In England the 17th century started badly when James I was drafted in from Scotland in 1603. This set the scene for declared and undeclared Civil Wars in England for the next 50-years during the administrations of Charles 1 (1625-1640); Oliver Cromwell & Co. (1640-1660); Charles II (1660-1685) and James II (1685-1689) before William of Orange (1689-1702) was brought in to sort out the mess and pass on some semblance of orderly governance to Queen Anne. History might be repeating itself following the present 20 years of Scottish Government in England.

I have Kent Libraries’ copy of Tawney’s Business & Politics under James I on the bunk beside me for a second reading and his The Acquisitive Society and Religion and the Rise of Capitalism…with Hilaire Belloc’s Biography of James II and Charles Wilson’s Profit & Power about Dutch Wars of the 17th century on my list.

The 17th century is the key to 21st century England so Christopher Hill’s The Century of Revolution 1603-1714 is important. But to understand the 17th century means getting up to speed on the Tudors which means going back to the death of Henry VIIIth in 1553 and the 44-year reign of Elizabeth Ist that followed. This ended in 1603 with the Scottish Settlement and the Catholic James Stuart ascending the English Throne. I found The Queen’s Bastard…a historical novel by Robin Maxwell…provided valuable insights into the history of this period of English History.

But the further I get into the history of the English Speaking Peoples the more I am veering away from Academic History to Historical Novels and the good sense of teaching history by telling stories. 1066 And All That mocked this approach. But just as a Christian Scholar can bring Jesus to life with Monty Python’s film The Life of Brian so a brilliant history teacher can make history real for young (and old) people with 1066 and All That…and the help of the internet. My main complaint about the book is that it is bad history.

The problem with 1066 And All That is not the satirising of History Teaching and the Trivialising of the Idea of History but its fundamental misunderstanding of English History. Producing the Domesday Book for instance was only possible because of the efficiency of England’s fund raising prior to William of Normandy’s invasion…from years of paying Danegeld and bribing Viking raiders with gold to keep them at bay. The real significance of the overthrow of Harold Godwinesson was the subsequent replacement of English Law by Continental Roman Law.

Nowadays historical novels from good publishers are extremely well-researched. They are therefore able to provide an overall picture of the life and times in which they are set. Another interesting feature of the historical novels to be found in libraries and second-hand bookshops is that women authors are overrepresented. This is a Good Thing. Women have insights that are absent from the Great Men and Glorious Wars approach limping on into the English Public Schools teaching of my day as a last hurrah of Imperial History from its decline in the Victorian Age.

Oxfam claims to be the biggest second-hand bookseller in the country…which doesn’t surprise me. It was at their Ashford branch that I found a copy of Harold The King by Helen Hollick with its well-researched chronicling of the Norman Invasion of Anglo-Saxon England in 1066.

For two more pounds I acquired Sphere Book’s Six Wives of Henry VIII. This and Philippa Gregory’s 2001 book The Other Boleyn Girl and last year’s publication The Constant Princess about Katherine of Aragon covers the Reign of Henry VIIIth.

In 1972 Sphere commissioned Julia Hamilton to write Katharine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves and arranged for Margaret Heys, Frances Clark and Jessica Smith to write abridged versions of The May Queen (1967), Mistress Jane Seymour (1967) and Henry Betrayed (1969) respectively to complete the boxed set with the stories of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard.

Traditionally England’s kings and queens were appointed by the Witan or Council of England…which lives on today as the Privy Council. Hereditary Claims mattered but, in the history of the English Monarchy, kinship by marriage could override Bloodline Seniority when Competence or Loyalty were in question…and loyalty can cut both ways. This English Tradition predominated in the appointments of Aethelred, Cnut, Harthacnut, Harold Harefoot, Edmund Ironside, Edward Ist and Harold Godwinesson. Rules of succession need not be fixed in stone.

From time to time the Council of England finds itself playing a crucial role in the selection of kings and queens. It was certainly active in the 17th century when the rise of the gentry led to a shift in the balance of economic and financial power in England. R.H. Tawney seems to suggest this was behind the 50-years of turmoil from 1625 to 1675.

The Stuart Restoration of Charles II in 1660 and their replacement in 1689 by the House of Orange…William strengthened his link to the Royal House through his marriage to Mary…were really the work of the English Council.

Perhaps I should write a Lord of the Rings style saga about England and the English from the 10th Century to the 21st Century…although a good case can be made for starting with Stonehenge & the Druids or King Arthur and the Round Table. Rupert Sheldrake’s Morphogenetic Fields could provide the Ancestral Push and Pull from Posterity and play a similar role to the Gods of Mount Olympus in the Greek Myths or the Asgard in the Nordic Sagas.