Tales of cabbage and kings

[Scottish_Republican]

Tales of cabbage and kings

IAN BELL November 22 2004

The TV Week

If I understood his reported remarks correctly, the Prince of Wales is of the opinion that our young people should not be getting above themselves. In Mr C Windsor's view, ambition and aspiration are not for the likes of them. Schools should certainly not be telling them that they can achieve anything to which they set their minds.
This is odd, on two counts. First, is Charles really suggesting that society is still so caste-ridden as to leave us with the immutable truth that a majority are born to fail? If a constitutional monarch in waiting understands the world in these terms, what becomes of the "unity" royalty, according to the advertising, is supposed to provide?
Secondly, whenever this royal (or any of the rest of them) speaks on education, it is difficult to get beyond one of those hold-on-a-minute moments. It is, after all, a matter of record, as graduates of my generation tend to remember, that Windsor, Charles, got into Cambridge with A-level grades that would not have got anyone else past the door. No-one ever accused him of trying too hard.
Still, this fogey for the 21st century will probably be king one of these days. That fact alone continues to strike this writer, at least, as bizarre. Here we are, centuries on, the lessons of revolution and reform digested, yet a majority of us still seem to find nothing strange about monarchy. Many, indeed, seem thrilled by it.
David Starkey counts as one of those. I have been monitoring Monarchy (Channel 4, Monday) with increasing incredulity, and this week's essay from the obnoxious little man did nothing to diminish my sense of wonderment. Can 4 really be paying him millions for this piece of antique chauvinism, this tale of cabbages (that's us) and kings? Starkey's view of history is almost perversely old-fashioned. That, of itself, is no crime, but it does lead to one tricky problem: omission, distortion and stereotypes amount, in the final analysis, to one giant untruth.
Starkey, to his credit, is shameless about it. He is not especially interested in monarchy, as such, and certainly not interested in royalty as it has affected the history of Britain. What he cares about is England and the English, words he speaks with the sort of reverence most would reserve for something mystical.
This week he was dealing with the age of the Edwards, I, II and III. He called the episode A United Kingdom, by which he meant the crushing of the Welsh and, even by his account, the mixed fortunes enjoyed by serial Eddies in dealing with the Scots. He accepted, without question, the propaganda of Longshanks in asserting a feudal "right" over Scotland, but it was when talking about England that he grew all misty-eyed. "They carried England to new heights of power," he gushed over the Teds, as though this was the natural order of things. He then went on to argue that these armed thugs formed a new sort of bond between the monarchy and "the people".
That, to be fair, is one of England's defining myths. To this day every royal birth, marriage or funeral renews the idea, nonsensical as it may be, that the likes of Prince Charles has a special relationship with the rest of us. Yet Starkey's notion of history as a higher form of nationalism – pernicious, no doubt, to most of his fellow professionals – has a striking contemporary relevance.
Scotland, as we know, is not thought fit to be trusted with its own six o'clock news. Scotland, we are told repeatedly, is over-run with people who are regarded as "anti-English", often for no better reason than because they want to run their own affairs, or see a news bulletin being edited in Glasgow rather than London. Scots, in fact, are best advised not to say that might be interpreted as critical where someone who might describe themselves as English is concerned.
Yet here we have Starkey rendering a large chunk of the history of these islands in terms which are, beyond question, English nationalist. How are we supposed to respond? You could say, simply, that the prism through which he views the past leads to falsification. Many historians on this side of the Border describe Scotland's long struggle against the Edwards as wars of independence; Starkey prefers to see them as an enforcement of England's rights. Both claims are arguable, but only one is being given credence in what is billed as a major, four-year project for Channel 4. Do we simply swallow it?
To do otherwise, some might say, is to answer chauvinism with chauvinism, but there is more to it than that. People, TV reviewers in particular, sometimes fret over the amount of American programming to which we in Europe are subjected. French critics go on at length about cultural imperialism (while French viewers lap up Friends and the rest). Yet is it now illegitimate to suggest that Scotland is offered rather too much of someone else's cultural wares?
Most of our television is English television, made and broadcast with English audiences in mind. In general, there is nothing much wrong with that. In much of Ireland you can watch RTE, with its plethora of American shows, and also catch British channels without suffering much in the way of cultural insecurity. History, however, strikes me as a different matter. Simon Schama's History of Britain dropped in the Celtic fringe from time to time, but did not distort the narrative to anything like the extent attempted by Starkey. It matters.
Marcus Garvey, a black nationalist, put it this way: "A people without a knowledge of its history is like a tree without roots." A Scottish 12-year-old watching Starkey could get some peculiar ideas, to put it no higher, about his country's role in the story of Britain. The best that Starkey would offer in his tales from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was that the constitutional relationship between Scotland and the three Edwards was "ambiguous". The claim, however, is more than debatable. Some would call it simply untrue.
But what of it? The man is contentious, known for his opinions and valued in some quarters for his entertainment value. The fact remains that he is offering history from a highly-selective English perspective and that this, as usual, is being broadcast across Scotland. We are not supposed to object – for such would be "anti-English" – and we are presumably supposed to forget that this sort of thing has been going on for centuries. That may be one of the reasons Scottish historiography has been forced to flourish.
The effect is pernicious, in any case, and irritation only increases when you also note how visually dull the series is, with woeful "recreations" of battles and moody landscape shots of green and pleasant lands set against the statutory vaguely orchestral music. Starkey's script is pretty bad, too. I am not certain, but I'm fairly sure he would not give an A-plus to a student who handed in an essay describing Edward I's struggles with the barons thus: "It would be king and people versus the fat cats."
Quality of writing tends to reflect quality of thought. Starkey can't write, and subjects us to ancient prejudice instead of joined-up thinking. Why, as the Prince of Wales might put it, oh why?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/28240-print.shtml

[kilted_warrior]

no matter what you think of Charles, at least he is Sincere in his views ie he belives in them -unike most politicians who will say anything to get a vote and lie like a cheap watch the vast majority of the time. even if you dont agree with them at least he is worthy of respect

[kilted_warrior]

Starky should be ashamed of himself hes re -writing history .

Im proud to be of scots descent, my family are from Scotland, but Ive lived in the north of england for most of my life, ive never met anyone here who is anti scots, other than the usual footballing banter, in fact people are very interested in my scottish background, they are more anti -English than anything, they cant stand southerners, the of people in the north of England are sooo different to their southern counterparts. I dont know if scots who have vised the south get a bad impressions of the English but the northerners are OK. no sectarianism either

[Scottish_Republican]

"the northerners are OK. no sectarianism either"

Liverpool still has Orange Walks.

[kilted_warrior]

well I dont know about that Im more Manchester way if they do then Im very sad. I wasnt trying to be disrespectful about my remarks about sectarianism , it just seems to be more of an issue in parts of scotland than in the north of england. Id rather be in Scoland regardless !!!! were going to move to North Berwick or Dunbar as soon as work is sorted out

[Scottish_Republican]

Manchester used to have a little I believe.

Certainly

Proddy = Man City, Everton
Cafflick = Man U, Liverpool

But that's all changed. Liam Gallagher, city fan. You can't get more Irish a name than that!