Category Archives: english history

REMEMBRANCE OF THE FALLEN MULTICULTURALISED

REMEMBRANCE OF THE FALLEN MULTICULTURALISED
The above picture is of a bronze memorial plaque in the grand domed Eighteenth Century Karlskirche in Vienna. The plaque is to the fallen of one of Imperial Austro-Hungary’s Dragoon Cavalry regiments.  The ringing epitaph is “Treu Bis in Den Tod” which means:- “Loyal even unto Death”. 
That loyalty was to the Hapsburg Emperors, Franz Joseph and Karl; the last two Emperors of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  The Empire was dismembered as a result of one of many of those unwise decisions taken at the end of the First World War which fed into the causes of the Second World War.
Here in England the traditional Remembrance Day service included “O Valiant Hearts”, the words are here:-
O Valiant Hearts, who to your glory came
Through dust of conflict and through battle-flame,
Tranquil you lie, your knightly virtue proved,
Your memory hallowed in the Land you loved.

Proudly you gathered, rank on rank to war,
As who had heard God’s message from afar;
All you had hoped for, all you had, you gave
To save Mankind – yourselves you scorned to save.

Splendid you passed, the great surrender made,
Into the light that nevermore shall fade;
Deep your contentment in that blest abode,
Who wait the last clear trumpet-call of God.

Long years ago, as earth lay dark and still
Rose a loud cry upon a lonely hill,
While in the frailty of our human clay
Christ, our Redeemer, passed the self-same way.

Still stands his cross from that dread hour to this
Like some bright star above the dark abyss;
Still through the veil the victor’s pitying eyes
Look down to bless our lesser Calvaries.

These were his servants, in his steps they trod,
Following through death the martyr’d Son of God:
Victor he rose; victorious too shall rise
They who have drunk his cup of sacrifice.

O risen Lord, O shepherd of our dead,
Whose cross has bought them and whose staff has led-
In glorious hope their proud and sorrowing land
Commits her children to thy gracious hand.

So here we have encapsulated, both on the Austro-Hungarian side and on the British side, what the generation who had gone to War actually thought about the War that they had been involved in fighting in. 
By contrast those that are now in charge of political and cultural and media institutions that dominate our country, and those in other European countries, did not fight in either War.  Most have not served at all in their country’s forces.  In many cases they also played no role in the Cold War either (which followed the Second World War).  If they had done so I doubt that many of them would now dishonestly claim that the European Union had any role in preserving peace in Europe after the Second World War.  That role properly belongs to NATO and not the European Union at all. 
Indeed the first test of the European Union’s ability to keep the peace occurred in Yugoslavia where the European Union and, in particular, Germany triggered a vicious civil war by their unwise and undiplomatic behaviour.  Also armed Dutch “Peace Keeping” troops stood by whilst thousands of civilians were massacred at Srebrenica.  We are nevertheless now urged that what the European Union actually needs is its own armed forces!
At a more symbolic level there was a mixed German/British choral remembrance event in Westminster Hall recently, which the political editor of the Sun on Sunday, David Wooding, tweeted about saying how wonderful it was.  My email exchange with him went as follows:-
@DavidWooding
 Oct 31
““Mozart’s C minor Mass performed in Westminster Hall to mark the centenary of the 1918 Armistice. The Parliament Choir teamed up with the German Bundestag Choir and the Southbank Sinfonia.”
@RobinTilbrook
 Oct 31
Replying to @DavidWooding
“No ‘Hymn of Hate’ then?
We have all but a single hate,
 We love as one, we hate as one,
 We have one foe and one alone —  ENGLAND!”
@DavidWooding
 Oct 31
“This was a classical music concert, not a political rally.”
@RobinTilbrook
 Oct 31
“The ‘Hymn of Hate’ was part of the German First World War propaganda effort; rather a contrast to “It’s a long way to Tipperary” don’t you think?”
@DavidWooding
 Oct 31
“As I said, this was a performance of glorious music. You’re on the wrong thread here.”
As you can see he claims that I missed the point. Actually I think that my point was better than his!
Obviously a mixed choral event in Richard II’s great hall which has been at the very heart of English public life for over 600 years is a profoundly political statement.  It is very deliberately symbolising the “reconciliation” of the Nations and is therefore the very opposite of what those wars were about, in which our Fallen are supposed to be commemorated on Remembrance Sunday. 
I think that it is no coincidence that this event took place in a building which is now surrounded by all those well-entrenched Europhiles and Remainers in the British Political Establishment. 
It was no doubt also people like them who decided to give £100,000 worth of “Heritage Lottery Fund” money to a multi-culturalist organisation called “Diversity House” in Sittingbourne, Kent, which is trying to promote the lie that the First World War was fought with millions of black troops!
The subtext of this is the British Political Establishment is trying to downplay the role of the real people of the real nations who actually fought that War. 
It is true that some Indian troops were used from the British Imperial Indian Army.  They were used mostly against the Turks in the Ottoman Empire but some were used on the Western Front for a while but were withdrawn because they could not cope with the awful conditions and especially the cold. 
I think what is striking here is the anachronistic and inaccurate rewriting of history to make current political points.  We have seen this too in France where President Macron falsely claimed that the wars were caused by “Nationalism”. 
Just consider that the historic fact was that the British Government entered both the First and the Second World War in pursuit of England’s traditional foreign policy.  That policy was to make sure that no one power dominated in Western Europe.  We had fought numerous wars to stop the French from doing so and the Spanish before them, but in the 20th Century our wars were to stop the Germans from dominating in Western Europe.
The current British Political Establishment surrendered that policy and instead reinforced dominance of one power block over Western Europe.  That power block is the EU of which the most dominant Nation is Germany.  They have therefore put us in exactly the position that English Statesmen for centuries have tried to avoid, with a dominant power block right next to us on mainland Europe!
To anybody who is rationally applying Realpolitik in considering what England’s diplomatic position should be, I would say that the answer is blindingly obvious. 
We should revert to our traditional policy.  We should seek to make every effort to break up the European Union. We should not pursue Theresa May and her Government’s pure-blind policy of friendship with the European Union. 
The EU have never been our friends and are certainly not our friends now.  They are now more like enemies than friends.
There are plenty of Europeans however who would be happy to be friends with us if we were showing any real leadership. 
Whether it is possible for the British Political Establishment however to show any real leadership that is another question.  I do think Brexit has given us a clear and unequivocal answer, that is that they are quite incapable of leadership. The sooner the British Political Establishment are ejected and replaced with proper patriots the better!

England “God’s first borne of the Nation states of the Earth”

I was recently asked to speak at the Redbridge Rotary Meeting.  Rotary have a strict policy that speeches are not to be party political and I was asked to talk about key dates and developments in English history which caused the political constitution in England to develop in the unique way that it did and thereby led to many of the key developments which brought the modern world into existence. 
Here are the key points that I referred to in my speech:-
Ladies and Gentlemen of Redbridge Rotary many thanks for inviting me to speak to you today. 
A few months ago I happened to meet and get talking to your colleague, Tony Betts, about the uniqueness of English history.   He said that he thought you would be interested.  So thank you Tony for my invitation here today to talk about English history and how our unique constitution developed.
As G K Chesterton said “What can they of England know who only England know” and so I do find that sometimes people who haven’t travelled much say that there is no difference about England and it has no culture. 
The thing is Ladies and Gentlemen that in English schools now, English history is barely taught and certainly not taught in a way which allows our school children to understand how our constitution developed as a result of events in our history. 
Let me tell you what I think is a symptomatic story.  My daughter is interested in history and when she was doing her GCSE’s I happened to ask what she had been studying.  She said history.  So I asked what about.  She said Hitler.  So I said oh that’s interesting so who was the greatest mass murder in human history?  She immediately said Hitler.  So I said no Mao Tso Tung – 95 million. She looked a bit crestfallen so I said so who is the second greatest mass murderer in human history?  She said Hitler again a bit hesitantly.  So I said no Joe Stalin – 55 million.  I then asked who was the third greatest mass murderer in human history?  She was very hesitant by now and asked me was it Hitler so I said yes. 
Although this story is not about English history it does show both the bias which our children are subjected which edit out historic truths that are inconvenient to the Left and also that there is no teaching of any understanding of how things fit together.
So what I propose to do is to concentrate on how English history fits together and focus on the key dates in the development of that unique entity called:- “the English Nation” and its Nation State:  “England”. 
To illustrate how unique England is I would point out that one historian called England “God’s first borne of the Nation states of the Earth”. 
So here goes Ladies and Gentlemen.
412    Legions depart
          End of Roman Britain
The rise of the Heptarchy – settlement/conquer by Angles, Jutes and Saxons
664    Synod of Witby – Culmination of the Roman Catholic mission founded by StAugustine
731    Venerable Bede – Book:- Historica Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum
793    Viking’s first raid
20.11.869   Martyrdom of St Edmund – Patron Saint of English as a people
878    Alfred the Great burns cakes.  Alfred wins a first great victory against the Vikings at Eddington
          His Military reforms
880’s  His publication of English Bible
886    His creation of London as a burgh
890    His promulgation of his law code in English
12.7.927     King Athelstan – English unity – at Eamont
1066  Edward the Confessor (Patron Saint of English Monarchy)
         
        William the Conqueror calls himself: “Basileus”.
1189  “Time Immemorial” “Basileus”  (Death of Henry II) Customary law basis of Common Law (a unique English contribution).
1215  Magna Carta – the King uniquely subjected to the Rule of Law
Re-promulgated as manifesto by William Marshall and Henry III
1222 St George’s Day 23rd April adopted (Patron Saint of England)
1265  First British Parliament in Westminster Abbey Chapter House.  We can see the spot on Westminster Abbey wall where Henry III ran out of money!
Edward I uses Parliament to raise more tax for his wars
1333  Battle of Halidon Hill.  First of three great victories of Edward III.  Berwick on Tweed finally settled in England.
1461  Towton etc. – Slaughter of much of medieval nobility
1485  Bosworth – Wars of the Roses ends
1517  Martin Luther posts 95 theses on church door in Wittenberg
         
1535  Reformation – Tudor Monarchy apparently very dominant but parliament is the mechanism by which even the religion of England is ordered to be changed (and later back and forth).
1535  Official Bible printed in English
1536 Act of Union with Wales
1603  Scottish King inherits English Crown.  James I of England 6th of Scotland tries to get English Parliament to agree to United Kingdom and fails
1642  Civil War
1649  Charles beheaded
          England declared a Republic and Commonwealth
1689  Glorious Revolution – Bill of Rights
          Crown in Parliament is Sovereign.  Keystone of legislative constitution as set out in Miller (Brexit) case by LCJ.  NB. Not the sovereignty of the People!
1707  Union of Parliament – Scotland
1721 Emergence of Prime Ministerial government
          England uniquely was the first Industrial Revolution
1801  Union – Ireland – Union Jack complete
1832  Great Reform Act – Parliament begins to increase the rate of legislation
1922  Ireland – Irish Free State – Irish citizens can move here freely and vote here as citizens
1937  Republic of Ireland created
1945 Post war phenomenon of two party rule.
1998  Devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but uniquely nothing for England except now EVEL e.g. Hunting Act for England only – SNP blocked it.
What do you think?  Is English constitutional history more unique than you thought?


Why should English lawyers want England to leave the EU?

As part of my contribution to the campaign to come out of the EU I have been trying to get the English nationalist view across and got this article published in the Solicitors Journal. ISSUE: Vol 160 no 15 19-04-16

In discussion: Brexit

With debate over the UK’s continuing participation in the European Union hotting up, Solicitors Journal invites its readers to explain which way they are voting come the 23 June referendum. Can they persuade you?


Sir,

When asked why English lawyers should want our country to leave the EU, I would respond that lawyers should be the best and most loyal citizens. Any good citizen should be proud of his or her country. In the case of England, we have much to be proud of.

When our English nation state’s great founder, King Alfred, promulgated his great legal code circa 893 AD, he expressly based its legitimacy upon Christian values and upon the free traditions of the English nation. This code set the course of English legal development on a very different jurisprudential path to that of our continental neighbours. Thus, even before England was unified, in 927 AD under Alfred’s grandson, Athelstan, English law was already developing along the path of common law, resting upon the customs of the English people.

Our Anglo-Saxon forbearers also set us on the path towards another English constitutional contribution to the modern world: representative democracy. Their system of representation by means of consultative assemblies, culminating in the great council of the nation, the Witan, is the root of our democratic system.

This was supplemented by Magna Carta’s affirmation of the right to a fair trial, and its arguably more important contribution to the idea of the rule of law. This is unlike the continental jurisprudential legacy of Roman law derived from the Institutes of Justinian, the legacy of imperial tyranny, where individuals’ rights are only those which have been permitted by law. Implicitly, the civil law state is claiming to be antecedent to all rights.

By contrast, we cherish England as the ‘land of liberty’ and of the ‘liberties of the freeborn Englishman’, in which our freedom is only limited by express law as the foundations of our constitution and legal system. The 1689 Bill of Rights completed our unique representative democratic tradition.

It is no wonder, therefore, that all good citizens, patriots, and lawyers who care about England should be united in calling for an exit from an institution founded on jurisdictional principles so at odds with the rights and liberties of Englishmen and Englishwomen.

It was a policy blunder to have gone into the EU in the first place. The aim of the British establishment in doing so was to try to maintain its own pretensions of grandeur – to strut on the ‘world stage’ as a great power. It was misguided folly for ordinary people to have ratified that decision in the 1975 referendum, but now we have the chance on 23 June to triumphantly reassert our freeborn rights and liberties by voting to leave. Let us do so and let the nation stand proud again.

Yours faithfully,

Robin Tilbrook

Robin Tilbrook is principal solicitor at Tilbrook’s Solicitors in Essex and chairman of the English Democrats @RobinTilbrook

Here is a link to the original article >>> In discussion: Brexit | Solicitors Journal

Professor Robert Tombs on the Uniqueness of England


Professor Robert Tombs on the Uniqueness of England


For my birthday I was given a book:- ‘The English and their History’ by Professor Robert Tombs. 

This is a book that I would recommend to anyone interested in the history of England and the English people. Here is an extract which particularly appealed to me. See what you think:-

“What is unique about England lies in the realm of politics: the early development, in response to Viking invasions, of a powerful kingdom occupying a defined territory, with a system of government in which a large part of the population participated, whether they liked it or not – through courts and juries, through tithings, through labour, taxation and military service, through the use of royal coins, and, for the powerful, through royal councils and parliaments. 

Some historians have suggested that this made England the prototype of the nation-state. Similar institutions to those of England had existed at times in other parts of Europe, particularly under the empire of Charlemagne, but they were swept away. In England they survived. Being a powerful and yet vulnerable kingdom, able to raise taxes and impose law and order, and yet subject to disputed royal succession and foreign invasion, it’s Kings needed the support of their people, and the people high and low needed to control the actions of their Kings. Anglo-Saxon institutions, some of very ancient origin, were preserved and developed by the post-Conquest monarchy, which extended royal justice and created a common law. 

The country of Bede’s gens Anglorum was never divided up into autonomous and warring feudal territories. Instead, the “community of the realm” imposed the rule of law on its powers and on its post-Conquest monarchs to a degree unique in Europe.

The common law in Magna Carta was seen not as revolutionary innovations, but as restatements of ancient principals. The distinctiveness of the common law became a source of pride …

This (took) on weighty ideological significance: the law was claimed to be above and beyond royal absolutism and hence the safeguard of liberty. This significance it has subsequently retained, at least subliminally. 

Moreover by an unpredictable historical twist, “the insular and arcane learning of the small band of lawyers who argued cases in the corner of Westminster Hall became the law by which the third of the people of the earth were governed and protected, the second (after Roman Law) of the two great systems of jurisprudence known to the world”.

Continuity is crucial in this story. Many of the jumbled ingredients of nationhood, beliefs, myths, institutions, customs, loyalties – that were already present in the 9th Century were revived or reinvented in the 12th. 

Thereafter they gained in potency because they persisted, deriving legitimacy from their ever growing antiquity, enhanced by linking them with the real or mythical pasts of St Edward the Confessor and King Arthur. England’s laws and institutions came to seem untouchable and immutable, as if in the nature of things, dating from time immemorial. They could then be seen in Edmund Burke’s famous phrase of 1791, as creating “a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. In such ways nations and identities are “constructed”: that is made by people, and not determined by geography, genes or blood.”