Paperback, 519 pages, (November 21, 2002) Usually ships within 24 hours. Amazon Review
INTRODUCTION England forms part of the present-day United Kingdom, along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Sometimes the union is called ‘Great Britain’, sometimes just ‘Britain’. Formally it is known as the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. Within the UK, England is the dominant partner in terms of geographical size, population and influence. Some fifty million of the current United Kingdom’s sixty million live in England; until very recently England’s government and parliament provided the political hub for the entire UK; economically it continues to dominate its immediate neighbours. But these modern details and distinctions belie the long history of the British Isles. In the beginning, of course, there was no England, no Scotland, Wales or Ireland. In the period of prehistory (about which little is known), first man’s ancestors – the hominids – then homo sapiens sapiens, colonized the British Isles, creating settlements that were loosely and only locally confederated. The first tangible evidence of wider societies is provided by the remarkable remains at Stonehenge, whose scale and construction history suggest that it was a ritual centre for people living miles around. Yet despite Stonehenge’s advanced design – first erected around 2000 BC, it is one of the great monuments of the European Neolithic era – its precise use and significance remain veiled, as does the identity of those who built it. In all probability there must have been many waves of invaders and settlers over the centuries after the construction of Stonehenge. Of these many immigrants, it was the metal-working Celts who eased Britain out of prehistory into history proper. Although they left no early written records, they were observed, then overrun, by the Romans – who did. Following expeditions undertaken by Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BC, the Romans attempted wholesale subjugation under the emperor Claudius almost a hundred years later. But they were unable to tame the Scottish highlands, made only marginally greater progress in the mountainous territory that was to become Wales, and Ireland – known as Hibernia (‘winter quarters’) – was left largely untouched. In the fertile lowlands, however, the Romans succeeded in transplanting their advanced civilization, and it is from Roman times that England, known then as ‘Britannia’, began to take shape as a territorial and political entity. The same area formed the major part of kingdoms established by the Anglo-Saxons from the mid-5th century onwards. These soon converted to Christianity, and eventually became a single kingdom ruled by the House of Wessex. It is from this period that the name ‘England’ (Land of the Angles) derives. But England’s identity remained in near-constant flux. The Anglo-Saxons were invaded on numerous occasions, first by the Vikings and then, in the 11th century, by the Normans. The Norman Conquest was critical to England’s evolution. In the two centuries before 1066 England had been increasingly influenced by Scandinavia – indeed much of northern England was for a time a Viking kingdom known as the ‘Danelaw’. But the Normans realigned their new territories with a different area of the continent, and it was this involvement that would shape the next stage of England’s history. Throughout the Middle Ages, English and French fortunes were closely entwined – politically, militarily, and through royal and aristocratic bloodlines. France sought to conquer England, and England France. The result was a patchy and uncertain conflict, the Hundred Years War, that extended the tug-of-war between the two powers over some four generations. Gradually, though, the kingdom of England emerged as a clear force in its own right. It was this kingdom, which grew in prosperity and influence under the Plantagenets and continued to do so under the Tudors, that began to make headway internationally in both trade and military power. The eventual result was the acquisition of an extraordinary empire, which at its 19th-century zenith extended across Canada, India, the Far East, Australasia and Africa. Closer to home, too, the English tried to establish colonies. Union with Wales was negotiated in 1536; Scotland joined in 1707; Ireland was brought into the fold in 1801. Despite some benefits for these three individual countries, England’s own interests remained the reason for a united Britain. Divisions remained, and during the course of the 20th century separatist forces within the union began make themselves heard. Ireland was partitioned shortly after World War I, forming a southern (mainly Catholic) republic and six northern (mainly Protestant) counties that remained within the UK. Some eighty years later, regional legislatures were established in Scotland and Wales in an attempt to give people in both countries more control over their politics. All this, it has been said, leaves Britain – and with it the dominance of the English – looking more fragile now than ever before. Some doubt that the United Kingdom will still be united, still less a kingdom, in years to come. By the same token, though, this fragmentation has encouraged some historians to concentrate their efforts on the study of national and regional identity, considering both ideals of Britain and Britishness as well as what it might mean to be English. But who are the English? Racially as well as politically, the answer is complex. England is – and always has been – a melting pot. Today, the descendants of Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Normans and other European peoples mix with those from further afield – in particular immigrants from former colonies, many of whom arrived in the latter half of the 20th century to supply low-wage labour for the postwar British economy. England is now more multi-cultural and multi-ethnic than ever before. This long assimilative tradition is just one of many that continues to influence life in 21st-century England. The monarchy, of course, still looms large. Despite criticism of it in sections of society, the royal family continues to provide a popular national focus and – its defenders often claim – a much-needed centre of political stability around which the country’s parliamentary democracy functions. Though England is often accused of being hidebound, obsessed by history, perhaps it is truer to say that its culture is continually involved in a dialogue between the past and the present – especially as the nation struggles to adapt to a world in which it is no longer one of the most powerful players. In many ways the ongoing debate over ‘Europe’ – whether or not England should engage more fully with the European Union – embodies these kinds of anxieties, perhaps because it has such a long pedigree. England has always had a tempestuous and involved relationship with the rest of Europe, and the present-day arguments rehearse older ones too: whether it is better to function as a fully European country, or to remain in insular isolation (bolstered, of course, by a so-called ‘special relationship’ with the United States and by remaining close to former colonies through the British Commonwealth). At the cusp of the third millennium, that decision looks like one of the most momentous England and its people have had to face.
