THE START OF BRITAIN

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Birth of Britain (1956)

Part I of the A History of the English-Speaking Peoples series

         (Rating 4 of 5)

            I always find it fascinating to read the works of great historical figures.  Most of such work that I have read is autobiographical in nature: the historical figure discussing his own life and/or events that he had taken part.  This is a little different.  Here Winston Churchill is not talking about events that he took part in (at least not yet) he is instead discussing the history of his nation, people, and their legacy.  What it interesting is reading a historical figure of Churchill’s stature commenting on the historical figures of the past and critiquing on how they did. 

The history depicted in this volume is at very 100 college level. I did not learn anything new but again I am here to listen to Churchill’s take on these events rather than learning about the events themselves.  Churchill has a very traditional outlook on past historical events he does not challenge the traditional narrative.  He does tend to take some time explaining the importance of Magna Carta and tackles some of the charges against King Richard III.  The books focus is rather broad but then it has to be.  It covers everything from prehistory to King Henry VII establishing the Tudor dynasty of England.

Churchill takes the classical view that the Roman Empire was the height of Western Civilization and nothing to the coming of the Enlightenment could equal its grandeur.  Churchill points out numerous technological advantages the Roman Britons had that their descendants would not for over a millennia and a half, such as running water.  I was surprised with the amount of time he dedicated to Roman Britain that he just brushed over Constantine, who had made his bid to rule the Roman world in Britannia.  His little made up example of a Roman Briton waking up in modern (1939) Britain is quite amusing.      

“If a native of Chester in Roman Britain could wake up today he would find laws which were the direct fulfillment of many of those he had known.  He would find in every village temples and priests of the new creed which in his day was winning victories everywhere.  Indeed the facilities for Christian worship would appear to him to be far in excess of the number of devotees.  Not without pride would he notice that his children were compelled to learn Latin if they wished to enter the most famous universities.  He might encounter some difficulties in the pronunciation. He would find in the public libraries many of the masterpieces of ancient literature, printed on uncomely cheap paper and in great numbers.  He would find a settled government and the sense of belonging to a world-wide empire.  He could drink and bathe in the waters of Bath or if this were to far he would find vapor baths and toilet conveniences in every city.  He would find all his own problems of currency, land tenure, public morals and decorum presented in a somewhat different aspect, but still in lively dispute.  He would have the same sense of belonging to a society which was threatened, and to an imperial rule that had passed its prime.” (pg. 31)

          

Civilization high point, Rome

            Moving on from the Romans to Anglo-Saxon England.  Churchill covers the various little Kingdoms that quarrel with each other and ultimately form into England.  He discusses figures that he admires such as King Alfred, who had to fight off numerous Viking invasions of England. Churchill also credits Alfred for being, what Churchill considers to be, the founder of the English Navy. 

            The Anglo-Saxon era comes to crashing end with the most important event in English history in the last thousand years: the Norman Conquest.  Winston Churchill is very important to the history of England, but even he would have to say however that William the Conqueror is the most important.  I in writing this review in English and you using English to talk to your friends give evidence the Norman Conquest happened.  As in the influx of French words into the language that would turn Old English to Middle English, the ancestor of the language we speak today. England would become more main land European than Scandinavian.  William would also from a new type of feudalism that would keep fiefs small and allow no one powerful baron to challenge him.  From Churchill’s perspective it was William’s setup however that would ultimately allow freedom to flourish. 

    

“In the Norman settlement lay the germ of constitutional opposition, with the effect if not the design of controlling the Government, not breaking it up. The seat of potential opposition was found in the counties, among the smaller nobility and their untitled descendants, Justices of the Peace and the knights of the shire.  They were naturally for the Crown and a quite life.  Hence after centuries they rallied to the Tudor sovereigns; and in another age to the Parliament against the Crown itself.  Whatever else changed they were always there.  And the reason why they were there is that William found the old West Saxon organization, which they alone could administer, exceedingly convenient.  He did not mean to be treated as he had treated the King of France.  He had seen, and profited by seeing, the mischief of a country divided into great provinces.  The little provinces of England, with the King’s officers at the head of each, gave him exactly the balance of power he needed for all the proposes of law and finance, but were at the same time incapable of rebellion as individual units.” (pg.28)

            

Norman invasion 

               When going over the early Plantagenets I found points of disagreement with Mr. Churchill.  First, I think there is no historical figure more overrated the Richard the Lionheart.  Richard was an absentee king who spent more time crusading badly than he spent in England, where he was for less than a year of his reign.  Churchill praises this guy to no end.  Second, is with Magna Carta, another event I find completely overrated, a reactionary document that was nullified the next day, and praised for generations afterward.  It was done to undermine King John, who I find to have been a better king than his brother and due the circumstances of the events of his reign I find to have a sympathetic figure.  I think John was just trying to do his job. Churchill sees John as useful because his flaws led to constitutional developments that made his reign important to history.

One of the most overrated historical figures ever, but Churchill's hero

“In the thirteenth-century magnate understood little and cared less for popular liberties or Parliamentary democracy, they had all the same laid hold on a principle which was to be of prime importance for the future development of English society and English institutions.  Throughout the document it is implied that here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break.  The reaffirmation of supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magan Carta; and this alone justifies the respect that men have held it.  The reign of Henry II, according to the most respected authorities, initiates the rule of law.  But the work was of yet incomplete: the Crown was still above the law; the legal system which Henry had created could become, as John showed, an instrument of oppression.” (pg.188)

            

            The middle Plantagenets—the three Edwards—Churchill considers the formation of the early Parliaments to be the most important achievements of these reigns.  Edward I for establishing and using it for lawmaking, and Edward III for making sure that the House of Commons existed. 

            In these chapters I found myself disappointed that Churchill never gives us an explanation to exactly why King Edward Longshanks is called “Edward I” despite the fact that there were three kings named Edward before him and one of them he was named after.  Churchill never seems to notice; maybe he was embarrassed that the traditional historians of his nation have trouble counting once they get up to “3.”

Why is he "Edward I"

“Naturally the Commons stood in awe of the Crown.  There was no long tradition of authority behind them.  The assertions of the royal prerogative authority in the days of Edward I still echoed in their minds, and there was no suggestion that either they or Parliament as a whole had any right to control or interfere in matters of administration and government.  They were summoned to endorse political settlements reached only in violence, to vote money and to vote grievances, but the permanent acceptance of Parliament as an essential part of the machinery of government and the Commons as its vital foundation is the lasting work of the fourteenth century.” (Pg. 263)

          

Edward III who established the Houses of Parliament 

          Toward the end of the book we run through the War of the Roses and get to the fall of the last Plantagenet King, Richard III, toppled by Henry Tudor.  A lot has been said about King Richard III he has his own society that exists to this day.  (I once wrote a bit of science fiction and had an editor who happened to be a member of this group.) Churchill takes the traditional position that Richard killed his nephews after usurping the crown of Edward V.  Yet, Churchill acknowledges some of things Richard is accused of are absurd.   

“Not only is every possible crime attributed by More to Richard, and some impossible ones, but he is presented as a physical monster, crook backed and withered of arm.  No one in his lifetime seems to have remarked these deformities, but they are now very familiar to us through Shakespeare’s play.  Needless to say, as soon as the Tudor dynasty was laid to rest defenders or Richard fell to work, and they have been increasingly busy ever since.” (pg. 354)

Richard III, guilty but not of everything

The first volume of Churchill’s English Peoples series covers a very broad scope, but it lets you know Churchill’s view on many subjects of his nation’s past from prehistory to 1485, in what Western historians refer to as the beginning of the modern period.