Thread by @Hitchcockian

So. It says in the 'Life in the UK' test book that 1066 was the last successful foreign conquest of England. Which neglects or fully anglicizes Matilda and 1139 and the regency invasion of Isabella in 1326. Oh also the very successful invasion of 1688-9.

testing is going well...

wow their account of the first settlement of the Irish Pale is just offensive.

I am going to livetweet my experience of this 'history' book I am required to read.
#twitterstorians #badhistory #isthisjingoism #ihavelostallmydignity

lifeintheuktests.co.uk/study-guide/?c…

Feudalism is not, *NOT* just 'a system of land ownership'... aaaaah that is so wrong!

Yo Home Office, Henry was very unlikely to be 'vastly outnumbered' at Agincourt. cf. Shield of Achilles, Anne Curry... I am not up on the scholarship but 'vastly' is not acceptable.

'The English left France in the 1450s'

Um.

England held Calais into the reign of Elizabeth I, lost it in 1558. Wrong. Next!

"In 1348, a disease, probably a form of plague, came to Britain."

ahahahahahahah. gasps for air.... ahahahahahaaaaa

"There were few formal limits to the king’s power until 1215." @MedievalFemina surely not!?

I am not sure I can bring myself to expose the sheer number of incorrect assertions in the early modern section.

It is important to one's understanding of Life in the UK that one memorizes all six of Henry VIII's wives in order. "Don't forget Catherine Parr!!"

They even misspelled her name for serious.

continuing theme of Sucking at Ireland: 'In Ireland, however, attempts by the English to impose Protestantism (alongside efforts to introduce the English system of laws about the inheritance of land) led to rebellion from the Irish chieftains, and much brutal fighting followed.'

You want the nuanced twitter version of England's role in Ireland in the 16th century?

The English took stuff by force from the Irish. Like land, goods, titles, and so on.

"The Elizabethan period in England was a time of growing patriotism: a feeling of pride in being English"

I am screaming at my coffee now. Actually screaming.

"Sir Francis Drake, one of the commanders in the defeat of the Spanish Armada, was one of the founders of England’s naval tradition."

Drake was a pirate with state sponsorship, so... wait is this an accurate but unintentional description of British naval tradition>

"In Elizabeth I’s time, English settlers first began to colonise the eastern coast of America."

Which was entirely empty and Not at All Problematic. Obviously.

Lines often quoted from Shakespeare, I am told.

wait for it.

"the darling buds of May"

that's it, that's the full quote.

"The Globe Theatre in London is a modern copy of the theatres in which his plays were first performed."

But like, it's not tho. The Sam Wannamaker tries to be as period-specific as possible yes. I guess they are both circular and have stages so there is that.

James VI and I gets a single sentence. Excellent.

Regarding later 16th and 17th century plantation and rebellion in Ireland:

"This had serious longterm consequences for the history of England, Scotland and Ireland."

Yeah deffo. What might some of those be I wonder.

Regarding the 1640-1 Irish rebellion: "Another rebellion began in Ireland because the Roman Catholics in Ireland were afraid of the growing power of the Puritans."

I uh, I... I can't even.

They are at least honest about Cromwell in Ireland, blessed relief.

"Charles II made it clear that he had ‘no wish to go on his travels again’." " Generally, Parliament supported his policies"

except for that time they tried to exclude his bro from the succession. or when they impeached his lord chancellor, or when they discovered the FR subsidy

"Both Roman Catholics and Puritans were kept out of power."

Manifestly untrue folks unless you squint really, really hard.

They do OK on habeas corpus. I feel like someone consulted on the common law and legal history at least.

How was it on the 'Glorious Revolution'? It was OK, mediocre really. Nothing egregiously out of whack which is a step up for this booklet.

I am about to enter the 'Global Power' section, send alcohol.

The Bill of Rights did NOT give Parliament any power to choose or confirm the monarch. That would be the Act of Succession 1707 kthx.

Howler here: "Queen Anne had no surviving children. This created uncertainty over the succession in England, Wales and Ireland and in Scotland. The Act of Union, known as the Treaty of Union in Scotland, was therefore agreed in 1707"... um. that is not the why of Union AT ALL.

Robert Walpole is not generally regarded as the first 'Prime' Minister in 1714 though I understand the confusion. Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford who preceded him with Anne has a good claim on that title.

Correct that many of the greatest UK thinkers of the Enlightenment were Scottish.
Wrong about this: '...most important principles of the Enlightenment was that everyone should have the right to their own political and religious beliefs & that the state should not try to dictate'

I can count the number of enlightenment thinkers who believed that using my fingers.

none of them believed that, maybe Spinoza?

How delightfully naughty. The industrial revolution image is a wheat field.

brb running my hands through it.

*shivering with wheat-induced pleasure*. OK. Marching onwards. Britain was the first country to industrialize because of steam power. hm. Kinda. Maybe. But actually I'm gonna go with Newcastle coal for 500 Alex.

manufacturing jobs did not become the main source of employment in Britain until late in the 19th century, unless you count manufacturing foodstuffs in there somehow. #facepalm

Oh dear I have found the section on the slave trade.

"While slavery was illegal within Britain itself, by the 18th century it was a fully established overseas industry, dominated by Britain and the American colonies."

so 👏 many 👏 things 👏wrong 👏here

grammar of this hides two centuries of atrocities. the worst thing yet.

Justice Mansfield tried an important case called Somerset v Stuart in in 1772. Which did not quite establish the principle that no man could be a slave *on* the British isles. The judgement was entirely limited to coercive removal, NOT status.

By 1833 the Royal Navy was, I am told, heroically liberating slaves from ships of other nations around the globe. But not Indian slaves by the way. 'Coolie' plantation labor still v.much a thing in the 19th century.

No mention whatsoever of the role of the 1763 Royal Proclamation line of GIII in the advent of the 1776 revolution. Bit of a shrug at their take on American independence.

Admiral Nelson gets 200% more column inches than King James VI and I. Sides cracking at that.

Victorian age!

"Within the UK, the middle classes because increasingly significant and a number of reformers led moves to improve conditions of life for the poor".

I am genuinely one of the experts on the preceding period. Conditions did not improve. Parsimonious indoor relief.

The 19th C British Empire section is not about the British Empire at all. Playing it safe on that one I see.

OK I am going to wind this down, but a modernist and/or a New Imperial Historian ought to take up the torch for science and entertainment. @pdkmitchell @KimAtiWagner et al any takers?

annnd came back for this one: "Yet the great majority of British people believed in the Empire as a force for good in the world."

Maybe so, but they really shouldn't have, and there is absolutely no good reason at all for this to be in the test. There are many bad reasons...

The date here should be 1701 not 7 sorry. Typo! Important point is that the Bill itself does not generally do what a lot of Glorious Rev apologists says it does.