NOT THE END

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Great Democracies (1956)

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

(Rating 4 of 5) 

               
The first installment of the Winston Churchill's English-Speaking Peoples series covered thousands of years, the next two volumes averaged two centuries.  The final volume only covers a mere eight decades, from the fall of Napoleon to the start of the 20th century.  At no point does Churchill discuss his own career but he does talk about his father's.  The book focuses on the changing political landscape in Great Britain, the expanding United States that would tear itself in half before becoming a world power, and wars in South Africa.

                When in Great Britain itself, Churchill's main focus is on the rapidly changing society.  The main focus is on the ever expanding franchise.  As more people get to vote-although still just men--it changes the foundation of society.  Issues such as public education, workers’ rights, and Irish Home Rule were moved to the forefront of political thought.  Politicians, much to the horror of Queen Victoria, began to make direct appeals to the people.  Two rival politicians who were masters of the new age of politics were William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli.   

William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli

                 "We now enter upon a long, connected, and progressive period in British history--the Prime Ministerships of Gladstone and Disraeli.  These two great Parliamentarians in alteration ruled the land from 1868 to 1185.  For nearly twenty years no one effectively disputed their leadership, and until Disraeli died in 1881 the political scene was dominated by a personal duel on a grand scale.  Both men were at the height of their powers, and their skill in oratory in debate gripped and focused public attention on the proceedings of the House of Commons." (p.219)

                Queen Victoria is one of  those historical figures whom there seems to be very little agreement on.  She reigned for a long time but it was also during that reign that the crown lost a good deal of its actual power.  That was for a number of reasons one of which had to do with ministers now gaining or losing their jobs not on royal favor but rather on the results of popular elections to the House of Commons.  Churchill is very much in the Pro-Victoria camp.  To Churchill, her role as Queen was essential to the rise of the British Empire.  In his view, if the British Governments had been more willing to understand the peoples of the Empire as she did a lot of their problems could have been avoided, especially in Ireland. 

Queen Victoria

                "The Sovereign had become the symbol of the Empire.  At the Queen's Jubilees in 1887 and in 1897 India and the colonies had been vividly represented in the State celebrations.  The Crown was providing the link between the growing family of nations and races which the former Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, had with foresight christened the Commonwealth.  Disraeli's vision and Chamberlain’s enthusiasm had both contributed to this broadening Imperial theme.  The Queen herself was seized with the greatness of her role.  She sent her sons and grandsons on official tours of her ever increasing dominions, where they were heartily welcomed." (p.294)

                Churchill's take on several of the American conflicts did not strike me as overly interesting, with exception of his take on the American Civil War.  Churchill had no sympathy with the "Lost Cause" of the South; however he did have a respect for Virginia's position and admire Robert E. Lee for his principled stand.  Most of his view is very traditional and he gives a good blow by blow account of the conflict.  There is one position he takes that I found just amazing: he admired the military mind of George B. McClellan.  This is one of those things that I would really like to talk to him about if I had a time machine.  I consider McClellan to be something of a joke.  A mediocre commander who was better at making speeches than fighting.  Churchill thought otherwise.

Churchill had a rather traditional view of Lee: principled man with the wrong principles

                "If these two Presidents had let McClellan and Lee fight the quarrel out between them as they thought best the end would have been the same, but the war would have been less muddled, much shorter, and less bloody." (p.170)

               

General McClellan, Churchill's views on him are outright bizarre 

                 Now that I have reached the end of the series I must say that I am a little disappointed that we didn't get into the World Wars.  The series was excellent, but really learned anything new but I am some who is well read on the subject anyway.  I think the work is a good 101 look into British history.  The series has a much stronger focus on events after 1485 than before it.  The book is also an easy read not to bogged down in vocabulary, Churchill's personality strongly comes through you feel as if he is in the room with you explaining these events to you.  I also want to make a small note on capitalization; I much prefer Churchill's style with words such as king, president, minister, general, etc. to be capitalized when referring to an actual person. ("The King mounts his horse." as opposed to "The king mounts his horse.")

RIGHT OF REVOLUTION

A review of Winston Churchill’s The Age of Revolution (1956)

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

          (Rating 4 of 5)
               

            Churchill’s first volume in this series covered thousands of years (pre-history to 1485), his second covered only two hundred four (1485-1489), and this volume only covers one hundred twenty-six (1689-1815).  Yet in this limited space of only three hundred pages Churchill covers the War of Spanish Succession, the War of Austrian Succession, the Seven Years’ War, American Revolution and War of Independence, and the French Revolution and Wars of Napoleon.  Those are some pretty large topics.  As I mentioned in the two previous reviews the most fascinating part about reading Winston Churchill’s history is he is such an important historical figure himself that it leaves everything with an added weight.     

            He begins where he left off in the last volume; King William III is establishing his new government in England.  Churchill shows the King as being frustrated with England’s lack of enthusiasm for international adventures.  England is also becoming less enthusiastic about their new Dutch monarch.  Politicians in the Kingdom would go back in forth from supporting the monarch on the throne to the pretender over sea based on their own circumstances. Churchill explained that William tolerated this out of necessity, he had no heir and the people would naturally want to protect themselves if his government fell.  His successor, Queen Anne, was even more tolerant of what could be viewed as treason.  Of course Churchill shows her as even more conflicted about her own place on the throne to judge harshly others.       

William III the Dutch King of England

“Queen Anne felt herself in her inmost conscience a usurper, and she was also gnawed by the feeling that she had treated her dead father ill.  Her one justification against that self-questionings was her absolute faith in the Church of England.  It was her duty to guard and cherish at all costs the sacred institution, the maintenance of which was bound up with her own title and the peace of the realm.  To abdicate in favor of her Papist brother would be not only to betray her religion, but to let loose the horrors of civil war upon the land she ruled, loved, and in many ways truly represented.” (pg. 38)

          

Queen Anne, conflicted on the throne

            Churchill clearly enjoys writing about his famous ancestor John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough.  He actually wrote a whole biography on him. Churchill writes about his ancestors, the Duke and Duchess, and their contemporaries as if he personally knew them.  I assume he had to have access to some of his ancestor’s documents and must also know of personal family stories.  

 

Churchill's favorite ancestor

“Marlborough’s reign was ended.  Henceforward he had to serve.  His paramount position in Europe and with the armies made him indispensable to either party as long as the war continued.  First he served the Whigs and afterwards the Tories.  He served the Whigs as plenipotentiary and General, later he served the Tories as General only.  His great period from 1702 to 1708, was over.  There still remained three difficult campaigns, upon a scale larger than any yet seen; but he no longer had control of the policy which alone could render fruitful the sombre struggles of the Army.” (pg. 64)

            

             With the end of Queen Anne arrives Great Britain’s modern royal family, the Hanoverians—though nowadays they call themselves the Windsors.  The German speaking King George I was not interested in the day-to-day workings of government, he was only concerned with the final actions.  Robert Walpole would, in the reigns of Kings George I and II, single-handily create the office that Churchill himself would one day serve.  Although he made the office, Walpole did not invent the title.      

“By his enemies Walpole was now mockingly called the ‘Prime Minister’—for this honourable title originated as a term of abuse.  The chances of a successful Opposition seemed to be gone forever.  ” (pg. 98)

Robert Walpole, called "prime minister" as an insult and the name stuck

            Walpole might have been the first prime minister, but it was William Pitt the Elder, who would be the first person called to that office by a popular mandate and getting power through the support of the House of Commons.  Churchill clearly admires Mr. Pitt, and I would guess he would feel some sort of bond for Churchill calls the Seven Years’ War that Pitt waged to be the true first world war.  Considering the role Churchill would play in those twentieth conflicts he would naturally feel a connection between himself and the early prime minister.  He might also see a connection with Pitt’s son William Pitt the Younger for the role he would play in the Napoleonic Wars.  

“Whether Pitt possessed the strategic eye, whether the expeditions he launched were part of a considered combination, may be questioned.  Now, as at all times, his policy was a projection on to a vast screen of his own aggressive, dominating personality.  In the teeth of disfavor and obstruction he had made his way to the foremost place in Parliament, and now at last fortune, courage, and the confidence of his countrymen had given him a stage on which his gifts could be displayed and his foibles indulged.” (pg. 124)

William Pitt

            When discussing the American Revolution Churchill gets quite interesting with his writing.  His father was British but his mother was American, he once joked before Congress that if it had been the other way around, he would have probably have stood at that podium on his own merit.  When discussing the Revolution he takes a bit of a pro-American side, but he is quick to remind his readers of the conflict that took place of both sides of the Atlantic.  There were of course loyalists in America, but there were also those in Britain and in the British Parliament who strongly supported the cause of the Revolutionaries and felt that “no taxation without representation” was a good excuse to take a look at Parliamentary reform at home. 

When the Revolution was over and the former colonies, now the United States of America, put together a constitution.  Churchill would find that the U.S. Constitution was one of the great accomplishments of the English-Speaking Peoples.

“Of course, a written constitution carries with it the danger of a cramping rigidity.  What body of men, however farsighted, can lay down precepts in advance for settling the problems of future generations?  The delegates at Philadelphia were well aware of this.  They made provision for amendment, and the document drawn up by them was adaptable enough in practice to permit changes in the Constitution.  But it had to be proved in argument and debate and generally accepted throughout the land that any changes proposed would follow the guiding ideas of the Founding Fathers.  A prime object of the Constitution was to be conservative; it was to guard the principles and machinery of State from capricious and ill-considered alteration.  In its fundamental doctrine the American people acquired an institution which was to command the same respect and loyalty as in England are given to Parliament and Crown.” (pg. 210)

            As I noted throughout this review the best part of reading Churchill’s history is get to get his take on other historical figures.  His writing on George Washington is basic but nevertheless really interesting.  After all it can be argued that Washington dealt the biggest blow to the British Empire in history, the Empire that Churchill himself held dear. 

“George Washington holds one of the proudest titles that history can bestow.  He was the Father of his Nation.  Almost alone his staunchness in the War of Independence held the American colonies to their united purpose.  His services after victory had been won were no less great.  His firmness and example while first President restrained the violence of faction and postponed a national schism for sixty years.  His character and influence steadied the dangerous leanings of Americans to take sides against Britain or France.  He filled his office with dignity and inspired his administration with much of his own wisdom.  To his terms as President are due the smooth organization of the Federal Government, the establishment of national credit, and the foundation of a foreign policy.  By refusing to stand for a third term he set a tradition in American politics which has been departed from by President Franklin Roosevelt in the Second World War.” (pg. 283-284) 

President Washington

When discussing the Napoleonic Wars I did not find anything particularly unique on his views.  Since it was reality recent—historically speaking—I was hoping for more of a contrast between these wars and the wars the Churchill had to deal with in his own time.  I suppose I might see more of that in his next volume.

             In closing I must say that this was a great follow up to the other two volumes.  He tries to cover a great deal of ground in very few pages but he does it rather well. 

BRAVE NEW WORLD

A review of Winston Churchill’s The New World (1956)

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

(Rating 4 of 5)

                Churchill’s first volume, The Birth of Britain, covers thousands of years.  This second volume covers only a little over two centuries.  What a few centuries it was!  The book begins with the rise of Henry VII and the Tudor dynasty and ends with the fall of James II in the Glorious Revolution.  In this volume the English monarchy rises to its highest of heights achieving near absolute power.  The three great Tudors Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I were magnificent monarchs whose power went unquestioned.  Their feeble replacements, the Stuarts, would struggle to hold onto what they had inherited and the monarchy would fall to its lowest states with one king being executed and another dismissed.   Churchill captures all with magnificent style.  As I noted earlier the best part about reading Churchill’s work is you get to see how a famous historical figure views other historical events. 

               

Henry VII

The book begins with the aftermath of the War the Roses.  With his new crown, King Henry VII, picks up the pieces of the short-lived York dynasty and sets the foundations of a powerful monarchy.  During his reign Henry gave the reputation of being a something of a miser, but doing this help stabilize his regime.  Churchill notes that although he was nice famous as some of his European cousins his achievements were no less impressive.

“His achievement was massive and durable.  He built his power amid the ruins and ashes of his predecessors.  He fiercely and carefully gathered what seemed in those days a vast reserve of liquid wealth.  He trained a body of efficient servants.  He magnified the Crown without losing the cooperation of the Commons.  He identified prosperity with monarchy.  Among the princes of Renaissance Europe he is not surpassing achievement in fame by Louis XI of France or Ferdinand of Spain.” (pg.20)

                

                   When any historian writes about King Henry VIII they all follow the same trap.  What you talk about?  Henry VIII had a lot of legitimate achievements during his reign.  He set the foundation that would lead England on the road to become a modern state.  Yet, we think of Henry is hard not to go over the six wives.  Only the first three are important those marriages and how they ended change the road England would be on forever.  Churchill does a good job covering the reign despite his limited space. (After all he still has over two centuries to cover with only a couple hundred pages to do it.)

“Henry’s rule saw many advances in the growth and character of the English state, but it is a hideous blot upon his record that the rain should be widely remembered for its executions.  Two Queens, two of the King’s chief Ministers, a saintly Bishop, numerous abbots, monks and many ordinary folk who dared to resist the Royal will were put to death.  Almost every member of the nobility in royal blood ran perished on the scaffold at Henry’s command.  Roman Catholic and Calvinist alike were burned for heresy and religious treason.  These persecutions, inflicted in solemn manner by officers of the law, perhaps in the presence of the Counsel or even the King himself, form a brutal sequel to the bright promise of the Renaissance.  The sufferings of devout men and women upon the faggots, the use of torture, and the savage penalties imposed for even paltry crimes, stand in repellent contrasts the enlightened principles of humanism.  Get his subjects to not turn from Henry in loathing.  He succeeded in maintaining order amid the turmoil in Europe without Army or police, and he imposed on England a discipline which was not attained elsewhere.  A century of religious wars went by without Englishmen taking up arms to fight their fellow-countrymen for their faith.  We must credit Henry’s reign with weighing the basis of sea-power, with a revival of Parliamentary institutions, with the giving of the English Bible to the people, and above all with strengthening a popular monarchy under which the seating generations worked together for the greatness of England while France and Germany were wracked with internal strife.” (pg. 66)

               

Queen Elizabeth I

                     Like any good English patriot Churchill has a warm spot for the year 1588 the defeat of Spanish Armada.  It was an important victory from England, they were only all half an island against the great imperial power.  Arguably, the threat the Spanish represented was a greater threat to England as a threat Churchill himself faced in his own time.  Despite his feelings he doesn’t go overboard with the legend, as fun as it would be to tell the story of the smashing of the great Spanish fleet he realizes history does not always work like that.  Nevertheless, it was crowning achievement for Queen Elizabeth I.

“The English had not lost a single ship, and scarcely 100 men.  But their captains were disappointed.  For the last thirty years they believe themselves superior to their opponents.  They had now found themselves fighting a much bigger fleet than they had imagined the Spaniards could put the sea.  Their own ships have been sparingly equipped.  Their ammunition had run short at a critical moment.  The gunnery of the merchant vessels had proved poor and half the enemy’s fleet had got away.  There were no postings; they record their dissatisfactions.
“But to the English people as a whole the defeat of the Armada came as a miracle.  For 30 years the shadow of Spanish power had darkened the political scene.  A wave of religious emotion filled men’s minds.  One of the metals strike to commemorate the victory bears the inscription ‘Afflavit Deus et dissipantur’—‘ God blue and they were scattered.’” (pg. 102)

               

Spanish Armada 

As England was getting to its feet the world the Europeans knew was expanding.  The voyages of Columbus opened up to new continents that the people did not know existed.  This created opportunity for the Europeans to create colonies. For certain English subjects it represented the opportunity to begin the world anew.  For those who are proud of their Englishness but found England unbearable due to whatever corruption they viewed as inexcusable, such as the Puritans they no longer had to hang out in Holland.  They now had the opportunity to build their own version of England in the form of a colony.  In his previous work the English-speaking peoples they were just one people confined to one island, now they were many expanding across the globe.  It was this phenomenon that Churchill gives the books title.

                The first half of the book covers the English monarchy at its highest; in the second half we could see it at its lowest.  Queen Elizabeth I died without heir.  The crown of England passes to the King of Scotland.  King James VI becomes King James I and moved from Edinburgh to London.  Churchill had some fun poking fun at this joke of a dynasty in his last volume.  As the Stuarts come to England they do not get any smarter.  Churchill portrays these sovereigns as being out of touch with reality and not up to the task of governing England.

King James I

“James and his Parliaments grew more and more out of sympathy as the years went by.  The Tudors have been discrete in their use of the Royal Prerogative and had never put forward any general theory of government, but James saw himself as a schoolmaster of the whole island.” (pg. 120)

                Despite his flaws, I personally have some sympathy for King Charles I and it appears in the book that Churchill does as well.  I have always found Cromwell to be an utter hypocrite and his regime to be more tyrannical than any king ever dreamed of being.  While reading this book it seems Winston Churchill was of the same opinion.

King Charles I

Oliver Cromwell

“We must not be led by Victorian writers into regarding this triumph of the Ironsides end of Cromwell as a kind of victory for democracy and the Parliamentary system over Divine Right and Old World dreams.  It was the triumph of some twenty thousand resolute, ruthless, disciplined, military fanatics over all that England has ever willed or ever wished.  Long years in unceasing irritations were required to reverse it.  Thus the struggle, in which we have in these days so much sympathy in part, begun to bring about a constitutional and limited monarchy, had led only to autocracy of the sword.  The harsh, terrific, lightning – charged being, whose erratic, opportunist, self- centered course is laid bare upon the annals, was now master, in the next 12 years of the record of well – meant, puzzled plungings and surgings.” (pg. 212)

                Earlier in this book we see King Henry VIII sending everyone and anyone including his own ministers and two of his queens to the scaffold to have their heads cut off.  In a completely different turn of events a King of England is sent to his death in the very manner that his predecessor had imposed onto others.  Yet this King, who many fought against him under the banner of fighting against tyranny, would be viewed as a martyr for liberty.

“A strange destiny had engulfed this King of England.  None had resisted with more untimely stubbornness the movement of his age.  He had been in his heyday the convinced opponent of all we now call our Parliamentary liberties.  Yet as misfortunes crowd upon him he increasingly became the physical embodiment of the liberties and traditions of England.  His mistakes and wrong deeds had arisen not so much for personal cravings for arbitrary power as from the conception of kingship to which she was born it was along with the settled custom of the land.  In the end he stood against the Army which had destroyed all Parliamentary government, it was about to plunge England into a tyranny at once more irresistible and more petty than any seen before or since.” (pg. 216)

After the fall of the protectorate, Churchill tells the story of how the monarchy was restored.  The king in exile, Charles II, was simply invited back by his people and not retuning at the head of conquering army.  For a Stuart, King Charles II was not that bad of a ruler.  He was fairly competent, unlike his younger brother, the Duke of York, who would succeed him as king, ruling as James II.  Despite his historical importance Churchill tells the story of the Glorious Revolution very quickly.  I expected it would be more detailed considering the involvement of his famous ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough.

I found this book to be a great summary of two chaotic and messy centuries in the history of Great Britain.  It tells a story of a powerful dynasty that rises and dies off, a Scottish dynasty which unifies the kingdoms, and a civil war that tore the nations apart.  It is a brief and great read.

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.