History as story.

[cactuswatcher]

I just finished reading the The Plantagenets by Dan Jones. It really was a pleasant read and his narrative all pointed to some conclusions about the relationship, between what we'd call today government with the consent of the governed and what we consider good and bad kings. You'd think such would be pretty obvious, but clearly other societies don't make the connection. Divine Right of Kings seemed to work tolerably well, in other places. But in England, kings after the civil war between King Stephen and Empress Maud, who were unable or unwilling to build a broad consensus struggled mightily to a stay in power. The Magna Carta was less a turning point, than a constant reminder of what the nobility preferred.

As I was reading The Plantagents I was struck by how much the book read like a coherent story compared to much other history I've read recently. Most people either really like history or hate it. Growing up a lot of kids rebelled against learning the trivia of names and dates. For others of us, either trivia was appealing or the trivia made sense in the flow of things. I remember some teachers trying to convince us that 'social history' or how people lived their ordinary lives in the past was much more interesting. Personally I found that to be tedious. Even these days when biographies of medieval figures spend a chapter or two discussing the personal relationship of the person with the church (usually discussing the monasteries they founded or supported,) my mind drifts off. Not that everyone's mind would, but my does, and I end up skimming to the next chapter. At least for me, I think what I like about history is the story of it; the flow of events, what happened and why, and if there are any lessons that those of us who aren't going to be the subject of histories can gain from it.

Comments

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know about some of my ancestors back into those times. The family members who stayed out of politics, faded from what we consider history, but thrived. The ones that got involved on one side or the other in the Wars of the Roses didn't survive.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Wow, good research. I've barely been able to find that any of mine even existed then, and definitely don't know what they were doing other than existing. I admit I don't work at it very hard.

Interesting that your own family shows his thesis, though.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

It is definitely interesting when different sets of ancestors of some historical fame were trying to kill each other!

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Who were your famous ones?

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I'm descended from King Edward III's son Thomas. His murder is mentioned in Shakespeare's Richard II as one of the causes for Henry Bolingbrook to invade England. Because of intermarriages, once you find one king as an ancestor you find links to most of the nobility as well. Go far enough back and it's more a question of who you are not directly descended from. William the Conqueror, yes, my ancestor. King Alfred, yes. St. Louis, yes. Charlemagne, yes. Kings of most of medieval Europe, yes. Byzantine Emperors, yes. Roman Emperors, probably not.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Thomas was an interesting character. He gets in there with the Black Prince and John of Gaunt, but his death was a big deal, for sure. What a fascinating ancestry!

We claim Charlemagne (and his grandmother Gotrude!) but since he had 20 children so long ago, I guess most of Europe is related through him.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

Yep, I think the Carolingian Family reunion would be pretty crowded these days.