Good writeup. The idea that nationality or ethnicity is a modern invention is one of those ideas so stupid, only academics could believe it. It started out with (often explicitly Marxist) academics like Eric Hobsbawm and has since become the fashionable conventional wisdom.
Azar Gat's book "Nations" is a solid rejoinder, but really reading most ancient texts (Aristotle wrote on how multiculturalism leads to tyranny), medieval (Declaration of Arbroath), or anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer tribes is enough to disprove it.
Yes exactly. I'm actually writing the next article with exactly this angle, looking at the academic origins e.g. Hobsbawm and Gellner, how it spread, how Gat provides a useful corrective, and indeed how you only need to read a bit of actual history to disprove it.
Academics (as well as most of 'polite' society it seems) have a problem with anything to do with the English, particularly the working class. They are not even allowed to have their own ethnic identity. Nobody would dream of applying similar standards to the Scots, Welsh or Irish. Even Anglo-Saxon Studies, in some circles, is now referred to as 'early medieval', just in case students morph into white supremacists.
Super interesting and important history. I was wondering if you also knew anything about the process by which the Anglos came to identify with Britain? (I assume it had a lot to do with the Norman Conquest and then Edward I’s success against the Welsh). It would be interesting to know if the English saw themselves as the rightful inhabitants of - and kings of - the British Isles while maintaining this sense of being a distinct people. Do you think there is any sense in referring to oneself as British-English? DM me if this is an absurd question.
I think the first would be when the kings started calling themselves Bretwalda (ruler of Britain) from the 9th century onwards. Though this doesn't necessarily mean 'identify' with Britain, more that they ruled Britain. As far as identifying with a wider sense of Britain the earliest I know of is Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain in the 12th century (where the image for this post comes from). This included the Brittonic kings alongside the Anglo-Saxon and Norman ones, and popularised the Arthurian legend.
Thank you! It is a great image. But I read that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History ends in the 7th century so he clearly wasn’t describing the Anglo Saxons as ‘British’, and indeed, much of the latter part of the book deals with the Britons’ struggle against the Anglo Saxons. So even in the 12th century, this writer at least was treating them as distinct peoples.
What I’m curious about is whether or not the English continued to rule as Kings of Britain without ever identifying as, or actually becoming, ‘British’? I imagine the effects of the Norman Invasion are hugely significant here but I would have to read something. Is there or has there ever been such a thing as a ‘British people’ which includes the original Anglo-Saxon stock? You should do a follow-up article! I guess that lots of contemporary Brits would have a mixed Anglo/British heritage.
This is potentially just as important as the current debate about whether or not ‘English’ people actually exist – I really enjoyed your previous article on this. In the wake of that debate though, some people tried to claim that while Englishness is indeed an ethnicity, ‘British’ merely denotes a civic identity.
Yes that's true I was mistaken about Geoffrey of Monmouth’s history, it's just about the Britons specifically. It was certainly influential in propagating the Arthurian legend but whether English readers identified themselves with this I don't know. Edward I did try and identify himself with king Arthur and while he obviously had a political reason to do so, it's hard to imagine an Anglo-Saxon king doing similar.
However the impression I have from most of what I've read is that English, Welsh/Briton, and Scottish identities were pretty distinct until the actual creation of Great Britain in the 18th century. I'd be interested in reading about British identity before then but I'm not aware of any sources.
Good writeup. The idea that nationality or ethnicity is a modern invention is one of those ideas so stupid, only academics could believe it. It started out with (often explicitly Marxist) academics like Eric Hobsbawm and has since become the fashionable conventional wisdom.
Azar Gat's book "Nations" is a solid rejoinder, but really reading most ancient texts (Aristotle wrote on how multiculturalism leads to tyranny), medieval (Declaration of Arbroath), or anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer tribes is enough to disprove it.
Yes exactly. I'm actually writing the next article with exactly this angle, looking at the academic origins e.g. Hobsbawm and Gellner, how it spread, how Gat provides a useful corrective, and indeed how you only need to read a bit of actual history to disprove it.
Academics (as well as most of 'polite' society it seems) have a problem with anything to do with the English, particularly the working class. They are not even allowed to have their own ethnic identity. Nobody would dream of applying similar standards to the Scots, Welsh or Irish. Even Anglo-Saxon Studies, in some circles, is now referred to as 'early medieval', just in case students morph into white supremacists.
Super interesting and important history. I was wondering if you also knew anything about the process by which the Anglos came to identify with Britain? (I assume it had a lot to do with the Norman Conquest and then Edward I’s success against the Welsh). It would be interesting to know if the English saw themselves as the rightful inhabitants of - and kings of - the British Isles while maintaining this sense of being a distinct people. Do you think there is any sense in referring to oneself as British-English? DM me if this is an absurd question.
I think the first would be when the kings started calling themselves Bretwalda (ruler of Britain) from the 9th century onwards. Though this doesn't necessarily mean 'identify' with Britain, more that they ruled Britain. As far as identifying with a wider sense of Britain the earliest I know of is Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain in the 12th century (where the image for this post comes from). This included the Brittonic kings alongside the Anglo-Saxon and Norman ones, and popularised the Arthurian legend.
Thank you! It is a great image. But I read that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History ends in the 7th century so he clearly wasn’t describing the Anglo Saxons as ‘British’, and indeed, much of the latter part of the book deals with the Britons’ struggle against the Anglo Saxons. So even in the 12th century, this writer at least was treating them as distinct peoples.
What I’m curious about is whether or not the English continued to rule as Kings of Britain without ever identifying as, or actually becoming, ‘British’? I imagine the effects of the Norman Invasion are hugely significant here but I would have to read something. Is there or has there ever been such a thing as a ‘British people’ which includes the original Anglo-Saxon stock? You should do a follow-up article! I guess that lots of contemporary Brits would have a mixed Anglo/British heritage.
This is potentially just as important as the current debate about whether or not ‘English’ people actually exist – I really enjoyed your previous article on this. In the wake of that debate though, some people tried to claim that while Englishness is indeed an ethnicity, ‘British’ merely denotes a civic identity.
Yes that's true I was mistaken about Geoffrey of Monmouth’s history, it's just about the Britons specifically. It was certainly influential in propagating the Arthurian legend but whether English readers identified themselves with this I don't know. Edward I did try and identify himself with king Arthur and while he obviously had a political reason to do so, it's hard to imagine an Anglo-Saxon king doing similar.
However the impression I have from most of what I've read is that English, Welsh/Briton, and Scottish identities were pretty distinct until the actual creation of Great Britain in the 18th century. I'd be interested in reading about British identity before then but I'm not aware of any sources.