The Other Two!

I didn't know it was called the Carolean age. I though we were all (or at least new-borns) Cavaliers now.

I absolutely love history and soak it up whenever I can. It started at school in the 1950's when I had the good luck to have a brilliant history teacher. For O'level we did from 1688 to 1820. I've loved history ever since. It's like an endless jigsaw puzzle, and full of if, buts and maybes.

I like learning about history. I remember being surprised that American history was so out of step with ours. The wild west was happening during the victorian era..
I am reading "The Adventure of English "by Melvyn Bragg for an interesting time line
The historical novels, well researched about the time of Charles 1 Charles 2 , and James . by Robert Neil are all a good read

Thanks for that Hillarybee

I’m just finishing reading Antonia Fraser’s book ‘Charles11’. I’ve found it heavy going compared to some of her other books but well worth reading if you’re interested

At grammar school in the 1930s we only learned about the royalty from William first to Victoria but I was always interested in history and read and still do historical novels. Both French and English. Recently Phillips Gregory and Hillary Mantell. Also factual books.
The Stuart’s were Scottish and from George First until George sixth they were all German. Victoria was German as wasAlbert. Until the Queen Mother who was Scottish the royals were all foreigners. Philip was Greek.
I believe social history is now taught in Schools.
I enjoy Lucy Worsley’s programmes.

My favourite King is Charles II. I have read much about that period. I don’t understand why so much is made about Henry VIII but I think it’s all the wives and the Ann Boleyn/divorce from the Catholic Church that is so interesting but it’s been done endlessly.

We were members of the Civil War Society and had great fun at Re-enactments. I learned quite a lot that way.

Having taught high school seniors British Literature for around 30 years, I was often accused of teaching history as much as literature. How can it be relevant without the time period surrounding the writers? So, yes, we did the order of the monarchs and pondered the day when Queen Elizabeth II would either abdicate or pass on the throne naturally. I also definitely taught the leading up to the beheading of Charles I, the flight to France by his son, his coronation following the Commonwealth and executions of those responsible for the beheading. Very interesting time period indeed.

Actually, just realised you can take Edward VI out of that list, as Henry VIII had an earlier son who only lived 52 days - so only 11 eldest sons inherited

5TerriBull - I was taught about Charles1 and Charles11 at school.
I wrote a hefty piece of work about them at GCSE level and remember being excited to visit Carisbrooke Castle once on holiday.

maytime2

I did not know until this week that yet again there was a instance of the first born dying and the second son becoming King. This happened when Henry, Prince of Wales died at the age of 18 and Charles I ascended to the throne. This has happened so many times in the past, e.g. Prince Arthur dying and Henry V111 coming to the throne, Princess Charlotte dying in childbirth and her cousin Victoria ascending the throne.
On the subject of the teaching of History we started with the Egyptians then the Romans and finally ended with British History up to 1914. Being Welsh we were also taught Welsh History from the Romans upwards. My daughter was taught in a piece meal approach. She learned about Hitler's rise to power, but very little else.
I should add that History was my favourite subject in school and is something that I still enjoy reading about. I'm ashamed to say that I know very little European history.

@Maytime2
You're right about there being several instances of someone other than the firstborn son inheriting the Crown, at least in England.
In fact, out of 42 monarchs since the Norman Conquest, only 12 have been the eldest son of the previous monarch- Henry III, Edward I, Edward III, Henry VI, Edward V, Edward VI, Charles II, George II, George IV, Edward VII, Edward VIII and Charles III. And of those, Edward V and Edward VIII were never crowned, and Charles II had to wait 11 years after his father's death before he could rule. Including eldest daughters adds Mary II and Elizabeth II to the total.

The rest all either had an older brother who died before succeeding, or were the grandson or brother or other relative of the previous monarch.

Looking forward to reading Act of Oblivion by Robert Harris which deals with this period.

We went through from Babylon to the Romans and then through till the end of the Stuarts. For O level we were stuck with the 19th century and all the joys of the Chartists and the Great Reform Act. We finished in 1914 and I actually went on to study WW1 in detail as part of my Liberal Studies when I was at Art School.

History courses inevitably become wider! I was taught 1066, Tudors, Stewarts, First World war and the Russian Revolution.
Back then single points of view were the norm, now I understand students are encouraged to evaluate different sources. How wonderful that the second Elizabethan period will be enhanced by live events and pictures.

Sadly the only history I studied at school was something about Ziggurats in Ancient Egypt and surrounds. Many years ago I attempted to educate myself from a set of beautiful books bought for me by my husband but have absorbed only a tiny fraction of their contents. I remain more or less ignorant except for the past 200 years.

My late mother told me about her rather ancient Scottish relatives who referred to King George V and VI as "The German Kings". And not in pleasant way either.

I remembered loving history at school. I did the period 1814- I think 1914 for “O” level but did not do history at A level. I cant remember what I did at primary etc,

I think the Plantagenets are a fascinating group, and they cover so many years.

We 'did' the Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans at primary school (had to start with the Romans as we lived in the 'oldest recorded town in England') Then we 'did' them all over again at Secondary..
We then galloped through the reigns up to Victoria.

I found it quite boring at at school, but,like others, I came to history through historical fiction. I find it fascinating.

In the previous Charles's reigns the focus has always been on his fall out with Parliament with a nod to the Puritans, 'Right but Repulsive' and Cavaliers 'Wrong but Romantic' but with less emphasis than it merits on the absolute pervasive influence of religion and the resultant divides and very strong emotional responses .

But 'History' has always been the story of the elites and the hierarchy; the common people just tagged along and endured whatever rule/ruler they ended up with. Our history lessons reflected that. Even when we got to Victorian times it was a history of what 'elites' did for 'the poor', with little acknowledgement of the agency of 'the poor' or how they interacted with the 'elites'.

Of course, a problem with our history, WRT teaching it, is that we just have too much of it

It’s true that my knowledge of English history is a bit patchy after Elizabeth I although I have read rather cursorily about the Stuarts and realise it is indeed a very important period in the story of this country. We are sometimes unaware of how the past informs the present. My passion is Russian history and that has never been more important than today when I can see the same scenario repeating itself yet again! Let’s hope that Charles III’s reign is less turbulent than his preceding namesakes!

We started at the beginning looking at early man right up to the end of the First World War. The Tudors and Stuarts were in the year before you chose your options so as they were so brought to life by a wonderful history teacher, I opted for history as a subject. My horror when it turned out to be The Poor Laws, Crimean War, etc caused me to turn off. Now I am fascinated by it all. I think History is often wasted on the young!
My kids seemed to concentrate on World History far more when they were at school than British History. They looked at artefacts and made up their own minds about what had happened (with a little direction from the teacher). It isn't so black and white these days which is perhaps better.

M0nica

I clearly went to scholl (1950s) when the school curriculum covered the whole of British History from 1066 to, in my case 1914, any later counted as politics and current affairs. However you needed to do O and A level history to study everything.

For DH who went the science and maths route, history ended in 1688, just at the end of the Carolinian period when William and Mary came in. As I did do O and A level History, I got the full run.

I think history periods go in and out of fashion outside the classroom. As a child I remember that popular history was entirely Roundheads and Cavaliers, although mainly cavaliers, because of their long hair, lovely clothes and fantastic hats.

We then went through a period of obsession with the period between roughly 1725 and 1830, whether jane Austen novels or War and Peace and lots of books and and art exhibitions. This hit rock bottom with the Pride and Prejudice starring Colin Firth, that paid scant respect to the book plus that dreadful Ruth Rendell (?) Murder at Pemberley or something.

We are now in the Tudor period. I haven't watched any of the Hilary Mantell shows.

We now seem to be back in the early 20th century with things like Downton Abbey.

I would like to see the 15th century and the War of the Roses revived. They would make wonderfully gory computer games, if you liked such things.

I’m surprised to see you write that the 1995 BBC Pride and Prejudice adaptation paid scant respect to the book, M0nica. OK, they put in Colin Firth swimming and meeting Elizabeth in his wet shirt, but that version is the most popular one with Jane Austen aficionados and is generally considered the most faithful. Most of the dialogue was straight from the book, and they were extremely careful and accurate with clothes, hairstyles, interior decoration, music and dancing.

I’m a JA fan myself and I love that version.

I can’t recall doing much royal history at school. We studied Social and Economic History for O Level. I could tell you all about the Industrial Revolution - Abraham Darby, Bessemer, Stephenson, etc!
One of my first thoughts when Charles became King was that there would be a revival of interest in his Carolean predecessors.

All I can remember from my history lessons were the cavaliers and roundheads. I love history but, sadly, our lessons always seemed so boring. It does, of course, depend, on the teacher.

There was also Bonnie Prince Charlie who claimed the title of Charles III - never recognised by the UK of course.