Be careful with historical values

For some reason, I can’t seem to restrain myself from intervening in discussions of UK history being conducted by Americans. My contributions are not always appreciated.

It does seem to me, though, that there is a serious problem of the retrospective application of modern values to the past. The most recent example I came across was a debate over the succession to King Henry I, which resulted in a civil war between Henry’s daughter Matilda and his nephew Stephen.


Many participants assume that Matilda was the rightful heir because she was Henry’s only surviving child and named as successor in Henry’s will, thus making Stephen a usurper. Sadly, things are not so simple. There are four principles of succession involved here., as well as other considerations:

1. Primogeniture was more Norman than Saxon;
2. Selection by council of the best man to defend the kingdom had put Harold Godwinson on the throne in the second half of the 11th century, while
3. Victory in battle had made The Conqueror himself king.
4. The power of a king to will the succession was disputed even as late as the 16th century.

There was precedent for a woman to rule (but not necessarily be crowned queen regnant) - most importantly, Aethelflaed of Mercia. However, war was a regular feature of life at the period and female war leaders were rare.


In short, we have to avoid the error of supposing that primogeniture was well enough established to be universally accepted in the early 12th century, and even more so that those who denied it were by definition rebels.

Whodunnit? Richard III, Henry VII or A N Other?

In all the ballyhoo surrounding the "discovery" of bequest of a "chain which was of Edward V" in the will of a distant relative of James Tyrell, there has been a great deal more heat (and impoliteness) than light.

To begin with, the mention of the chain has been known about for several years, and nobody made a fuss before. This is because it cannot offer conclusive evidence either way as to the fate of the Princes in The Tower.

It could have been a false attribution. If there are enough guaranteed pieces of the true cross to make several trees, why should this not be another fake relic?

It could have been taken from a body by a murderer. Murderers do sometimes take souvenirs, though these days at least they tend not to publish the fact.

Equally well, if the princes were smuggled abroad in mufti it would have been a serious giveaway to be found wearing royal jewellery or carrying the same in one’s luggage. To give it to one’s smuggler out of gratitude, or to hand it over to him for safe keeping, would have been the most natural thing in the world.

Ricardians and Henricans can bore each other to tears with this. The press can post as many lurid headlines as they like.

It can and does prove precisely nothing.