The official website for BBC History Magazine
Elizabeth I's accession day celebrations
HistoryExtra Academy Elizabethans course
Anna Whitelock reveals how Elizabeth I used celebrations marking the anniversary of her accession as a weapon in her war against the Catholic threat to her throne
Queen Elizabeth II’s accession day, celebrated on 6 February 2012, was heralded by Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, with the tribute: “Warm congratulations to Her Majesty on the 60th anniversary of her accession. Here’s to a sparkling diamond jubilee. God Save the Queen!” In offering his felicitations to the Queen, Johnson was following in the footsteps of the lord mayors of the late 16th century who had led the city’s celebrations for the accession of the first Elizabeth on 17 November 1558. However, while their congratulations and pledges of loyalty would be undertaken with considerable solemnity and ceremony, Johnson offered his tribute rather more informally on Twitter. Elsewhere, more traditional rites were observed, including gun salutes at Hyde Park corner, the Tower of London and throughout the UK, while at St Paul’s Cathedral special parts of the accession service from the Book of Common Prayer was sung at Evensong. Public celebrations While the first Elizabeth never made it to her diamond jubilee – she died after 45 years as queen – national exigencies meant that as her reign went on, and the dangers to the realm mounted, increasingly spectacular national celebrations on ‘the Queen’s Day’ became critical, not simply for spectacle and festivity but for security and defence. Elizabeth I had come to the throne on 17 November 1558 following the death of her Catholic sister Mary I. For many it offered the promise of a decisive break with an unpopular popish past and the dawn of a new age with a Protestant young queen. Yet for others, Elizabeth was the ‘little whore’ daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn and the living symbol of the break with Rome and Mary Stuart, the queen of Scotland believed to be the rightful heir to the throne of England. In the years that followed, Mary became the focus of numerous plots against Elizabeth. Twelve years after Elizabeth’s accession, 17 November became the first royal anniversary to be popularly celebrated in England. It began as a spontaneous outpouring of popular loyalty following the abortive rebellion of Catholic nobles from northern England seeking to depose Elizabeth, and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots. The first celebration is thought to have been in Oxford in 1570 with bell-ringing across the city, although there is also evidence that Lambeth, the home of the archbishop of Canterbury – and as such a royalist stronghold – rang its bells in 1569. Following the rebellion and endless rumours of Catholic plots inspired by the presence of the Scottish queen, who had fled to England in 1568, popular feeling surged and annual celebrations of bell-ringing, bonfires, prayers, sermons and feasting sprung up across the country. Anxious for government favour, town officials would sponsor increasingly elaborate customary ceremonies including processions and pageants to celebrate the queen’s life and reign and reaffirm loyalty to her. In Liverpool in 1576 the mayor, Thomas Bavand, ordered a great bonfire to be lit in the market square and gave instructions that all householders should light fires throughout the town. That evening there was a banquet and then back at his house the mayor distributed sack, white wine and sugar “standing all without the door, lauding and praising God for the most prosperous reign of our... most gracious sovereign”. Two years later, in York, the city authorities ordered that officials should go decently apparel led to a sermon in praise of the queen “on pain of such fine as the mayor saw fit”. In more puritan areas such as Essex, however, the Queen’s accession day was normally kept as a fast. By the early 1580s, accession day celebrations were brought under central control as a feast day of the church. Whereas previously Catholic feast days had been the occasion of spectacular pageants and processions in celebration of the saints, now such ‘holy day’ festivities were used to glorify Elizabeth. In 1576 a special service and liturgy was designed and a collection of psalms, prayers and readings published giving thanks for the reign of the queen who had delivered the English people “from danger of war and oppression, restoring peace and true religion”. Elizabeth was heralded as delivering the realm from the Catholic tyranny of Mary’s reign and from the yoke of Spain that had cast a shadow over England since Mary’s marriage to the Spanish king, Philip, in 1554. Accession day sermons heralded Elizabeth as a “learned, wise, religious, just, uncorrupt, mild, merciful and zealous prince”. At a sermon at Lydd in Kent in 1587, Isaac Colfe remarked: “Surely never did the Lord make any such day before it, neither will he make any such day after for the happiness of England.” And the celebrations were not confined to England. When Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Hawkins were at sea on 17 November 1582, three pieces of ordnance were shot in favour of the queen, and in 1587, Puerto Seguro in the South Seas saw a discharge of ordnance, a salute and firework display. From 1581 the focus of the annual accession day celebrations was a spectacular tournament – known as a ‘tilt’ – held at the palace of Whitehall; a public event which in its sheer size and splendour was matched only by coronations and royal weddings. Shortly before 17 November the queen would make her state entry into London having returned from her summer progress and retire to the palace of Whitehall ready for the tournament. The citizens of London would witness processions to and from the tiltyard, city worthies would assemble in their finery, trumpets would sound, cannons were fired and bonfires set ablaze. The chorus from a ballad for the Queen’s Day, 1600 The noblest Queene That ever was seene In England doth Raigne this day. Now let us pray And keep holy-daye The seventeenth day November; For joy of her grace, In every place Let us great prays render. To the glory of god She hath made a Rod Her enemies to subdue And banish away All Papisticall play And maintaynes the Gospel true. Verses of praise A German traveller, Leopold von Wedel, observed the 1584 tournament and described how the combatants would ride in disguise into the tiltyard accompanied by their servants and, before the joust, would address the queen with special verses of wit and praise. Entrants went to considerable expense to devise themes and order armour and costumes for their followers. Von Wedel described how some of the combatants’ servants were dressed as savages or Irishmen, others as women with long hair to their girdles, “others had horses equipped like elephants, some carriages were drawn by men, others appeared to move by themselves; altogether the carriages were very odd in appearance”. While this was one of the high points of the court calendar it was also an event enjoyed by thousands of Londoners. Some 12,000 would squeeze into the tiltyard at Whitehall, now Horse Guards Parade, each paying 12d for entry to enjoy the tournament, which continued through the afternoon. It was for them a chance to display their loyalty to their monarch, to enjoy the spectacle and a day off work. The accession day glorification of the queen was taken to even greater heights following the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. A Catholic invasion had long been feared. But now Elizabeth had triumphed and defended Protestant England against the might of Catholic Spain. In 1588 the queen rode in triumph into the city on a symbolic chariot “imitating the ancient Romans” as musicians played and the lord mayor of London waited to greet her. At St Paul’s Cathedral banners of the vanquished Spaniards adorned the walls, and from a specially constructed closet Elizabeth heard the sermon of thanksgiving at Paul’s Cross before returning by torchlight to Whitehall. Similar celebrations heralding the queen’s victory were held in Nottingham, Bristol, Maidstone and in other cities across the country. The most famous of the accession day tilts was that of 1595 when the queen’s latter-day favourite, Robert Deveureux, the Earl of Essex, not only jousted, but acted out a publicity-seeking spectacle. While it was ostensibly designed as a public profession of loyalty to the queen, Elizabeth was, it seems, far from impressed by Essex’s display, believing herself to have been marginalised by his self-promotion. She is reported to have said that “if she thought there had been so much said of her, she would not have been there that night, and so went to bed”. Did you know? Berry Pomeroy, a parish in Devon, continues to observe the anniversary of the accession of Elizabeth I on 17 November with a special church service and bonfire. Courting favour Essex’s attempt to use the public platform provided by the accession day to court the queen’s favour had backfired. On her accession day, more than any other, it would not do to upstage the queen. In the final years of the reign, with Elizabeth still unmarried, with no heir of her body and no named successor, the question of the royal succession remained uncertain. Within and outside the court, this was a source of great anxiety for Englishmen who feared civil war on her death. The Queen’s Day celebrations became firmly established across the country and were deliberately built up by the government as a great unifying national festival demonstrating loyalty to a lonely and ageing queen, and emphasising continuity and Protestant truth in the midst of continued threats. Elizabeth’s accession had heralded a new dawn, deliverance from the powers of darkness and triumph over the antichrist of Rome. Discover more content from week one of the HistoryExtra Academy Elizabethans course The Elizabethan Court, with Professor Tracy Borman – watching time 15 mins 7 things you (probably) didn't know about Tudor fashion – reading time 5 mins Where history happened: Tudor courtiers with Suzannah Lipscomb – reading time 13 mins Elizabeth I's personality: the unfathomable queen – reading time 9 mins In conversation: Tracy Borman on Queen Elizabeth I – watching time 16 mins Princely pleasures at Kenilworth: Robert Dudley's three-week marriage proposal to Elizabeth I – reading time 6 mins Robert Dudley: Queen Elizabeth I's great love – reading time 12 mins
How did the world change during Queen Elizabeth II's reign?
Throughout her reign, Queen Elizabeth II remained a constant presence in an era of vast social, technological and geopolitical transformation. Anna Whitelock charts an era in which Britain, but not its queen, changed beyond recognition...
Listen to a version of this article: Never before has Britain changed so dramatically during the reign of one monarch. The second Elizabethan age was defined by unprecedented transformations in every facet of life, the effects of which rivalled those of the industrial revolution more than two centuries earlier. Queen Elizabeth II witnessed significant changes in society, technology, transport and geopolitics, which created what most people would recognise today as the modern British state. The very fact that the monarchy has survived and, indeed, thrived against this backdrop owes much to the late Queen and her constant, unchanging presence over 70 years. Before the Queen’s coronation on 2 June 1953, few people owned a television. The decision to broadcast the ceremony live prompted many to buy their first set, and well over 20 million people in the UK watched Queen Elizabeth II being crowned at Westminster Abbey in London. The BBC, then the only national broadcaster, transmitted on just one (black-and-white) television channel and three radio stations. It approached the coronation filming with reverence and deference. The director general’s views were clear: “There ought to be an absolutely rigid policy that so far as the BBC is concerned [the royal family] can be guaranteed complete privacy.” Over the following 69 years, the media changed beyond recognition. Countless terrestrial television channels are now available, plus many more via streaming subscriptions. At the same time, the media industry has become global, with rolling 24-hour news channels, newspapers viewed online, and social media posts visible almost anywhere on the globe. Much of this was made possible by the world wide web, just one key innovation in an age marked by rapid changes in communication. At the start of the Queen’s reign, communication was primarily via letters, telegrams and newspapers. Just two and a half decades later, in 1976, she sent her first email; she uploaded her first YouTube video in 2008, sent her first tweet in 2014, and uploaded her first Instagram post in 2019. By 2022, print newspapers reached just 24 per cent of the British public, down from 40 per cent just four years previously. Also by 2022, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube had all overtaken the BBC as the prime source of news for British teenagers. Appliances of science It’s not just in the realm of computer science that Britain has witnessed immense technological change over the past 70 years. In 1952, when Elizabeth came to the throne, only a small minority of homes had central heating, fridges, washing machines or telephones. There were just 2.5 million cars on the roads, and for most people owning such a vehicle was a distant aspiration. Today, most households own at least one car – there are 32.9 million on the roads. The young Queen ruled over a less-populous, younger country. Of the UK’s 50.6 million people in 1953, 21.6 million were under the age of 30, and 8 million were 60 or older – a ratio of 2.7 to 1. The population has since grown to more than 68 million and also aged. The ratio of young to old is 1.4 to 1 and falling. This ageing society is another feature of the second Elizabethan age that increasingly puts pressure on the celebrated National Health Service (NHS) – which was just four years old in 1952. Read more about the history behind each episode of The Crown season 5: The Crown S5 E1: ‘Queen Victoria Syndrome’ and a second honeymoon The Crown S5 E2: Prince Philip’s ‘keeper of secrets’ and Andrew Norton’s book on Princess Diana The Crown S5 E3: exiled royals and the al-Fayeds The Crown S5 E4: the Queen’s “annus horribilis” and Princess Margaret’s relationship with Peter Townsend The Crown S5 E5 real history: ‘Camillagate’ tapes and a “war council” for the monarchy’s survival The Crown S5 E6 real history: the Romanovs’ murder, and Philip’s “spiritual companionship” The Crown S5 E7 real history: the introduction of Martin Bashir, and a royal education Part of the explanation for the rise in life expectancy in the UK has been local scientific excellence. The discovery of the double helix structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson, Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin, together with Robert Edwards’ IVF (in vitro fertilisation) revolution, which lead to the birth of the first “test-tube baby” in 1978, played their part in changing the face of science, medicine, education and preventative treatments. The importance of these advances will never be forgotten, and these individuals proved themselves pioneers comparable to the great explorers and inventors of the Victorian period. Read more | In pictures: Queen Elizabeth II through the decades UK society has also become vastly more diverse year on year since 1952, when few Britons would have seen a non-white face in their daily life. Over the past seven decades, immigration has created a multi-faith and multi-ethnic society, and “Britishness” has declined concurrently as the default national identity. The instinctive, 1950s sense of British nationhood – forged through two world wars, a Protestant faith and an imperial project that elided any sense of internal UK differentiation – has come to an end. Now identities are more fragmented or multiple: many people in the UK consider themselves primarily Scottish, Welsh, English or even European. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-912522140sml-a94ef8a-e1668077201594.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Children playing at Penton Junior School, Islington, North London, 11th March 1971. Face of Britain 1971 Feature. (Photo by Frank Charman/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)" title="Children playing at Penton Junior School, Islington, North London, 11th March 1971. Face of Britain 1971 Feature. (Photo by Frank Charman/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)" /> The fact that London has a Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, and that the current cabinet – with its majority of women and individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds – is indicative of the scale of change. None of this was a possibility in 1952. Then, women comprised just 32 per cent of the employed population. Today, they make up 48 per cent of the workforce. The Queen joined that workforce herself during the Second World War when employed as a truck mechanic in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service. More than 70 years later, in 2015, she noted the great strides that women have taken over the course of her reign during a speech to mark the centenary of the Women’s Institute. “In the modern world, the opportunities for women to give something of value to society are greater than ever, because, through their own efforts, they now play a much greater part in all areas of public life,” she observed. Freedom and failure The hierarchy and deference of the 1950s has given way to a more liberal or “permissive” society. Birth control, abortion reform and the Equal Pay Act 1970 all helped combat the gender inequality of the 1950s. The Sexual Offences Act 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts between men; 46 years later, gay individuals won the right to marry in England, Scotland and Wales (though not until 2020 in Northern Ireland). Notwithstanding, gender equality and the battle for LGBTQ rights became huge issues in the latter years of the Queen’s reign. Despite the optimism that bloomed at the time of the coronation, the past 70 years have been characterised by the relative decline of the UK, perhaps most markedly in its economy. “There is a lot of talk about the new Elizabethan age, but whether it will be implemented will depend on all ranks in industry,” Brigadier Ralph Rayner told parliament in 1952. “The British industrialist and merchant, if given half a chance, will wipe the floor with any other industrialist in the world. The British working man, if given a good lead, will certainly beat any other working man in the world.” Yet, misogyny aside, that wasn’t to be. British business failed repeatedly to invest in infrastructure, or to innovate or market at the same rate as their American, Japanese or European competitors. So the “never had it so good” coronation boom years of full employment, high growth and low inflation could not be sustained. UK industry, management and labour relations have proved increasingly uncompetitive on a global stage, despite political rhetoric advocating, both politically and economically, “Global Britain”. The Elizabethan era has, overall, been defined by deindustrialisation and economic decline – though, of course, some individuals have become super rich. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-639614552sml-2d09a1e-e1668077059724.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="The National Miners Strike: 1984 Miners wives today went to a Northumberland miners rally the hard way - they walked from Blyth to Bedlington 9 June 1984. About 40 women took part in a sponsored walk between the two towns to raise cash to help the strikers' families. (Photo by NCJ Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)" title="The National Miners Strike: 1984 Miners wives today went to a Northumberland miners rally the hard way - they walked from Blyth to Bedlington 9 June 1984. About 40 women took part in a sponsored walk between the two towns to raise cash to help the strikers' families. (Photo by NCJ Archive/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)" /> In 1952, the UK was the world’s second-biggest economy, behind only the US, with a GDP of £247bn. At the start of September 2022, it was the world’s sixth biggest after the US, China, Japan, Germany and India. At the same time, the economies of continental Europe have grown from their low postwar base at a much faster pace than that of the UK. When Elizabeth II assumed the throne, Winston Churchill was UK prime minister, Josef Stalin was leader of the Soviet Union, Harry Truman was US president, and Mao Zedong was the mainland Chinese leader. The Korean War was still being fought, and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was little over two years old. The UK was just about to join the US and the Soviet Union as a nuclear power, with Churchill announcing the atomic bomb project a week after the coronation. Today the PRC is an emerging superpower with the second-largest economy in the world; the Soviet Union long ago disappeared from the geopolitical landscape; and the UK has transitioned to a “lesser power”. To many, the UK’s global reputation was indelibly tarnished in the bloody aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But fantasies about a second Elizabethan age were already fading long before then. It’s hard to overstate the humiliation generated by the Suez crisis of 1956, when Britain, France and Israel conspired together in an unsuccessful attempt to wrench back control of the Suez Canal from Egypt. The evolving empire During her Christmas Day broadcast from 1953, Elizabeth II declared: “The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty and the desire for freedom and peace.” A month earlier, the Queen had set off with her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, on a marathon tour of the Commonwealth nations lasting five-and-a-half months. Pathé newsreels back home showed the scenes of wild enthusiasm that greeted the royal couple wherever they went, from Bermuda to Gibraltar by way of Jamaica, New Zealand, Australia and Uganda. But the world was changing fast, and nowhere more obviously than in the empire. That process had begun in earnest when India became independent in 1947, five years before Elizabeth took the throne, but accelerated rapidly during the 1950s and 1960s. In the first two decades of Elizabeth’s reign, 32 countries achieved independence from Britain. Hong Kong, the last major holding of the empire, was given back to China in 1997. Read more | The Queen and the Commonwealth: a force for international change? As the empire fractured, the Commonwealth rose. Under the Queen’s leadership, this global alliance grew from a group of eight founding nations in 1952 into a voluntary association of 56 independent countries comprising 2.5 billion people. However, some commentators have argued that the benign face of the Queen disguised Britain’s complicated history of violence and bloody conflict, citing, for example, the brutal counterinsurgencies in what are now Kenya, Malaysia, Yemen and Cyprus in the latter days of the British empire. These imperial misdeeds have only belatedly led to a reckoning in the UK, with the government paying compensation to some victims of its colonial policies. The push by activists for the removal of statues, the revision of school curriculums glorifying Britain’s empire, and further calls for apologies and reparations demonstrates how the consequences of the rapid decolonisation of the first decades of the Elizabethan era are still reverberating. Apologies and reparations <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-613471398sml-edc7f01-e1668077106382.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="Queen Elizabeth II inspects men of the newly-renamed Queen's Own Nigeria Regiment, Royal West African Frontier Force, at Kaduna Airport, Nigeria, during her Commonwealth Tour, 2nd February 1956. (Photo by © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)" title="Queen Elizabeth II inspects men of the newly-renamed Queen's Own Nigeria Regiment, Royal West African Frontier Force, at Kaduna Airport, Nigeria, during her Commonwealth Tour, 2nd February 1956. (Photo by © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)" /> That said, the break-up of the empire could have been more rancorous without the Queen’s presence. Throughout Britain’s transition from an empire to post-imperial power, she made it clear that she was determined to build a new relationship with Britain’s old imperial possessions – based on friendship rather than post-imperial bitterness. In 1961 she visited Ghana and danced with President Kwame Nkrumah, who had been one of Africa’s most prominent anti-colonial leaders and had been briefly imprisoned by the British. Certainly, Elizabeth defined this era of unprecedented global transformation by becoming a rare unifying figure; notably, she retained the affection of Commonwealth leaders even when they were hotly opposed to her government’s policies. As long as she was alive, many knotty issues were shelved; now she has died there will be much to reappraise. The Commonwealth must plot a new path and decide where its future lies. The organisation has grown of late, welcoming countries that had never actually been under British rule. It’s one of the few groups in which mature and emerging economies come together with a common agenda. And there are obvious issues in which it could still play a part – climate change and vaccine diplomacy being two examples. The final years of the new Elizabethan age saw a movement among Caribbean nations to remove the Queen as the titular head of state and to press for reparations for the abuses of the colonial era. The process was accelerated when Barbados became a republic in 2021. Belize has announced a constitutional review of the question, while Jamaica and Antigua & Barbuda have both indicated their intentions to become a republic. Confused identities A defining characteristic of the United Kingdom, throughout Elizabeth’s reign and today, remains the need to accept and define its changed position in the world. Back in 1962, former US secretary of state Dean Acheson noted in a speech, to the anger of the British press, that “Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role”. He suggested that the country was confused about its future identity – focused on its “special relationship” with the US one moment, then looking toward Europe or the Commonwealth to give it greater meaning and influence the next. These words ring as true today as they did then. Now, Britain is acutely uncertain about its place in the world and facing the repercussions of the scale and pace of change that has defined the second Elizabethan era. Read more | Queen Elizabeth's relationships with US presidents As much as the Queen was a stabilising force for many people, the UK appears to be increasingly divided on geographic lines. Doubts have been growing about whether its four nations can hold together as a United Kingdom. There are growing calls for political change in Northern Ireland, and increased pressure post-Brexit for independence in Scotland, reflected in The Herald on Sunday’s headline above a picture of Charles: “Union’s Saviour or Last King of Scotland?” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/11/GettyImages-539560540sml-ca279cd-e1668077147204.jpg" width="620" height="412" alt="LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 12: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh wave to guests attending "The Patron's Lunch" celebrations for The Queen's 90th birthday on The Mall on June 12, 2016 in London, England. 10,000 guests have gathered on The Mall for a lunch to celebrate The Queen's Patronage of more than 600 charities and organisations. The lunch is part of a weekend of celebrations marking Queen Elizabeth II's 90th birthday and 63 year reign. The Duke of Edinburgh and other members of The Royal Family are also in attendance. During the lunch a carnival parade will travel down The Mall and around St James's Park. (Photo by Arthur Edwards - WPA Pool/Getty Images)" title="LONDON, ENGLAND - JUNE 12: Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh wave to guests attending "The Patron's Lunch" celebrations for The Queen's 90th birthday on The Mall on June 12, 2016 in London, England. 10,000 guests have gathered on The Mall for a lunch to celebrate The Queen's Patronage of more than 600 charities and organisations. The lunch is part of a weekend of celebrations marking Queen Elizabeth II's 90th birthday and 63 year reign. The Duke of Edinburgh and other members of The Royal Family are also in attendance. During the lunch a carnival parade will travel down The Mall and around St James's Park. (Photo by Arthur Edwards - WPA Pool/Getty Images)" /> Elizabeth II’s reign has encompassed the transformation of culture and class; rapid technological expansion and socio-political change; the end of deference and a distinctive sense of Britishness. Yet the Queen was successfully able to navigate these changes – embracing advances in technology and communication, while also representing a reassuring bastion of tradition and age old values and virtues. She was in the world of change but somehow at once apart from that world. US President Joe Biden described her as “a stateswoman of unmatched dignity and constancy”. That constancy belied the epochal shift experienced by her country – the consequences of which are, with her death, only now coming into full view. This article first appeared in the December 2022 issue of BBC History Magazine
Anna Whitelock looks back on some key moments that made the historical headlines in 2021
Anna Whitelock looks back on some key moments and trends that made the historical headlines in 2021. Speaking to Ellie Cawthorne, she covers topics including the “history wars”, cuts to university history courses and the best books published this year. How to download the HistoryExtra podcast Download as MP3
Anna Whitelock's talking points: Friends or enemies?
Recent headlines about diplomatic discord between England and France prompted Twitter historians to consider the two nations’ longer relationship. Anna Whitelock trawled the responses
Anglo-French rivalry can animate politicians and historians in equal measure – and while the former have been preoccupied with fishing disputes, the latter have been reflecting on the antecedents of this fractious relationship. Ian Dunt (@iandunt) remarked: “Quite apart from Brexit, fish etc, I find the whole Anglo-French rivalry so tiresome. [It] was really striking to me how connected [both nations] were in creating liberalism, and how those who did so – [Benjamin] Constant, [John Stuart] Mill – were so deeply invested in both countries.” Dan Snow (@thehistoryguy) added his take on what he described as his “pet subject”, commenting: “Adam Smith discovered the physiocrats and laissez-faire in Paris; [18th-century scholar] Montesquieu [was] profoundly influenced by his time in Britain. The Duke of Bridgewater [was] inspired to build canals after a France visit. And Wellington learned to soldier as a student not at Eton, but in France.” Arthur Dent (@A4Dent) provided more recent examples, noting that Anglo-French “cooperation” created Concorde and the Channel Tunnel. Elizabeth of Warwick (@oshay moishe1) tweeted: “Sadly it’s a rivalry that goes back to the Norman conquest. Just mention the Hundred Years’ War or Agincourt and the English start to salivate. War against France was the one way people would happily dig into their pockets to fund it.” Listen | John Shovlin describes 18th-century efforts to reset Anglo-French relations – from bitter enemies to economic partners Tyler (@CasperoBull) was perplexed: “It’s all very strange, considering that post-1066, we were ruled by essentially a French dynasty for 400 years and adopted much of their culture and customs that formed our country… odd how some people keep fighting a 200-year-old war in their imagination.” Shelagh Sneddon (@ShelaghSneddon) noted that, “It’s one of the biggest differences between Scotland and England. This animosity doesn’t really exist in Scotland, largely because France were our allies against England for much of the Middle Ages. As a result, it bewilders me whenever I meet it.” On this, John Stanners (@JohnStanners) said: “Do you think the problem England has with the French is due to the Auld Alliance [a 1295 alliance made between the kingdoms of Scotland and France]? It’s the only reason that I can think of for the current issues.” Tricia Greig (@Triciagreig2) was also among those to point to the Auld Alliance, noting that it “recognised close association and [agreed] in some measure to protect each other from English encroachment… [It was] never formally revoked”. Read more | The Normans had a profound influence on Britain – so why do we not speak French? And so the discussion went on, with pearsisido (@PearsiSido) making perhaps the most pithy, although arguably the most controversial, contribution, asking: “Isn’t England basically French?” Answers on a postcard, or a tweet, please Join the debate at twitter.com/historyextra This article first appeared in the Christmas 2021 issue of BBC History Magazine
Anna Whitelock's talking points: a history of violence
Events in Afghanistan have dominated the news in recent weeks, with Twitter users debating their historical context and parallels. Anna Whitelock followed the discussion as it unfolded
Afghanistan’s present and future has been a subject of much discussion, with many lamenting the lack of understanding of the region’s history and its tortured relations with western powers. As historian Olivette Otele (@OlivetteOtele) tweeted, “I wish people had basic info about the history of the place/region… the mess didn’t start with current Taliban and people there have been suffering for a very long time.” Academic Justin Podur (@Justinpodur) sought to provide historical context with a much-applauded thread that set the scene in 1839, the year Britain invaded Afghanistan from India and installed their own candidate, Shah Shuja, on the throne in Kabul. His thread described the process of imposing Shuja, including “rapes, looting, massacres”, and the way in which, after Shuja’s assassination in 1842, “the British regrouped… to get ‘revenge’ against the Afghans for driving them out”. Listen | A panel of expert historians discuss how history can help make sense of current events in Afghanistan Podur asked, rhetorically: “What was the 1839 British war on Afghanistan about?”, following up with his take: “Basically, the British empire – whose primary goal was squeezing what would eventually be $45tn out of India – destroyed Afghanistan to make it a ‘buffer zone’ against any kind of incursion.” Sean R Roberts (@robertsreport) added to the Twitter history lesson: “It is important to remember that there is a long history of Uyghurs in Afghanistan, [including many] refugees who fled the 1949 revolution in China. These are not ‘foreign fighters’ or ‘jihadists’, but the Taliban could claim that they are and deport them to China to win favour with Beijing.” More debate was sparked by an article by Guy Chazan (@GuyChazan) in the Financial Times, arguing that “As one of Nato’s biggest and most costly foreign policy priorities of this century implodes, those lessons will be lost on Beijing. History repeats itself in the tragedy of Afghanistan.” Evan Feigenbaum (@EvanFeigenbaum) responded, tweeting: “Some of these takes are both premature and a bit much.” Historian Peter Frankopan (@peterfrankopan) added that “part of the problem was not that lessons from the past were not learned: but lessons from the present”. Historian and TV presenter Dr Tessa Dunlop (@Tessadunlop) looked closer to home. “Within our own borders Northern Ireland tells us there is no short-term fix,” she wrote. “The history of Afghanistan tells the same. We knew that when we went in.” Frankopan agreed that he, too, had been reminded of the not-so-distant past. “Events of the past week remind me of its mirror image: the build-up to the fall of the Berlin Wall. One brought hope. The other, fear.” Certainly, at the time of writing, there is little sign of hope in the news from Afghanistan. Join the debate at twitter.com/historyextra This article first appeared in the November 2021 issue of BBC History Magazine
Anna Whitelock's talking points: Foundational stories
One historian’s trip from the UK to the US sparked much Twitter debate about why the two nations’ histories are each dominated by a single story. Anna Whitelock reviewed the exchanges
Having made it to the US earlier this summer, American-born historian and author Hallie Rubenhold (@HallieRubenhold) observed on a visit to a bookshop that she “never ceases to be amazed by the American obsession with the ‘founding fathers’. Same stories, told over and over. Much like the UK’s obsession with the Second World War, it really is time to get people interested in other aspects of our rich historical human experience.” An innocuous observation, one might think – but that’s not how it went down on Twitter. Amid genuinely shocking abuse of Hallie, some interesting intercontinental conversation ensued. One strand of the debate considered how helpful it was that the two nations’ histories are dominated by those two stories. Lauren (@starlingspecks) commented: “there are so many myths attached to our involvement that have had and continue to have unhelpful political ramifications and do a disservice to the actual events of the Second World War. It needs to be left alone for a while.” And Kevin Cannell (@Bevni81), wrote: “I’m as interested in the Second World War… as anyone, but what’s really exciting is finding out about new people, places and stories. I don’t need to feel like an expert on a subject before I read about it, I just want to learn about new things.” Read more: Alec Ryrie on our dangerous devotion to the Second World War Looking across the Atlantic, David McNab (@david_mcnab) suggested that, in the US, the founding fathers are akin to “a secular religion. The president is also treated like a demigod who walks through mortals. Similarly, the constitution is treated much like the Bible: a sacred text to be interpreted to support whatever prejudice you enjoy.” Eoin Forde (@EoinFordeeoin) thought it “amazing how so little [attention] in comparison is given over to the history of America before it was the New World, or the subsequent extermination of its peoples”. Other users considered why the stories had come to command such attention. Charles Hoskinson(@cehoskinson) made the point that “those wars and leaders shaped the landscape in which the other stories existed, and thus are a prerequisite to understanding anything else. And they are the ‘gateway drug’ to a lifelong love of history for many people, including me.” Ruth Ware (@RuthWareWriter) questioned the extent to which it’s helpful to compare the attention given to the Second World War with that granted the founding fathers: “When you grow up, as I did, with grandparents still bearing physical marks of wounds [and] amputations, it’s very hard not to think about that. Nobody alive remembers the founding fathers.” And so it went on. Last word should probably go to Hiking Historian (@HikingHistorian), who stirred the pot by writing: “The UK absolutely does not have an obsession with the Second World War. We have an innate Dunkirk spirit; Churchillian bulldog tenacity; we’re little spitfires in the face of adversity. Oh wait. I see what you mean…” Join the debate at twitter.com/historyextra This article was first published in the October 2021 issue of BBC History Magazine
Anna Whitelock's talking points: Plot twists
Yet another TV drama about the Tudor dynasty led Twitter users to ask: which other historical stories should be adapted for the small screen? Anna Whitelock went channel surfing
With Channel 5’s recent Anne Boleyn series retelling the story of the Tudor queen, economic historian Mark Koyama (@MarkKoyama) remarked: “It is crazy how many TV shows and movies retread the same historical ground. How many more times do we need to see Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn? There are so many other interesting historical stories.” Dr Anton Howes (@antonhowes) quickly responded: “I think that Tudor privateers, merchants or explorers are fine. Just nothing that’s about Henry VIII’s or Elizabeth I’s private lives. In fact, a show about Edward VI’s regents would be pretty good,” but he concluded: “It is NOT allowed to include Lady Jane Grey.” Yung Tugwell (@TugwellYung) “would love a biopic about [sixth-century Byzantine empress] Theodora, or… a slow-burn horror film about the battle of Pliska [a ninth-century clash between the Byzantine and First Bulgarian empires]. Got it all: Byzantine arrogance, Bulgars fighting for their nation, guerrilla warfare, skull cups, really incredible stuff.” Listen | A panel of experts tackle the big questions surrounding period drama in the 21st century and ask: what’s next? Pseudoerasmus (@pseudoerasmus) had quite the manifesto: “1. Ban Tudor dramas. 2. Ban fall of the Roman republic dramas. 3. Dramatise the [story of the second-century BC brothers] Gracchi. Land reform is fashionable. 4. A long serial of the wars over the carcass of Alexander [the Great’s] empire. 5. Film Gore Vidal’s Julian [a 1964 historical novel chronicling the life of the fourth-century Roman emperor].” Rustlem (@rustlem) thought that “a series on the life of [ancient Athenian nobleman] Alcibiades is long overdue,” while Jessica Yogini (@JessicaYogini) thought that “a good TV series about the Chinese cultural revolution would be so instructive, once people realised the parallels with their own world”. Tony Addison (@TonysAngle) voted for “Mali’s empire, especially Mansa Musa… who inflated the Egyptian economy by bringing so much gold (on 100 camels) on his pilgrimage to Mecca.” Tristan Reed (@TristanReed_) concurred: “This would be a great series.” Duncan Weldon (@DuncanWeldon) put together a wishlist of biopics of figures, including: “Keynes, Napoleon, Oliver Cromwell, Bismarck, and Charles V and Francis I as rivals”. David Clingingsmith (@dclingi) suggested an “unstinting East India Company vs Mughals series“, while Catgast (@catgast) wanted to see a “miniseries on Prince Eugene of Savoy [featuring] Marlborough only as a side-act”, adding: “In general, the Wars of Succession from a non-Brit viewpoint are sexy.” Well, there’s a thought. Roll over the Tudors... Join the debate at twitter.com/historyextra This content first appeared in the September 2021 issue of BBC History Magazine
Anna Whitelock explains how the popular perception of Mary I, aka 'Bloody Mary' or Mary Tudor, hides a pioneering monarch who achieved great things during her reign
Mary was the Tudor trailblazer. Never before had a queen worn the crown of England. She won the throne against the odds, preserving the Tudor line of succession and establishing precedents for female rule. Her significance has long been overlooked. Until recently Mary has been the forgotten Tudor – overshadowed by her famous sister, Elizabeth. She has been condemned as one of the most reviled women in history. ‘Bloody Mary’ is regarded as a bigoted, half Spanish tyrant whose reign was an unmitigated failure notable only for the burning of nearly 300 Protestants and her unpopular marriage to Philip of Spain. Read more | Mary I: 8 facts about her life, death and legacy Mary Tudor was of course never meant to be queen, and her father, Henry VIII, had gone to great – infamous – lengths to guard against her accession. While Henry finally acknowledged Mary’s claim to the throne in the last years of his reign, Edward VI ignored his father’s will and, determined to preserve a Protestant church, wrote his Catholic sister out of the succession. Upon his death in July 1553 Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed queen. Ten days later and against extraordinary odds, Mary won her rightful throne. The scale of her achievement is often overlooked. Mary had led the only successful revolt against central government in 16th-century England and was the only Tudor, save for Henry VII, who had to fight for the throne. She had eluded capture, mobilised a counter-coup and in the moment of crisis proved courageous, decisive and politically adept. Setting precedents Yet despite her triumphant accession, Mary's status as England's first crowned queen was a matter of great speculation and uncertainty. Many questioned whether indeed a woman could wear the crown. The language, image, and expectations of English monarchy and royal majesty were unequivocally male. So, in the following months the practice and power of a queen regnant were hammered out. It was a debate over which Mary presided and her decisions would become precedents for the future. The status of a queen regnant was laid out in a highly significant statute passed in the parliament of April 1554: "An Acte declaringe that the Regall power of thys realme is in the Quenes Maiestie as fully and absolutely as ever it was in anye her mooste noble progenytours kynges of thys Realme." The act made Mary's queenship equal to that of a king in law. And so in statute, in ceremony and in ritual, Mary drew on the precedents of her male predecessors and fashioned them for queenship. There was no guidance for the coronation of a woman as a ruler in her own right but Mary’s ceremony invested her with all the power exercised by her ancestors. Mary notably revived the tradition of touching a sufferer of scrofula (known as the king’s evil) and followed other practices such as blessing cramp rings (also used for healing) as well as washing the feet of the poor on Maundy Thursday. Such rituals had never been performed by a woman and were considered priestly acts that only God’s representative on earth, a male monarch, could perform. Although inhabiting what was traditionally a male world of monarchy, the personality of the monarch continued to be the key to the determination and execution of policy. The Marian regime was, in short, an emphatically personal monarchy. Mary was closely involved in government and the key policies of the reign – the marriage, the reunion with Rome and war with France. Far from being distanced from politics and policy making as has been claimed, Mary was at its heart. As the Venetian ambassador described, she rose “at daybreak when, after saying her prayers and hearing mass in private, she transacts business incessantly until after midnight”. Read more | When Mary met Philip: a Tudor queen in love Mary’s marriage to Philip of Spain has long been seen as a failure, exemplified by the loss of Calais, England’s last territory in France in 1558. In spite of this, Mary’s marriage can be seen as a calculated and successful political act. She chose a husband distant from English disputes and intrigues and his powers were carefully circumscribed by legislation and a highly favourable marriage treaty. While more work needs to be done on the role in government of Philip and his Spanish entourage, Mary did remain legally and effectively sole queen throughout her reign. Mary defeated a rebellion against the Spanish marriage, again securing popular support in a moment of crisis. She refused to leave London and, in a speech at the Guildhall, attacked Thomas Wyatt, the rebel leader, as a wicked traitor, defended her religion and choice of husband, and called on Londoners to stand firm in support. “I doubt not but we shall give these rebels a short and speedy overthrow.” The rebels were compelled to lay down their arms and to sue for mercy. In her speech Mary promised to submit the treaty before the people for ratification – a step her male predecessors had never taken. Mary’s reign is of course most noted for the burning of nearly 300 men, women and children. While this cannot and should not be expunged from accounts of her reign, it is important to consider the wider context and her religious policy more generally. Read more | Did Elizabeth I and her half-sister, Mary Tudor, have a good relationship? Historian Tracy Borman explains The restoration of Catholicism was neither inept nor backward-looking. Cardinal Reginald Pole succeeded in reinstating the papacy and launched an effective propaganda campaign through pulpit and press and, as has been recently argued, the most notorious aspect of the reign – the burnings – proved devastatingly effective. If Mary had lived or if she had managed to produce a Catholic heir, there seems little doubt that England would have been successfully recatholicised and the historical judgement on Mary would have been very different. Mary ruled with the full measure of royal majesty and achieved much of what she had set out to do. Her reign redefined the contours of the English monarchy. She made it possible for queens to rule as kings and established the gender-free authority of the crown. Anna Whitelock is a lecturer in early modern history at Royal Holloway, University of London. She wrote Mary Tudor: England's First Queen (Bloomsbury, 2009) This article was first published in the August 2011 issue of BBC History Magazine
Anna Whitelock: Confronting slavery’s legacy
An announcement that Cambridge University will investigate its historical links with slavery has prompted a wealth of discussion. Anna Whitelock examines the reaction on social media
Britain’s uneasy relationship with its colonial past continues to create headlines, with universities now sharply in focus. Following the announcement of a two-year investigation to determine the extent to which the university “contributed to, benefited from or challenged” slavery and the slave trade, Cambridge has been in the eye of the storm. Many took news that the inquiry will be chaired by a white man, classics professor Martin Millett, as evidence of disingenuous tokenism. Kehinde Andrews (@kehinde_andrews) tweeted to say that the fact the investigation is to be run by "an almost exclusively white centre for 'African' studies" means the initiative is "at best, a publicity stunt". He added that: "The worst outcome of 'decolonising' is that the university is recreating inequalities by giving white scholars more topics to publish and promote on." A brief guide and timeline of the transatlantic slave trade History explorer: the British slave trade Lincoln and slavery: "If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would" Cecily Jones (@CessjJones) went further, tweeting: "Just wondering why so many 'modern slavery/anti-slavery projects' are either solely or primarily staffed by white academics? Or why senior academics on these projects tend to be white, while black academics are mainly research assistants?" Based at Cambridge University, academic Priyamvada Gopal (@PriyamvadaGopal) called on the university "to co-opt" leading black British scholars to the committee, to "stop tokenising and begin reparations on representation". Writing for The Guardian, David Olusoga (@DavidOlusoga) suggested that by "curing itself of amnesia", Cambridge "might help Britain understand its past". The article, headlined, "Why are so many afraid to confront Britain's historical links with the slave trade?" also prompted others to reflect on the nation's attitude to its colonial legacy. Lord Nelson and slavery: Nelson’s dark side Harriet Tubman and the ‘Underground Railroad’ Among them was Tom Holland (@holland_tom), who pointed out that: "Part of the problem is that the moral well-springs of abolitionism have been forgotten, and so it becomes very difficult to make sense of why and how slavery came to be abolished by any standards save those of the present day." In a similar vein, Dame Averil Cameron (@19Averil) said: "There was no call for abolition in the New Testament or in many centuries of Christianity, so it was all the more remarkable when it came." Holland also noted: "To us, it seems so clear that slavery is iniquitous that we forget just how recent, radical and contingent an opinion it is." Anna Whitelock is director of the London Centre for Public History and Heritage at Royal Holloway, University of London. Join the debate at twitter.com/historyextra This article was first published in the July 2019 edition of BBC History Magazine
Elizabeth I’s love life: was she really a ‘Virgin Queen’?
For a queen known for her alleged virginity, Elizabeth I's love life has long been the subject of great speculation. Here, Dr Anna Whitelock, a reader in early modern history at Royal Holloway, University of London, explores what really went on behind the closed doors of the so-called Virgin Queen
Over the years, countless books, novels, plays and films have depicted Elizabeth I’s relationships with figures such as Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester; Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and the Duke of Anjou. In the absence of conclusive proof one way or another, the question ‘did they or didn’t they?’ will always linger. Yet what is clear is that, both at home and abroad, rumours about Elizabeth’s love life – real or imagined – circulated throughout her reign. Far from being the Virgin Queen, for some hostile observers Elizabeth was the ‘whore’ of Europe. Contemporary beliefs about the ‘insatiable’ sexual appetites of women, together with Elizabeth’s failure to marry, fuelled suspicions that the queen was engaged in secret sexual liaisons. Her Catholic opponents challenged her virtue, and accused her of a “filthy lust” that had “defiled her body and the country”. The king of France joked that one of the great questions of the day was “whether Queen Elizabeth was a maid or no”. The courts of Europe were abuzz with gossip as to the queen of England’s behaviour. From the very earliest months of her reign, rumours spread of Elizabeth’s relationship with Robert Dudley, her “sweet Robin” whom she had known since childhood. Within days of her accession, Elizabeth had appointed Dudley as master of the horse – a position that guaranteed almost daily contact. The Spanish ambassador reported to the king of Spain that “Lord Robert has come so much into favour that he does whatever he likes and it is even said that Her Majesty visits him in his chamber day and night”. The pair’s attraction to one another was widely commented upon, and their flirtatious behaviour shocked observers. When in 1560 Robert Dudley’s wife, Amy Robsart, was found with her neck broken at the bottom of a staircase, speculation was rife as to the involvement of the queen and her favourite. In the years that followed, their close relationship continued, but any lingering possibility of a future marriage was cast aside. Elizabeth’s councillors were determined to secure a favourable marriage for her, both as a means of consolidating England’s position in Europe and to provide an heir to succeed her. While there was no lack of suitors, including Philip II of Spain; Erik XIV of Sweden and the Archdukes Ferdinand and Charles of Austria, no one managed to win the queen’s favour or the unanimous support of her council. While foreign negotiations continued, Elizabeth enjoyed the attention of young male courtiers like Thomas Heneage, Christopher Hatton and Walter Raleigh, and later Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, all of whom flirted their way into the queen’s favour. But Robert Dudley remained the queen’s first, and probably only love. Perhaps as a reaction to Dudley’s marriage to Lettice Devereux, dowager countess of Essex in the autumn of 1578, the following year Elizabeth welcomed Francois, the duke of Anjou, brother of the king of France, to the English court to present his suit for marriage. It was not an ideal match. Anjou was a 20-something tiny and pockmarked Catholic who was widely rumoured to be a transvestite. Nonetheless, Elizabeth had always longed to be wooed in person by one of her illustrious suitors, and for a time she seemed to be genuine in her affections and interest in Anjou, whom she affectionately named her ‘frog’. After a few weeks Anjou returned to France and negotiations appeared to falter in the face of public opposition to the match, but in October 1581 Anjou returned to England. Since his previous visit, he had continued to write love letters to the queen in which he expressed his desire to be “kissing and rekissing all that Your beautiful Majesty can think of”, as well as to be “in bed between the sheets in your beautiful arms”. Upon his arrival in London Elizabeth once again seemed enthralled and enraptured by Anjou’s presence, and on 22 November, when the court was assembled at Whitehall to celebrate the Accession Day festivities, Elizabeth declared in public that she intended to marry him. She proceeded to kiss him on the mouth and give him her ring. Yet overnight, Elizabeth apparently had second thoughts and announced the next day she would not marry Anjou. The monarchy with Tracy Borman Member exclusive | In this five-part series, historian Tracy Borman charts the changing fortunes of the monarchy, from the bloody Norman conquest of 1066 through the upheaval of civil war in the 17th century to the reign of Elizabeth II. Watch all episodes now It is doubtful whether Elizabeth had really intended to go ahead with the marriage given the popular hostility to it, but when Anjou finally departed she made much of being grief-stricken at the loss of her lover “with whom she so unwillingly parted”. With the failure of the French match, hopes that Elizabeth would marry came to an end, but as she grew old and increasingly isolated she continued to seek the attention of her male courtiers. Robert Devereux, the young earl of Essex and stepson of Robert Dudley, was Elizabeth’s last great flirtation. Despite the age gap between them, the nature of the relationship was again speculated upon. He soon became master of the horse and moved into his stepfather’s apartments at court. One of Essex’s servants boasted that “even at night my lord is at cards or one game or another with her, that he cometh not to his own lodging till the birds sing in the morning.” But this was a different kind of relationship than the one Elizabeth had had with Dudley, and was more about the desire of an ageing woman to be made to feel young and attractive by a handsome young courtier. Yet Elizabeth was never so swept away by her emotions that she lost a keen sense of political realities. In 1601, after what was seen to be an attempted coup against her, she ordered Essex’s execution. In 1603 Elizabeth, then almost 70, died unmarried and celebrated as England’s great ‘Virgin Queen’. Yet her death served only to continue speculation about her private life. In the years that followed, the questioning of Elizabeth’s virginity was no longer confined to hostile Catholic discourse, and there was a growing sense that Elizabeth’s private feelings had compromised the integrity of her rule. In life, Elizabeth and the ladies of the bedchamber had tenaciously defended the chastity of her body to protect her reputation and defend her crown. In death, it is surely the possibility that she was not chaste that continues to fascinate, and ensure Elizabeth’s enduring popularity and appeal. More from us HistoryExtra members can explore this topic further with exclusive content from our archives Alternate history: what if the Babington Plot to assassinate Elizabeth I had succeeded? My history hero: Jackie Weaver chooses Elizabeth I (1533–1603) Dr Anna Whitelock is a reader in early modern history at Royal Holloway, University of London, and the author of Elizabeth’s Bedfellows: An Intimate History of the Queen’s Court (Bloomsbury, 2013). To find out more, visit www.annawhitelock.co.uk or follow @AnnaWhitelock on Twitter. This article was first published by History Extra in April 2015.