and Corinna Wagner. Also, see Simon Heffer’s The Age of Decadence: A History of Britain, 1880-1914 (2021), and Stephen van Dulken’s Inventing the 19th Century: 100 Inventions that shaped the Victorian Age – From Aspirin to the Zeppelin (2001). Also, see Women in the Victorian Age (1972) by Martha Vicinus. 155

12. Colonial History of the British

12. Colonial History of the British “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell, Animal Farm

Let’s Talk about the Empire The 1926 Imperial Conference of the British Empire Leaders was organized to announce the regulation of the new political and economic framework for the operations of the realms once joined by virtue of interest, violence and tradition. Arthur Balfour, the Lord President of the Council finally declared the United Kingdom and its dominions to be autonomous within the Commonwealth and equal in status. The Belfour Declaration stands as the document that granted independence to some of the colonies without the loss of the established economic and political, as well as cultural and even traditional ties with the British Empire. The subordination to the Crown was exchanged for common allegiance and acknowledgment of the ruling monarch – a prerequisite for the membership to the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Declaration of Belfour came both after the British Empire started noticing a trend of decolonialization, but also in time to prevent severance of ties with the valued nations whose territories and economic contributions to the British Empire had been substantial. Yes, the tone is sarcastic. The circumstances following the First World War, and the inability of the British Empire to protect all its dominions, created the need for independence. In fact, the inability of the Crown to protect its already demilitarized and devastated colonies during Second World War would prove crucial to these countries’ seeking independence, with or without the Commonwealth benefits. The process of decolonialization, as well as the preparation of the Commonwealth framework was largely informed by the fact that the British representatives in the colonized dominions merely served as ambassadors and had little to do with actual representation of the dominions in Parliament. It gradually became clear that the status of the dominions had to be improved against the circumstances that no longer benefited them. In 1928, Canada welcomed its designated High Commissioner, which was both a signal that they were under the watchful eye of the Crown, but also that this eye was somewhat lame. More sarcasm, yes.

157

Sanja Ignjatović

12.1 Animal Farm In 1952, when the late Queen Elizabeth II succeeded her father on the throne of the United Kingdom, she also became the Head of State of seven independent states some of which have become republics thus not recognizing the monarch as the titular ruler. The Commonwealth Nations are the former British overseas territories that have become independent and autonomous, but recognize the Crown. This means that the Nations of Commonwealth are connected under the ceremonial authority of the ruling monarch. However, their status in the Commonwealth is equal and they have the right to decide on recognizing the British monarch as the Head of Commonwealth. Currently (2023), there are 15 Commonwealth realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom. This union represents the long process of decolonization in which the presence of the British remains as a link shared between countries and facilitates economic and political relations. The members are, after all, independent sovereign states. However, what is interesting is that the endurance of the Commonwealth realm as union of states with equal decision-making capacity resides in the Statute of Westminster 1931 by which any change to the ruling line must be approved by parliaments of the Commonwealth states. In other words, when the heir-apparent ascends to the throne, the Commonwealth realms decide on approving the status or excluding themselves from the union. Therefore, in theory, their participation is voluntary despite the fact that it is based on former colonial relations. There are such countries that although opting for independence from the United Kingdom remained in the Commonwealth, which is why the title of the British monarch in the Commonwealth is the Head (chief), not king or queen. In essence, the absence of Parliamentary interference in the matters of former colonies, dominions – the Commonwealth realms, represents a controlled decolonizing process. Colonialism is (not) funny. Australia is a sovereign country, member of the Commonwealth, which still recognizes the monarch of the United Kingdom. This is to say, King Charles III is not only the King of the United Kingdom, but also of Australia. A year after the constitutional reform was passed in the House of Commons, the late Queen Elizabeth II declared Canada independent from the British crown, in 1982. However, Canada’s process of achieving full independence from the British started long before, at the end of the 19th century, and was recognized officially and supported after the 1920s. The United States of America, as the immediate neighbour, recognized Canada as an independent and sovereign country, as well as Canada’s own efforts to establish diplomatic relations with other countries directly long before the Crown did. The story of New Zealand’s independence 158

12. Colonial History of the British

is similar to that of Canada in terms of the process it entailed. Even though the colony achieved status of a self-governing dominion in 1907, it obviously did not imply sovereignty and complete political independence from the British monarchy. It was only after the Second World War, in the late 1940s, that the dominion of New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster. This implied the official recognition of the independence and sovereignty of the dominion, as well as ascension to the Commonwealth as an equal member. Australia and New Zealand’s dissension from the British monarchy surely involved the usual matters of political representation, economic and other interests, but the momentum was the perceived failure of the monarchy to defend its dominions during the Second World War.

Just Exploring, Thank You! Trade ventures, exploration and attempts to establish colonies characterized British colonialism in the 16th century. Settling new territories posed a great challenge due to the dangers of voyages to the parts of the world promoted as the new paradise. The population of Europe, including those venturing into the New World, specifically North America, risked disease and death that the Transatlantic voyage involved, but also risk of starvation and conflict with the peoples who had lived in these lands prior to the coming of the European colonizers. Exploratory expeditions of the Americas, Africa and Asia – the chartering of territories, represented the crucial step to the more organized endeavours of colonization in later years. To digress, the last decades of the 15th century are considered the turning point in human history – the beginning of globalization through the colonization of the Americas, as well as other parts of the world. This period marks the beginning of massive political, economic and demographic changes globally. Whereas to some European countries these exploratory and colonizing projects brought great wealth and power, to others they brought centuries of enslavement and subsequent irreparable damage to the economic, political and cultural aspects of their lives. Christopher Columbus reached the American continent in 1492, supported by the Spanish Crown, and the British project of the exploration of North America started in 1497, when John Cabot reached Newfoundland (Canada). This was the very onset of the colonial project, with exploration and chartering of territories as primary concern. No permanent settlements were established in the late 15th century, but the presence of the English Crown laid the base for future territorial claims. In the century that followed, major undertakings towards colonization and settling of different parts of the world took place, under the command of individuals such as Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh. These included the Americas, but also Africa and Asia as the English maritime force had established 159

Sanja Ignjatović

trade routes. Interests were varied – from territorial to expansionist, but at the centre, the necessity to accumulate wealth and acquire new modes of filling the treasury, even if by means of enslavement, forced labour or other. The 16th century observed the establishment of trade relations between East Asia and Britain – China, Japan and today’s Indonesia. The West African coast was reached at the same time, and although the initial contact was established under the guise of trade and cooperation, the English subsequently saw their gold and ivory as luxurious commodities of interest. Moreover, one of the most contemptable practices of human kind, dating back to antiquity – slave trade, became a lucrative area. Therefore, English traders engaged in transatlantic slave trade sourcing humans for various markets in Africa. The colonization of the Caribbean started in the 16th century, but the efforts were unsuccessful mainly because of their sporadic and unorganized character that fluctuated between trade and territorial claims. Efforts to colonize the various parts of the world in the 16th century represent the initial phases of the development of large-scale endeavours. However, already at this time, European naval forces, including the British, saw great profit from trade and small territorial claims. Business was booming.

For the Queen and British Purse Jamestown, Virginia was founded in 1607, which marks the official beginning of the English colonization of North America – the first successful permanent English settlement, the Virginia Colony. If the 16th century represented a series of tentative explorative efforts, the 17th century saw the creation of the Thirteen Colonies in North America, including Massachusetts, Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony and Rhode Island. In Newfoundland, today’s Canada, the British set up Cuper’s Cove in 1610. In the Caribbean, which was mostly a trade route due to sporadic attempts at colonization, islands such as Barbados, Jamaica and the Bahamas came under the control of the British. It is at this time that slave trade and the so-called indentured labour proved its benefits to the colonizers and traders. New colonies offered new resources and economic opportunities, such as the cultivation of sugar, or later cotton, which required a great workforce. At this point, though, one with resources did not have to pay their labourers, except at the slave market. A one-time investment in the workforce. In 1600, the British East India Company was allowed the royal charter to establish trade relations in the region. However, much like with the Caribbean, trade cooperation led to the British learning more about the economic and political circumstances in the Indian subcontinent. The British influence was expanded through the formation of alliances exploiting internal conflicts, as well as military conquests later on. The West African coast, a trade route in the 160

12. Colonial History of the British

16th century, now served as a stable slave trade post where Africans were held and traded to the Americas. The dark chapter in the history of Africa observes that capturing their own with the purpose of trading them as a commodity to the British, and other European traders, became a business. The task of capturing was in the hands of local slave traders who acted on the impulse of demand and supply. A trading post known as Cape Coast Castle in today’s Ghana was established early in the 17th century. Indonesia, China and Japan remained trade routes due to now established demands for their products, but the attempts to claim territories and expand influence within China and Japan failed. The British not only saw great progress of their expansionist projects worldwide, unseen profit from the established trade routes, but also planted the seeds for takeovers of territories from other European colonizing forces of the time, such as the French, Spanish and Dutch. Moreover, as the colonies established in the 16th century, especially in North America, developed rapidly in the 17th century, the necessity to control the circumstances outside the mother country more efficiently increased. The stakes for maintaining control over the territories acquired and upheld in the 17th century was significantly higher than in the previous one, and the British funded the mobilized army whose task was to preserve British control and influence precisely exploiting the resources of the colonized nations and territories. This included the colonies in North America – colonies that started self-organizing with a different mindset than those who had lost their sovereignty and independence forcefully. The transition of these colonies into a society of its own making would signal the fall of the British Empire and a subsiding of the expansionist impulse based on the previously used methods.

You Will Have Plenty of Tea! The British colonies in North America, focused on trade, agriculture and resource extraction flourished and grew, paradoxically, both because of the centralized rule emanated by taxation policies of the English Parliament, and despite the British reliance on the resources provided by these colonies. Life in early colonies was burdened by existential threats and focused on matters pertaining to pure survival and the building of infrastructure in the falsely promoted paradise of the New World. Moreover, the claim to the land in North America cost lives – both on the European, but more on the First Nations People’s side. The circumstances of the 18th century awakened this new society to the fact that not only was the Crown oceans away, but that its interests did not coincide with the interests of the people living in North American colonies. It took a century or so for the consciousness of the population existing between the Old and New Worlds to start considering its own position. They started observing their position historically against the European circumstances that led to mass emigration, and against their current situation that 161

Sanja Ignjatović

clearly revealed that it was unjust to be denied power to govern the land built, worked and lived by these people – Americans. Well, and African Americans. And the ones before the Europeans and African Americans set foot in the Americas. But no one would ask them about their feelings of historical injustice. The French supported the Revolution. The Seven Years’ War with France ended as one of many conflicts over commercial and colonial rights, and the support extended to the enemy of the British was a continuation of these conflicts. After all, the Acts of Trade and Navigation allowed the British Empire to have a closed trade system that disallowed the American colonies to trade with other suppliers. The American Revolution started in 1776, with a war that cost the mother country dearly, and ended in the colonies’ independence from the British Crown. Trade did continue with the American colonies after the proclamation of independence, but the British were already on the lookout for other prospective colonies. At least the British had India… In the 18th century, the influence over the subcontinent increased significantly and the British established the so-called Raj, which was introduced as a form of indirect control, granting the colonized subjects the appearance of independence. In other words, the established system of control in terms of administration, activities pertaining to economy and politics, but also culture, was merely enforced by the Indian people themselves, with the supervising presence of the British forces. However, the 1750s were turbulent years for the British Empire in the Indian subcontinent since the plans for expansion included wider regions around India. Steadily restricting Indian independence, even with the Raj system implemented, the conflicts persisted well into the 19th century. The British overtook the control over royal succession in India, occupying their positions, which motivated Indians to raise numerous mutinies. In the Caribbean, the British retained control over their territories and even expanded to Trinidad. Moreover, the paralysis of the native population by the British Empire continued as the economy of the region depended exclusively on the needs of the colonizers, which meant that sugar production and slavebased economy stunted progress in these parts of the world. Moreover, the British Empire expanded their influence in South America taking over colonies such as today’s Guyana, then the British Guiana, and the Falkland Islands – a touchy subject. Asian regions saw increased presence of British military forces – Singapore, Malaysia and Burma (today’s Myanmar) whereby the established trade posts were turned into fortified settlements and military camps from which territorial claims and takeovers ensued – with the consent of local rulers, or without. Undoubtedly, the loss of American colonies created the need to regroup and invest into other ventures – India, South Asia and Australia. Although the British were familiar with the existence of Australia since the early 17th century through the Dutch, in 1770, James Cook claimed the land in the name of the British Crown. In 1788, the First Fleet arrived and New South Wales was founded. 162

12. Colonial History of the British

12.2 The Pinnacle of Colonial Success Already at the beginning of the 19th century, the British Empire saw unprecedented progress considering the industrialization of the production process, but it also recognized the growing need for resources. Advancements in technology and innovative trends were transforming Europe, and many other countries shared their need for new markets and steady resource supply. This created a competitive environment in which the leading European forces entered conflicts, unexpected alliances and escalated their colonial endeavours in territories that had been of less interest. After all, labour was also in demand, and if it could not be acquired by means of enslavement, profitability was achieved by other means. Conflicts with India and China challenged the power of the British Empire in Asia, culminating in the so-called Opium Wars (1840-1842 and 1856-1860) fought with China. The conflict over maritime rights and the Suez Canal conflict engaged Nigeria, Egypt and Sudan against the British Empire. The Boer Wars (1899-1902) against the Dutch brought great satisfaction of the British who acquired new territories and access to ores – gold and diamonds. Cyprus, today’s off-shore dealings haven, fell in the control of the Empire after the Crimean War (1854-1856) against Russia – another territorial conflict. In essence, the tenets of utilitarianism governed the minds of political and military players of the 19th century world scene, much like today. The laissez-faire trade system created the atmosphere in which economic interest were hardly regulated by states or global agreement, but by the idea that the best would prosper with or without regulation. We can deduce that war was not only regarded as inevitable, but almost as a desirable scene where the strongest build on the ashes of the frail. The restrictive governing of India, as well as the violent and unauthorized ascension of British rulers instead of Indian, sparked a number of conflicts and wars throughout the 1850s known as the Sepoy Mutiny or the Indian Rebellion. The Indian forces’ organized resistance spread throughout India, decreasing temporarily the influence of the British East India Company. However, when the peace was brokered in 1859, the Company remained with a level of control over the matters of governing until after the Second World War, in 1947. Queen Victoria was even titled Empress of India in 1877 in an attempt to forcefully unify the empire and pacify the subcontinent. The aftermath of the suppression of the rebellion, as well as the subsequent measures that formally allowed a level of independence, forced the Indian forces to regroup and diplomatically advocate liberation. The conflicts in India that followed the Indian Rebellion, encouraged the British Empire to turn to other territories – in Africa, following an observable pattern. The Empire was faced with substantial losses of resources and preferred territories that offered more profit and investment return. When the American colonies proclaimed independence, the British Empire focused on the Indian subcontinent and Australia. When India exerted massive resistance to the British presence, the Empire directed its investment into the Royal African Company. 163

Sanja Ignjatović

Will They or Will They Not – Abolish? In 1807, the English Parliament voted to abolish slave trade, but it persisted well into the 1830s, especially in colonies around the British Empire, with the final abolition in 1838. Even as Regent to George III, George IV advocated for the abolition, which was both progressive activism and a blow to the British Empire’s purse. The profits from this criminal trade acquainted the British Empire well with the African continent – West, South and East Africa. When it became controversial to dabble in human trafficking, the Brits decided to go to the source. Considering that the British Empire was not the only one charting new borders on the continent, a number of conflicts inspired by territorial ambitions of the major European colonial forces mark the 19th century. The British Empire suddenly saw potential benefit from creating a cross-African trade route, in contrast to the maritime routes until that point. Outposts stretching from Egypt to the farthest southern part of the continent presented great danger to other colonialist forces – Germany, Italy, as well as the Dutch, all found British presence on the continent problematic. Being civil, the Europeans organized the Berlin Conference in 1884 to draft the terms of the colonization of the continent. Civil above all! Each of the representatives laid claims on parts of territories of Africa, based on presence, or other matters of interest. The British were granted most of north-eastern Africa, as well as the great majority of the southern part of the continent – a third of the continent and its population in total. Up until the end of the Second World War – at which point the colonies initiated their decolonization processes, the British Empire controlled around one-fifth of the entire land surface of the world which included a quarter of the world’s population. Although Australia started as a penal colony in the late 1780s, half a century later, it was already a flourishing colony, joined under the British Crown by New Zealand in the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Around the same time, the Province of Canada merged the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada, which led to the creation of the Dominion of Canada in 1867. Canada would seek independence only in the second part of the 20th century, almost reluctantly, remaining in the Commonwealth. Australia still recognizes the British monarch as the Head of State, although under the Commonwealth laws, it has autonomy as a member of the union much like any other country, including the United Kingdom.

Meanwhile in the Balkans… When the British started travelling the globe, exploring others’ and spreading their own culture and influence, the Serbian medieval state was already disintegrated under the Ottoman boot. When the influence of the British Empire started to 164

12. Colonial History of the British

face challenges – the American and Indian challenges specifically, the Ottoman occupation of Serbia came to its end. A few decades after the American Revolution, Serbia gifted the Ottomans a revolution of their own making (1804-1817), and the end of the 19th century marked its new beginning, as a Kingdom. Yay. At that point, the British Empire was switching alliances as their interests dictated – sometimes Turkey was an ally, which could not have sat well with the Serbs, and sometimes their allies were Russia and Austria. Queen Victoria did not acknowledge the Serbian royalty officially, although they did attempt to soften her heart by decorating her. It might have been the drama of the Serbian court that left a bad impression on her.

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. How did the British military presence between the 16th and 20th century change North America, Asia and Africa? What interests did the British have in colonizing territories so far removed from Europe? Who made it possible for England to become the British Empire? What advantages did the British have over other European powers in the process of colonialization? What do you think about Australia still acknowledging the ruling monarch of the United Kingdom as the Head of State? How does the Commonwealth grant sovereignty to its members? What do you think are the interests of these former colonies’ remaining in the Commonwealth nowadays?

Suggested Reading For further research see Julie Codell and Dianne Sacko Macleod’s Orientalism Transposed: Impact of the Colonies on British Culture (2018), James Gregory’s The Royal Throne of Mercy and British Culture in the Victorian Age (2020), and Roxann Wheeler’s The Complexion of Race: Categories of Difference in Eighteenth-Century British Culture (2010). Also, see Warriors of the Queen: Fighting Generals of the Victorian Age (2014) by William Wright.

165

13. The British Empire and the World Wars

13. The British Empire and the World Wars Meanwhile in the Balkans… The new, 19th century Serbian royalty attempted to establish diplomatic relations with Queen Victoria and the British Empire at the end of the 19th century by granting the Queen high-level Order of the Grand Cross decorations. However, the abrupt changes in the Serbian ruling elites and the naming of the new royal line left a bit of a bitter taste in the mouths of European royalty, King Edward VII included. You do not simply assassinate one king and appoint another, right? The British would never do that, except on a few distant occasions. Serbia just never had the chance to organize these coups in medieval times properly, if you discount Dušan the Mighty killing his own father. Game of Thrones… Nevertheless, Prince Alexander Karađorđević attended the coronation of George V in his father’s name, somewhat improving the relations. The acceptance into the European royal milieu was a high priority diplomatic task for the Karađorđević line, especially considering the overall political instability in Europe. Due to the part the Kingdom of Serbia played in the First World War, Crown Prince Alexander, as the Regent and Commander-in-Chief, received several decorations by the British, and reciprocated accordingly. For a moment there, we had something. going Who has received these high-order decorations in the last couple of decades? Do some research. The Balkans are infamous for setting the scene for the global conflicts of the First World War, with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the AustroHungarian Empire. You know the story. It was Gavrilo Princip, the member of Mlada Bosna, and supposedly before his execution, he inscribed the line, “Our shadows will walk through Vienna, wander the court, frighten the lords.” There is a mural on a building in Vienna with his face and these words. Do you think it serves as a reminder of something to Austrians who keep it, or the Serbian expatriates there? The events of June 1914 and the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Bosnia and Herzegovina escalated the tensions, particularly because Serbia was perceived as the organizer of the assassination. In the following months, Austro-Hungarian forces launched an offensive attack against Serbia, which led to a political and military regrouping among European countries, aligned with their interests. The Entente Cordiale (Triple Entente) included Great Britain, France and Russia – as the core of Allied Powers, who supported Serbia and launched their own offensives on the Eastern Front, whereas the Axis, led by Austro-Hungary, Germany and Italy, sought to take control over Serbian 167

Sanja Ignjatović

territories. Both the Entente Cordiale and the Axis would take on new members in the years to come, in the wake of the second global conflict. The offensive forced the Serbian army to retreat across Albanian mountains into Greece in 1915, opening the Thessaloniki Front, supported by the Allied Powers. In 1918, the Serbian army was supported by the French and British forces, and the victory against the Central Powers led to the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – later Yugoslavia, only temporarily brought peace to the Balkans. In the aftermath of the First World War, the Balkans had to face significant loss of human lives and deal with the destruction of the infrastructure, as well as economic devastation. And this is only a century after the liberation from the Ottoman Empire. Not even a proper break between wars. Post-war reconstruction posed a great challenge, and the volatile situation in the Balkan territories, including those that would later be part of Yugoslavia – Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia, would create grounds for overwhelming internal, and external conflicts with the rise of the Third Reich and Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. The thing is, though… Although the assassination of the Archduke of the AustroHungarian Empire is taken as the start of the war, the simplification would be quite unsound. When France and Great Britain signed the Entente agreement, it was to protect their interests in Africa. However, Germany also had interests in Africa, as well as Italy, and their attempts to incite rebellions – Germans in the French Morocco, only put a stop to the French-English antagonism. In fact, the Entente’s interests mutually protected in Africa, other colonial forces could challenge their presence in other parts of the world – this time close to home, or accede to their power. The Austro-Hungarian invasion of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the German invasion of Belgium, forced the Allies to react. In other words, the Balkans was just there, existing in between, occasionally poking bears and monsters, doing their thing, amidst more powerful players. For a moment there, we were another Africa, Australia, India… You name it.

13.1 The First World War  The conflicts referred to as the First World War (1914-1918) represent the culmination of the tensions between European countries which had become colonial and industrial forces over the course of the 19th century. By signing the agreement and becoming a member of the Entente Cordial (1904), or the Triple Entente – an alliance between Great Britain, France and Russia, the British attempted to counter the expansion of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Moreover, industrialization had led to the change in the balance of 168

13. The British Empire and the World Wars

power – the British Empire, although vast, could not easily counter fast-growing Germany whose interests relied on the conflict between the French and the British, especially in Africa. The economy of the United States of America and Japan were on the rise, whereas Russia met several defeats at the beginning of the 20th century, bringing into question its role in the Entente. The United Kingdom declared war on Germany in August 1914 prompted by the latter’s invasion of Belgium. The German offensive happened only a few months after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand – a response of the Axis to the efforts to push back the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Bosnian territories. Active participation of Britain included the mobilization of a great number of military forces in the Western Front – France and Belgium, as well as the deployment of the British Royal Navy. Some of the major British contributions to the countering of the German forces were in the events of the Battle of Somme (1916), and the Battles of Passchendaele and Ypres (1917) – all marked by significant casualties, especially considering that the British army involved a great number of volunteers and conscripts. The entire endeavour of the First World War changed the course of history in terms of the development of military technology, spurred by industrialization and accumulation of capital by the major imperialist forces of the 19th century. The conflicts were aggravated by the use of advanced weapons – artillery and the use of tanks (the Battle of Cambrai in 1917), resulting in unprecedented devastation of infrastructure and loss of lives. Moreover, naval and air warfare saw advancements that would be tested in the decades to come, during the Second World War, with additional active participants – the United States and Japan, most notably. The costs of conscription and mobilization, along with the resource support extended to allies in the Eastern Front, led the United Kingdom into significant financial crisis, although war propaganda during the time insisted on the continuation of war efforts. The silver lining was that due to the necessity to mobilize a great number of people, women took on more responsibility. Their contribution to industry during the war paved the way for the subsequent fight for political rights. The talks of the League of Nations, a political organization similar to today’s United Nations, marked the post-war period, although diplomatic means provided little assurance that the conflicts within Europe would cease. The United Kingdom lost around one million lives in the course of the First World War, including soldiers conscripted from the British colonies, such as Australia and New Zealand.

169

Sanja Ignjatović

13.2 The Saxe-Coburg Gotha Wir Sprechen Englisch! Genug! The succession of the legendary Queen Victoria of Hanover in 1901 marked the rise of the Saxe-Coburg Gotha line – that of her Consort, Prince Albert. The line was closely related to the German royal family, which was not an immediate issue. However, the long reign of Queen Victoria saw major changes in the political and social circumstances of Europe. Prince Albert Edward, Duke of Cornwall and York, succeeded the last Hanoverian monarch – his mother, as King Edward VII (1901-1910). At the time of his ascension, the British Empire was one of the most powerful forces in the world, although numerous conflicts silently troubled the colonies. His diplomatic efforts to ensure peace between France and Britain resulted in the eventual creation of the Entente Cordiale, which would prove crucial for the course of history, as we know it, and the preservation of the United Kingdom’s position in Europe.

The Edwardian Era Edward VII was the eldest son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, and the title of the Emperor of India transferred onto him upon the ascension to the throne. He became the heir-apparent – the Prince of Wales, at the age of 21 (1863), which is when he married Alexandra of Denmark. Even during Queen Victoria’s reign, Edward VII was heavily engaged in diplomatic activities of the British, specifically ensuring favourable outcomes for his country in relations within Europe. By extension, Edward VII ensured the endurance of the Entente Cordiale deal between Britain, France and Russia – a deal contingent upon compromises and concessions in Africa, but advantageous to the British considering the threat of Germany whose ambitions he understood early on through familial connections. Although the Triple Entente was signed in 1904, during his reign, the contract was drafted in 1898, with the cooperation of the French foreign minister who also believed that German’s industrial success and overall growth in terms of production, power and population could only be countered by a Western European alliance. The agreement was negotiated by the French ambassador in London, and the British foreign secretary, but the endorsement and mediation of the unexpected alliance with the French remains the legacy of the King. Although Edward VII faced health issues in later years that cut his reign rather short, the period is referred to as the Edwardian era. The legacy of Edward VII, especially in the light of Queen Victoria’s seclusion after 170

13. The British Empire and the World Wars

the death of Prince Albert, was the visibility of the monarch and their role in the public life of the British people, and diplomatic and foreign affairs. His knowledgeability and sociability complemented the period of great social and cultural transformations, technological advancements, the emergence of the Labour Party in 1893 and its rise during his reign, better representation of the working class in Parliament and the overall trajectory towards a modern society. He fathered six children with Queen Alexandra, and was succeeded by his second son in 1910.

Britain, Über Alles! George V (1910-1936) was crowned as the King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Empire, as well as Emperor of India. George V had served in the Royal Navy until the death of his elder brother, when he retired from military duties as second in line of succession after his father. He went forward with the arranged marriage with Princess Victoria Mary of Teck – engaged initially to Prince Albert Victor, the eldest son of Edward VII. The circumstances of George V’s succession were complex because of the negative sentiments of the public towards the German ruling line, although the descendants of Queen Victoria were very English (yes, sarcasm), and George V’s service in the army was particularly important after the First World War, although his days in the naval service had ended in the previous century. As the emanation of his people, George V served to maintain morale, but also took active role in advocating tolerance and creating a climate of understanding, especially upon his ascension. The rise of fascism in Germany and Italy created the momentum for action in terms of choosing sides in the already gravely divided Europe, and the first opening of Parliament, served as opportunity to George V to stand against the perpetuation of internal divisions.

The Windsor House Criticizing the anti-Catholic wording of the Sovereign’s Declaration, George V forced Parliament to pass the Accession Declaration Act (1910) which placed emphasis on the monarch’s pledge to his country and Protestant faith, rather than define his role against the Catholics. A display of progressive and wise leadership. Furthermore, the event of the First World War forced the King to openly declare his nationalist disposition and distance himself and his successors from their German relatives. The King’s first cousin was the infamous German Kaiser Wilhelm II. Moreover, the entirety of both King and Queen’s cousins and relatives were of German descent and reminded the people of the horrid losses and devastation. In 1917, the King issued a royal proclamation 171

Sanja Ignjatović

changing the name of Saxe-Coburg Gotha into House of Windsor, forcing the entire entourage of royals and title-bearing relatives to do the same. The act itself was symbolic, yet powerful in the eyes of the nation that needed a morale boost. Already in 1915, King George V had rescinded titles of seven German and Austrian royals cutting off their financial benefits, but he could not rescind their peerage. Consequently, Parliament passed the Titles Deprivation Act in 1917 as a measure against the individuals who sided with the Central Powers to keep peerages and royal titles. The King established a Privy Council that investigated potential treason. In other words, King George V not only made sure his name would no longer be related to the Kaiser, but he publicly severed ties with Germany. The message related to the British and allied public was that the royal family’s commitment was to its people. The positive reactions of the British public only increased interest in the person of George V and reinforced national unity in the time of war. King George V created a strong image that people would want to relate to the British nation.

13.3 The Second World War  Prior to the escalation of another global and even more devastating conflict with its epicentre in Europe, the United Kingdom saw another succession. King Edward VIII, the eldest of George V’s children, succeeded to the throne after the death of his father in 1936. However, due to conflicts that involved nonchalant disregard for protocol and rules, Parliament proclaimed a constitutional crisis only months into the rule. In fact, Edward VIII reigned from January to December 1936, when he was forced to choose between marrying Wallis Simpson – an American actress and divorcee, or retain position as King. The issue was fuelled by Simpson’s ineligibility to bear the title of Queen Consort, as well as the fact that Edward VIII would not be able to become the Head of Church of England upon marrying a divorced individual. This was a matter of constitutional agreement and King Charles III faced the same obstacle because both he and his partner, Camilla Parker Bowles, divorced. The divorce would have been problematic for Charles as the future titular Head of Church, but Diana Spenser’s death relieved that issue. Awful, but true. In December 1936, Edward VIII abdicated, but took the title Duke of Windsor. The problematic honeymoon visit to Nazi Germany following the marriage to Simpson in 1937 invited negative attention, and even though he fought in the Second World War in France, his and the legacy of the couple remain controversial. He was buried in 1972 in St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle, joined by his wife in 1986. Queen Elizabeth II’s allowing a modest royal funeral in the family estate sent a message of acceptance of the marriage, for in the years prior Wallis Simpson was refused royal reception, and Duke of Windsor faced backlash for his decision to abdicate – from members of the royal family and the public. Obviously, Elizabeth II did not mind. After all, 172

13. The British Empire and the World Wars

had her uncle not abdicated, she would not have been that close in the line to the throne. By curious workings of the universe, Wallis Simpson’s existence gave the United Kingdom one of its most famous monarchs.

Emperor Nevermore King George VI (1936-1952) was still crowned King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, and was the last Emperor of India. The British Empire lost India in 1947, although the London Declaration granted India membership in the Commonwealth. George VI served in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force during the First World War. The marriage to Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon gave the United Kingdom Elizabeth and Margaret, two daughters no one expected to be in the line to the throne until the abdication of Edward VIII. In fact, George VI was never considered for the role of the king considering the succession practice, as well as his brother’s overall aptness for the position. Ironically, when Edward abdicated and George VI succeeded, the Parliament of the Irish Free State immediately limited the role of the monarch in their constitution, and managed to constitute their country as a republic – all out of fear of what might become of the kingdom with George VI sitting on the throne. Formerly known as Albert, the newly appointed King took the name George to appease the public and create sense of continuity, reminding them of his father’s rule. However, the King’s stuttering issues were soon turned into rumours of unfitness – physical and psychological, although he had sought therapy for it and had successfully overcome the fear of speaking in public. Being human is unforgivable, apparently. In 1937, George VI was crowned in Westminster Abbey, and his mother, Queen Mary attended it, against tradition, to publicly show the much-needed support. The beginning of the Second World War in 1939, triggered by the German invasion of Poland, automatically positioned the United Kingdom and its dominions, except Ireland due to neutrality, against the Axis forces. Ireland was not playing dead. They just imitated the smartest players in Europe: Switzerland and the Vatican. Remember, the country is still a tax haven. While people die for and because of ideology, these countries work on establishing financial dominance. Food for thought. The United Kingdom declared war on Germany, and the Windsor family took active roles in the events that transpired in the following years – from the discomfort of the ration-humbled Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. During the war, George VI provided moral support to the British people by working closely with Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister, as well as other 173

Sanja Ignjatović

political leaders. George VI’s wife, Queen Elizabeth, also played an active role, the most important of which was one of defiance during the bombing of London that reached the courtyard of Buckingham Palace. The very fact that the royals remained in London, sharing the fate of their people, boosted morale and strengthened national unity. The Windsor family, including Princesses Elizabeth (future Queen Elizabeth II) and Margaret, visited shelters, factories and the troops to show support. Princess Elizabeth, a teenager at the time, joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) in 1945 and trained as a driver and mechanic. The United Kingdom was facing blackouts to ensure that the positions of British troops would not be revealed to the German enemy. However, this also resulted in major transportation issues, as well as pedestrian injuries and vehicular accidents. Bombs, darkness and famine. Special measures pertaining to rationing food, water and electricity were enforced in 1939, whereas petrol shortages invited similar measures in 1941.

Winston Churchill Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945, Winston Churchill’s legacy is that of an extraordinary leader and diplomat. As Prime Minister, he insisted on defiance against Nazi Germany and the forces of the Axis, especially in times when the Allied Forces faced significant losses and devastation. In the famous address to the House of Commons, in June 1940, following the evacuation of British and French armies from Dunkirk, Churchill, among other things, said: Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

The motivation behind Churchill’s speech was to secure funds for the continuation of British offensives considering the losses of British troops. The capitulation of France required the British to take the leading role in organizing the Allied Powers. The British Empire was the home of about a quarter of the world’s population at the beginning of the Second World War. Moreover, 174

13. The British Empire and the World Wars

the troops of the Dominions proved to play crucial roles in the key battles of the First World War. Churchill’s address, rhetorically charged to boost morale and prevent Parliament from even considering the refusal of funds, related the message that the Dominions would be called to service again. The role of the Dominions greatly aided the victory of the Allied Powers. However, the extent of their losses also served as the basis for the decolonization process that followed the end of the war. The War Ministry of Winston Churchill included some of the key political and military leaders of the time, such as Lord Neville Chamberlain and Clement Attlee (Deputy Prime Minister). The Cabinet and the War Ministry sustained a number of changes due to deaths and changing circumstances. The Prime Minister’s focus during the term was the defeat of Germany in Europe, whereas the war overseas territories seem to have been less of a priority. He was one of the key figures in the strategic planning of the Normandy landing, and his role in the coordination of this event with Franklin D. Roosevelt – President of the United States, and Joseph Stalin – Premier of the Soviet Union, although crucial, remains somewhat controversial for some historians believe that he might have opposed the landing. The alliance between the three major Allied Powers’ countries, as well as Dominion troops and Free French forces, enabled joint offensives that resulted in the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany, albeit the many setbacks – including the bad weather, during the liberation of Normandy (Operation Overlord) and invasion of Italy in 1944. Supposedly, Churchill opposed the 1944 liberation of France – the so-called D-Day, but ultimately, the operation proved to be the crucial success in the weakening the Axis military influence in Europe. Regardless, his role in the liberation of France and neutralization of Nazi forces in Italy was vital.

Recollections May Vary “Throughout all my life and with all my heart I shall strive to be worthy of your trust.”

In the eve of Elizabeth II’s coronation, in the radio-broadcast address to the Commonwealth nations Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary II (1952-2022) succeeded her father, George VI, at the age of 26, as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Head of Commonwealth and Defender of Faith. Her coronation was the first one televised in history. The length of Queen Elizabeth II’s rule surpassed that of Queen Victoria in 2015, and she celebrated her Platinum Jubilee in the summer of 2022, a few months before her death in Balmoral Castle, Scotland. Queen Victoria ruled for 63 years and 216 days, 175

Sanja Ignjatović

and Queen Elizabeth II for 70 years and 214 days (excluding the day of her passing). The late Queen currently holds the second place in history, losing only to Louis XIV of France who ruled for 72 years and 110 days. She was engaged to Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark – Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten in 1947, and they married in November that year. Charles Philip Arthur George – Prince Charles, was born in 1948 (titled heir-apparent, Prince of Wales in 1958, current reigning monarch – Charles III). He was followed by Princess Anne Elizabeth Alice Louse born in 1950 (titled Princess Royal in 1987), then Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward in 1960 (titled Duke of York in 1986), and Prince Edward Anthony Richard Louis in 1964 (titled Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn in 1999). Although the tradition imposed that the children would all bear the last name Windsor, following the ruling line – her father’s, in 1960, Queen Elizabeth II amended it into Mountbatten-Windsor, which is now the last name of the entire royal family – active and outlawed members. Prince Charles and Prince Andrew both divorced their respective wives, but the event of the Prince of Wales’ divorce with Diana Spencer was the cause of major public and royal grief, especially considering the rumours of his extramarital relationship to Camilla Parker Bowles – the woman he would marry in 2005. Queen Elizabeth II remained an active monarch with engagements well until the last weeks of her life, whereas Prince Philip officially retired in 2017 due to ill health. Prince Philip died in April 2021, and the event of his funeral, under the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, took place in the St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle. The iconic footage of Queen Elizabeth sitting in the choir stall alone during the procession, wearing a mask, along with the restrictions of the organized event, showed the nation once again that the Queen was aware of her country’s state and that she suffered their circumstances. The Partygate of the Prime Minister Boris Johnson would stand in stark contrast to that image in the COVID years. Queen Elizabeth II died at the age of 96. Her commemoration (Operation London Bridge) lasted for 10 days, with the late Queen lay in state for a day in Edinburgh, then London (Westminster Hall) for 3 days, then in Westminster Abbey for the funeral ceremony officiated by Archbishop Justin Welby. The final procession saw the Queen’s casket borne to St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle to her resting place following a route that allowed thousands to pay their last respects, including around a 100 foreign government representatives. King Charles III (2022), was crowned King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Head of the Commonwealth Nations in May 2023. He has yet to deal with the aftermath of the scandals surrounding his brother, Prince Andrew – Duke of York and his disgraceful and criminal role in trafficking and sexual exploitation of young women uncovered in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Moreover, King Charles’ relationship with Prince Harry – Duke of Sussex and Meghan Markle cast a shadow on the celebration of his coronation 176

13. The British Empire and the World Wars

in May 2023. Accusations of racism, favouritism and unfair treatment within the royal family, as well as Prince Harry’s public confessions about matters of the Mountbatten-Windsor family, place the most famous royal family in the spotlight of the tabloids, which is in stark contrast to the decades of Queen Elizabeth II’s rule. Meanwhile in the Balkans… When Germany launched their invasion on Yugoslavia in 1941, they initially encountered great resistance, but nothing they could not suppress. The German forces occupied Belgrade and established the collaborationist government with General Milan Nedić as the head. The cooperation included the implementation of German policies, but also the infamous suppression of resistance, all under the supervision of the German forces. Moreover, this government’s most detestable and dishonourable legacy was their assisting in the persecution of minority groups marked for annihilation – Jews, the Roma people, as well as other groups or individuals who openly expressed dissention from the manner in which the occupation was unfolding. This entire period of Yugoslavian, and Serbian, history is subject of controversial and uncomfortable debate. The resistance movement numbered at least two major groups, the Partisans and the Chetniks as the most prominent. The leader of the former was Josip Broz Tito, the future president-king of the big Yugoslavia we have all heard so much about. He was the President, but his mandate expired at the time of death. Repression and atrocities committed against Yugoslavians include the Kragujevac Massacre in October 1941, when thousands of Serbian civilians, pupils and teachers among other, were executed in retribution to the Partisan attacks. Yugoslavia was again part of the Allied Powers, supported by Western Allies – the United Kingdom, and somewhat France, but you know how that went… Additionally, the Soviet Union assisted the resistance groups. After the war, Josip Broz Tito rose to power and Serbia became part of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia – a communist country, like the Soviet Union. At least it was not a Puritan Republic, but the analogies are obvious. The role Yugoslavia played in the Second World War, especially in terms of declining the Nazi rule, demanded a positioning towards the two blocks in Europe. The Western block, allied additionally with the United States of America who had displayed their capacity for destruction immodestly, and the Eastern – with the Soviet Union seeking diplomatic and other ways to curb the influence of America, expected Yugoslavia to position against an ideology. Yugoslavia chose something that would be called neutrality in terms of the Cold War – keeping diplomatic relations with the West, opening up to Africa and Asia, but also maintaining a communist regime. Does that sound like neutrality to you? Or being vague? As for the royals, allied again in fighting Nazi Germany after the First World War bromance, the Yugoslavian court and government were welcomed in Great Britain, much like other deposed or exiled monarchs. In other words, our royalty 177

Sanja Ignjatović

and their entourage and loyalists were exiled, and London offered some sort of refuge. King Peter II actually married Alexandra of Greece in London, during the Second World War, and young Elizabeth – future Queen Elizabeth II, attended the christening of Alexander, as his godmother, with her father, George VI as godfather. After the Second World War, the Karađorđević family remained in the United Kingdom, in their forced exile. Their mother tongue is, basically, English!

Your Study Guide Here are some additional questions that you might want to consider to understand the period better. How did the interests of the British Empire (and the United Kingdom) clash with those of Germany before the First World War? How about the Second World War? Why was France an unlikely ally of the British at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century? What influenced the creation of the Allied Powers – first the Triple Entente, then the Entente Cordiale? How did that influence the redistribution of power and inspire different territorial divisions? Were the World Wars influenced merely by ideological differences between the Nazi regimes and the Allied Powers, or were there any other factors involved? How do you reflect on the role of Serbia and then Yugoslavia in the World Wars? How did the interests of Serbia and later Yugoslavia depend on the interests of major European military powers? Bearing in mind the history of European imperialism, how do you comment on the First and Second World Wars? What other factors influenced the rise of powers such as Germany and Italy? The common stereotype about Germans in Serbia is that they are efficient and diligent, and we gladly buy their appliances and cars. How did they become such an industrial power?

Suggested Reading For more on the United Kingdom’s role in the First World War, see British Culture and the First World War: Experience, Representation and Memory (2014) by Toby Thacker, and British Culture and the First World War (2017) by George Robb. For more on the Second World War, see The Flyer: British Culture and the Royal Air Force, 1939-1945 (2008) by Martin Francis, Adrian Bingham’s United Kingdom (2022). Also see, Fighting the People’s War: The British and Commonwealth Armies and the Second World War (2020) by Jonathan Fennell and Peter Neville’s The British Attempt to Prevent the Second World War: The Age of Anxiety (2018). 178

14. Notable Brits

14. Notable Brits Each of the individuals listed below have left a lasting mark on British history, culture and some have indebted the world with their innovative thinking, bravery and activism, scientific achievements, talent and humour. Alongside some of the mentioned and unmentioned, but reputably famous historical figures, such as Queen Elizabeth I, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Drake, William Shakespeare, Sir Thomas More, Arthur Wellesley – Duke of Wellington, Isaak Newton, Geoffrey Chaucer and Charles Darwin, you will discover a list of noteworthy individuals who happened to be born on the British Isles. Your task is to choose one or more notable Brits based on their achievements, the time or nature of their diverse contributions to history – politics, science, culture, and your personal interests, and present their relevance in the context of 1) their historical period, and 2) for contemporaneity.

The British Blast from the Past Sir Christopher Wren (1632-1723) – British architect, mathematician, and scientist James Watt (1736-1819) – Scottish inventor and chemist Joseph Banks (1743-1820) – Botanist and patron of the natural sciences Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) – English Romantic poet, literary critic and philosopher Charles Napier (1782-1853) – British military officer with worldwide engagement for the Empire. Lord George Gordon Byron (1788-1824) – English Romantic poet and satirist Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (1797-1851) – British author (Frankenstein) Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806-1859) was a British civil engineer and one of the most prominent figures of the Industrial Revolution Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806-1861) – Poet and rebel. Charles Dickens (1812-1870) – Writer and social critic

179

Sanja Ignjatović

David Livingstone (1813-1873) – Scottish physician and pioneer Christian missionary in Africa. Florence Nightingale (1820-1910) – Social reformer and founder of modern nursing. Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) – English author, poet and mathematician. Sir Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922) – Scottish scientist, engineer and inventor who patented the first telephone. Emmeline Pankhurst (1858 – 1928) – British political activist and suffragist Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle (1859-1930) – Author of famous Sherlock Holmes novels. H. G. Wells (1866-1946) – Father of Science Fiction, British author Gertrude Bell (1868-1926) – British writer, explorer and archaeologist Sir Alexander Fleming (1881-1955) – Scottish physician and microbiologist, best known for discovering penicillin Howard Carter (1873-1939) – Archaeologist, uncovered the tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh king Tut – Tutankhamun. Winston Churchill (1874-1965) – British statesman and military leader. Marie Stopes (1880-1958) – British author, advocate for women’s rights and birth control

The Lost Generation People Born Between 1883 and 1900 Thomas Stearns Eliot – T. S. Eliot (1888-1965) – British poet and author. Charlie Chaplin (1889-1977) – British actor, comedian, filmmaker and composer. Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) – British author. Clive Staples Lewis – C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) – Scholar and fiction writer. Agatha Christie (1890-1976) – British author of mystery novels, creator of Hercule Poirot. J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973) – Professor, writer, poet. 180

14. Notable Brits

The Greatest Generation People Born Between 1901 and 1927 Karl Popper (1902-1994) – British philosopher. Eric Arthur Blair – George Orwell (1903-1950) – Social critic, writer and journalist. Dorothy Mary Crowfoot Hodgkin (1910-1994) – Chemist, second woman to receive the Order of Merit after Florence Nightingale, social activist. Clare Hollingworth (1911-2017) – the iconic journalist who broke the news on World War II in 1939. Alan Turing (1912-1954) – British mathematician, logician and (computer) scientist. Mary Douglas Nicol Leakey (1913-1996) - British archaeologist and paleoanthropologist who contributed to the understanding of human evolution and the study of early hominids in Africa. Rosalind Elsie Franklin (1920-1958) – British chemist and crystallographer who majorly contributed to the comprehension of DNA and RNA structures of viruses. Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) – British politician, leader of the Conservative Party and the first woman Prime Minister in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth Alexandra Mary II (1926-2022) – The longest reigning monarch in European history. Sir David Attenborough (1926) – British natural historian.

The Silent Generation People Born Between 1928 and 1945 Harold Pinter (1930-2008) – Playwright, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005. John Lennon (1940-1980) – Musician, singer, songwriter. Richard Dawkins (1941) – British evolutionary biologist and author. Professor Stephen Hawking (1942-2018) – British theoretical physicist, cosmologist and author. 181

Sanja Ignjatović

Jocelyn Bell Burnell (1943) - British astrophysicist. Terry Eagleton (1943) – British literary theorist and critic.

Baby Boomers People Born Between 1946 and 1964 Farrokh Bulsara - Freddy Mercury (1946-1991) – British musician, singer, and songwriter (frontman of the Queen). Charles Philip Arthur George (1948) – Current monarch of the United Kingdom and 14 Commonwealth Realms, the longest heir-apparent and Prince of Wales. Anna Wintour (1949) – British-American fashion editor. Douglas Adams (1952-2001) – Science-fiction author. Lady Theresa Mary May (1956) – Former Prime Minister (one term) and Home Secretary for David Cameron (two terms). Served under Queen Elizabeth II. Stephen Fry (1957) – Comedian, actor and writer. Dawn French (1957) – Actress, comedian, writer, co-creator of Absolutely Fabulous, among other iconic British TV series Jennifer Jane Saunders (1958) – Actress, comedian, writer, co-creator of Absolutely Fabulous, among other iconic British TV series Kenneth Branagh (1960) – British actor and filmmaker. Ricky Gervais (1961) – British comedian and actor, but also writer, producer and director. Co-created the original, The Office. Diana Frances Spenser (1961-1997) – Late Princess of Wales.

Generation X People Born Between 1965 and 1980 J. K. Rowling (1965) – Author of the Harry Potter series. Gordon Ramsey (1966) – Scottish-born iconic chef Rishi Sunak (1980) – Current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 182

14. Notable Brits

Millennials People Born Between 1981 and 1996 Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (1982) – Princess of Wales. William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor (1982) – Prince of Wales, next in line to the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms after Charles III, the current monarch. Eddie Redmayne (1982) – Actor. Amy Winehouse (1983-2011) – Iconic singer-songwriter. Henry Charles Albert David Windsor (1984) – Duke of Sussex, but also the author of the infamous memoir Shame published in 2022 as the culmination of the Megzit episode in the lives of the Windsor family. Adele Laurie Blue Adkins (1988) – Singer and songwriter.

Generation Z People Born Between 1997 and 2012 We are yet to see what notable figures the Gen Z will yield.

Your Study Guide What other noteworthy British people should be on this list, excluding the monarchs, politicians and other individuals mentioned in the preceding chapters covering the millennia-long history of the Kingdom? Do you see any patterns in the lists above? Think about how each of these generations contributed to the British and global societies. Think about a list of notable Serbian people who contributed to the society and the world in a remarkable way.

183

15. National Monuments of the United Kingdom

15. National Monuments of the United Kingdom Choose one of the national monuments on the list below and research its historical significance, as well as the relevance it has on contemporary understanding of British history, tradition and culture, and tourism. Compare these monuments to those in Serbia that could correspond – by period, purpose or other point of similarity. Stonehenge (UNESCO World Heritage) is a famous prehistoric monument dating back to the period between 3000 and 2000 BC. One could say that the fascination of people throughout centuries with circles of standing stones is absurd, but the explanations, stories and myths constructed about this mysterious monument range from it being an observatory, to an ancient and contemporary alien site. What other sites resembling Stonehenge are there in the world? Westminster Abbey (UNESCO World Heritage) is a royal site in the City of Westminster, London, England. Big Ben or the Great Bell of the Clock is located near the Houses of Parliament, in the Palace of Westminster in London. It is one of the most prominent landmarks of London. The image of the Big Ben is so famous worldwide that it has come to represent the British culture. Tower of London (UNESCO World Heritage) is one of the most famous historic castles in London, England. From its beginnings to contemporaneity, it has served as a royal residence and prison, and now it is a museum and the home of the Crown Jewels. Scotland maintains one of the most famous castles in the United Kingdom – the Edinburgh Castle located in Edinburgh. Buckingham Palace is the official residence of the reigning British monarch and the symbol of monarchy worldwide for its Changing of the Guard ceremony and other state occasions based on centuries-old traditions. It is located in London. Canterbury Cathedral (UNESCO World Heritage) is the famous Christian cathedral, the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury – Head of the Anglican Church, and one of the most famous pilgrimage sites since 1170. 185

Sanja Ignjatović

The Globe Theatre is one of the most famous open-air British theatres, located in Southwark, London. You have probably heard about it in connection to William Shakespeare, one of England’s most famous Elizabethan playwrights. The British Museum (UNESCO World Heritage) is one of the world’s most comprehensive museums with permanent and temporary exhibitions from various international art collections, artefacts and antiquities bought or otherwise acquired particularly during the period of the British Empire. It was built in the 18th century when the British Empire was exploring, and already exploiting, a great number of territories and cultures. Why are there no more mummies in Egypt? Well, you know the joke… Hadrian’s Wall (UNESCO World Heritage) was built in the 2nd century as a Roman defensive fortification. It is no Chinese Wall, but it does testify to the history of conflicts on the British Isles. St Paul’s Cathedral is a famous architectural piece by Sir Christopher Wren – an 18th century British architect. Like the Tower of London, Big Ben, Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament, St Paul’s Cathedral is one of the most famous British landmarks. St David’s Cathedral, the largest cathedral in Wales, is in Pembrokeshire. Dedicated to St David, the patron saint of Wales, it is a place of worship and a pilgrimage site. Caernarfon Castle (UNESCO World Heritage) is located in Caernarfon, Wales. Built in the 13th century by Edward Longshanks, it remains an architectural feat of great historical significance. The Wallace Monument is a tower erected as the commemorative site of the Scottish national hero – William Wallace. It is located on the Abbey Craig near Stirling, central Scotland. The town offers insight into Scotland’s rich history and the life of the national hero, alongside great views. Callanish Stones are another mysterious stone monument, perhaps less popular due to their location, but certainly older – dating back to 5000 years. Their home is the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, and just like Stonehenge, stories about these stones take roots in the rich local folklore. Giant’s Causeway (UNESCO World Heritage) is a natural volcanic wonder located in Northern Ireland, on the north coast of County Antrim. Thousands of basalt columns created by volcanic activity, just like the stone circles, are the source of wonderment and legends. 186

15. National Monuments of the United Kingdom

Walls of Derry are the remnants of the old Londonderry – the second largest city in Northern Ireland. The old city itself is a historic site with preserved city walls dating back to the 17th century. The level of preservation offers visitors an experience of the town’s past and a glimpse into what it was potentially like to live within these walls, especially in contrast to the new city. Peace Walls in Belfast stand as the testimony of the Troubles in the 1960s. The walls, located in several places, functioned as physical barriers between the Catholic and Protestant neighbourhoods. They remain as symbols of the religious and political divisions, especially since the early 20th century.

187

Bibliography

Bibliography This section encompasses the works referenced, discussed or mentioned in the Suggested Reading chapters, as well as additional titles students might find useful in their further exploration of British history and culture. The list is in alphabetical order. Abels, Richard P. Alfred the Great: War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. Routledge, 2013. Anderson, Benedict R. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. Anercrombie, Nicholas. Alan Warde et al. Eds. Contemporary British Society. Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000. Anzelark, Daniel. Alfred the Great. Leeds: Arc Humanities Press, 2019. Arman, Joanna. The Warrior Queen: The Life and Legend of AEthelflaed, Daughter of Alfred the Great. Stroud, Gloucestershire; Amberley Publishing, 2018. Antić, Čedomir. Srpska istorija. Beograd: Vukotić Media, 2020. Bennett, Matthew. Campaigns of the Norman Conquest. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2013. Bindman, David. Ed. The Thames and Hudson Encyclopaedia of British Art. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1985. Bingham, Adrian. United Kingdom. Cambridge: Polity, 2022. Black, Jeremy. (1996). A History of the British Isles. Palgrave, 2017. Blair, Peter Hunter. (1963). Roman Britain and Early England 55 BC-AD 871. Cardinal, 1975. Brady, Lindy. The Origin Legends of Early Medieval Britain and Ireland. Cambridge University Press, 2022. Cannon, John. Robert Crowcroft. The Oxford Companion to British History. Oxford University Press, Second Edition 2015. 189

Sanja Ignjatović

Castleden, Rodney. (1987). The Stonehenge People: An Exploration of Life in Neolithic Britain 4700-2000 BC. Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2002. Codell, Julie. Dianne Sacko Macleod. Orientalism Transposed: Impact of the Colonies on British Culture. Milton: Routledge, 2018. Colley, Linda. Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Connolly, Sharon Bennett. Silk and the Sword: The Women of the Norman Conquest. Amberley Publishing, 2018. Cleary, Joe. Clair Connolly, Eds. The Cambridge Companion to Modern Irish Culture. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Cleland, Elizabeth A. H. Adam Eaker. Marjorie E. Wieseman. The Tudors: Art and Majesty in Renaissance England. New York: The Metropolitan Museum Art, 2022. Christopher, David. British Culture: An Introduction. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis, 2015. Crabtree, Pam J. Early Medieval Britain: The Rebirth of Towns in the PostRoman West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Daniell, Christopher. Atlas of Medieval Britain. London: Routledge, 2008. Deary, Terry. The Ruthless Romans. Book People Ltd, 2003. Fennell, Jonathan. Fighting the People’s War: The British and Commonwealth Armies and the Second World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. Fisher, D. J. V. (1973). The Anglo-Saxon Age: c. 400-1042. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014. Forster, Laurel. Sue Harper. British Culture and Society in the 1970s: The Lost Decade. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. Freeman, Philip. Celtic Mythology: Tales of Gods, Goddesses and Heroes. Oxford University Press, 2017. Francis, Martin. The Flyer: British Culture and the Royal Air Force, 19391945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Gilbert, Martin. The Routledge Atlas of British History. Routledge, Fifth Edition, 2011. 190

Bibliography

Green, Barbara. Feminist Periodicals and Daily Life: Women and Modernity in British Culture. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. Gregory, James. The Royal Throne of Mercy and British Culture in the Victorian Age. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. Harding, Nick. Hanover and the British Empire, 1700-1837. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2007. Healey, Jonathan. The Blazing World: A New History of Revolutionary England, 1603-1689. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2023. Heffer, Simon. The Age of Decadence: A History of Britain, 1880-1914. New York: Pegasus Books, 2021. Higgins, Michael. Clarissa Smith and John Storey, Eds. The Cambridge Companion to Modern British Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Jackson, Claire. Devil-Land: England under Siege, 1588-1688. London: Penguin Books, 2022. Jorgensen, Alice, Ed. Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Language, Literature, History. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers n. v., 2010. Korte, Barbara. Nicole Falkenhayner. Heroes in Contemporary British Culture: Television Drama and Reflections of a Nation in Change. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2021. Lopičić, Vesna. British Studies Course Book. Niš: Tibet, 2005. Malewski, Anne. Growing Sideways in Twenty-First Century British Culture: Challenging Boundaries Between Childhood and Adulthood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2021. Marsico, Katie. What We Get From Celtic Mythology. Cherry Lake Publishing, 2015. Marks, Adam. England and the Thirty Years’ War. Leiden: Brill, 2023. Monaghan, Patricia. The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2004. Morris, Marc. Castles: Their History and Evolution in Medieval Britain. New York: Pegasus Books, 2017. Morris, Marc. The Anglo-Saxons: A History of the Beginnings of England, 4001066. Pegasus Books, 2021. 191

Sanja Ignjatović

McCarthy, Justin. A History of the Four Georges and William IV. Volumes 1-4. New York: Barnes & Noble Digital Library, 2011. Naismith, Rory. Early Medieval Britain, c. 500-1000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. Neville, Peter. The British Attempt to Prevent the Second World War: The Age of Anxiety. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2018. Oliver, Neil. A History of Ancient Britain. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011. Oldridge, Darren. Religion and Society in Early Stuart England. London, Routledge, 2018. Parker, Joanne. Corinna Wagner, Eds. The Oxford Handbook of Victorian Medievalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. Pimlott, Ben. The Queen: A Biography of Queen Elizabeth II. London: HarperCollins, 1996. Ritari, Katja. Alexandra Bergholm, Eds. Understanding Celtic Religion: Revisiting the Pagan Past. University of Wales Press, 2015. Robb, George. British Culture and the First World War. London: Palgrave, 2017. Rüpke, Jörg. Pantheon: A New History of Roman Religion. Princeton University Press, 2018. Seward, Desmond. The Demon’s Brood: A History of the Plantagenet Dynasty. New York: Pegasus Books, 2014. Seward, Desmond. The King over the Water: A Complete History of the Jacobites. Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2021. Stenton, F. M. Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, (1971) 2004. Strachey, Lytton. London: I. B. Tauris, 2012. Tallis, Nicola. Uncrowned Queen: The Life of Margaret Beaufort, Mother of the Tudors. New York: Basic Books, Hatchette Book Group, 2020. Tierney, Brian. The Middle Ages. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992. Thacker, Toby. British Culture and the First World War: Experience, Representation and Memory. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. Thomas, Hugh M. The Norman Conquest: England after William the Conqueror. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008. 192

Bibliography

Trevelyan, George Macaulay. England under the Stuarts. London: Folio Society, 1996. Van Dulken, Stephen. Inventing the 19th Century: 100 Inventions that Shaped the Victorian Age – From Aspirin to the Zeppelin. New York: New York University Press, 2001. Venning, Timothy. The King Arthur Mysteries: Arthur’s Britain & Early Medieval World. Pen & Sword Books Ltd, 2021. Venning, Timothy. The Tudors. Pen & Sword, 2022. Vicinus, Martha. Women in the Victorian Age. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, (1972) 2013. Webster, Paul. Marie-Pierre Gelin. The Cult of St Thomas Becket in the Plantagenet World, c. 1170-c.1220. Suffolk: Boydell et Brewer, 2016. Weir, Alison. Queens of the Age of Chivalry, 1299-1409. New York: Ballantine Books, Penguin Random House LLC, 2022. Willis, Sam. James Daybell. The Tudors. London: Atlantic Books, 2019. Wilson, Derek. The Plantagenet Chronicles. New York: Metro Books, 2011. Wheeler, Roxann. The Complexion of Race: Categories of Difference in Eighteenth-Century British Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Whittock Martyn J. Hannah Whittock. 1016 & 1066: Why the Vikings Caused the Norman Conquest. London: Robert Hale, 2016. Wright, Arthur C. English Collusion and the Norman Conquest. Havertown: Pen & Sword Books Limited, 2020. Wright, William. Warriors of the Queen: Fighting Generals of the Victorian Age. Gloucestershire: Spellmount, Stroud, 2014. Wyatt, David. Slaves and Warriors in Medieval Britain and Ireland, 800-1200. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

193

Sanja Ignjatović INTRODUCTION TO BRITISH HISTORY AND CULTURE

Publisher FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NIŠ For the Publisher Natalija Jovanović, PhD, Dean Publishing Unit Coordinator Sanja Ignjatović, PhD, Vice-Dean for Science and Research Proofreading Sanja Ignjatović Technical Editorial Office Sanja Ignjatović (Cover Design) Milan D. Ranđelović (Technical Editing) Irena Veljković (Digital Publishing)

Format 17 x 24 Print Run 120 Press Unigraf-X-Copy

Niš, 2023

ISBN 978-86-7379-631-4

CIP - Каталогизација у публикацији Народна библиотека Србије, Београд 94(410)(075.8) 930.85(410)(075.8) IGNJATOVIĆ, Sanja, 1986Introduction to British History and Culture / Sanja Ignjatović. - Niš : Faculty of Philosophy of University, 2023 (Niš : Unigraf-X-Copy). - 193 str. ; 24 cm “Prepared as a part of the project Scientific Publications in Teaching English Linguistics and Anglo-American Literature and Culture, conducted at the University of Niš – Faculty of Philosophy (No. 300/1-14-1-01).”--> Preliminarna str. - Tiraž 120. Bibliografija: str. 189-193. ISBN 978-86-7379-631-4 а) Велика Британија -- Историја б) Велика Британија -- Културна историја COBISS.SR-ID 126916105