History: Truth or Spin?

Much of the motive to explore history is to discover how we got to where we are today. It's a common step from there to seeing the historical process that has resulted in our present state as somehow inevitable.The conventional thread of most histories thus tends to justify the winner, and to assert a continuum of rightness from whatever period is under consideration up to the present day.

Consider the history of England as an example. Though post-Enlightenment, materialist historians might bridal at literally admitting it, there is a strong suggestion of the hand of God in the process, for each monarch reigns officially "by the Grace of God" and is "our undoubted queen (or king)" by virtue of that unbroken thread of right causality.

And then there is the other history of England. The one set by the wayside at each turning that either maintained the sovereignty despite a period of opposition, or shifted the sovereignty to new or premature hands and required justification, usually by disparaging the loser.

Henry VI must be portrayed as a near imbecile and Richard III a child-murderer for Henry Tudor to be embraced as God’s chosen King Henry VII. Edward II must be an outrageous homosexual to justify his queen’s seizing power from him on behalf of his young son, Edward III. But a catamite of King Richard I is said to have been hurled from a parapet by Richard’s followers who were aggravated that he spent his time at dalliance with the boy instead of attending to the business of crusade. Yet Richard’s homosexuality has not sullied his glorious reputation. In his case there was no regime change that needed to be justified.

The deep-delving historian often will find two or more sets of records from a period under study, the separate threads divided by the partisan leanings of the events' witnesses. Should this be surprising? Read the handbill news sheets of the time of George Washington’s presidency and you’ll find there were those who fully believed Washington was a secret agent for the French and a traitor to the interests of his country. Had the British vanquished the colonial rebels, that view of Washington might have become standard history. England was at odds with France, and France was the rebel colonists' chief ally.

Though George Washington as France's agent now seems utterly absurd to most Americans, arrays of spin can be pitfalls for any historian who attempts to assert a single “truth.” And when the era under study was filled with embittered and contending parties, the pitfalls are everywhere. 

Take for example the apparently miniscule and simple issue of how King Henry III of England identified himself during the battle of Evesham in 1265. Historians agree that he was traveling with – or under the control of – the Parliamentary party whose military leader was Simon de Montfort; that, when the cortege was pursued and eventually surrounded by the armies of Prince Edward, Henry accompanied the Montfortians into battle dressed in borrowed armor that concealed his identity; and that in the heat of the battle he cried out, “Don’t kill me!”

But did he say, “I’m Henry of Winchester, your king! Don’t kill me!” Or did he say, “I’m Henry of Monmouth! Don’t kill me!” This might seem a trivial question. The first is what one would expect of a competent, elderly monarch seeking to be rescued by Edward’s monarchist forces. They are the words a well-meaning historian constructing a consistent thread would put in Henry’s mouth. Yet the second outcry has the surreal ring of truth. The bright spark of the unexpected that real life often displays.

The historian faces the choice of conventionality, in keeping with the consistent monarchical thread, or of adherence to a reconstruction of the evidences surviving of, in this case, the Parliamentary partisans. For if the king said, “I’m Henry of Monmouth” (and the chronicler who recorded this added by way of explanation, “he was simple”), then here is witness that the king was in his dotage and incompetent – and the Parliamentarians were justified in controlling his actions for the sake of the realm. 

Monarchist or Parliamentarian – the record splits along political lines, the very lines that were essential to the issues in contention at the time.

  

If so seemingly small a particle of history can display such partisan weighting, what can be said of larger issues? And where lies truth? Is it the stream of events as interpreted by those who would justify history as leading inexorably to the present status quo? Or might it be tweezed out of the losing party’s surviving scraps of evidence? Or is it truly lost – if indeed a single truth ever existed?

Only the naïve maintain they know the truth of eras that were split and fractured by partisan politics. Or, in any comlex issue, that an objective truth ever can be asserted beyond question.

book website: www.simon-de-montfort.com
personal website: www.katherineashe.com

Katherine Ashe is the author of the  four volume Montfort novelized series
http://www.amazon.com/Katherine-Ashe/e/B004OTWHNQ/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1398361940&sr=1-2-ent

Democracy, Progress and a Lost Chance in 1265

I’ve recently returned from a conference sponsored by the Mortimer Society in the UK, the subject was “What if Simon de Montfort had won the battle of Evesham?” 

To those who haven’t gotten through the fourth volume of my book Montfort this mightn’t be an animating subject. But it is. For the history of Europe in any case. And indeed for all mankind.

If Simon de Montfort had won, there’s a chance that democratic government as we know it: the House of Lords and House of Commons, the Senate and Congress, etc., might have persisted intact in England from 1265 onward.

What would that have meant? The theology of Thomas Aquinas probably would have been squelched.

Aquinas held that God’s Creation presents an immutable hierarchy, from God through the gradations of angels and saints to the Pope, then kings, then each member of the rest of humanity -- who should properly be locked into the station in life into which he or she was born -- and from mankind thence to the animals down to the lowliest worm.

It is this tenet that granted kings divine rights -- power to do as they pleased so long as they didn’t offend the Pope.

Just possibly the French Revolution, inspired by England’s success, would have occurred in the early 14^th century instead of the late 18^th.  And all the revolutions that followed it might have come tumbling along by 1500.

The Wars of the Roses, battled between claimants to England’s throne, wouldn’t have happened. Being king wouldn’t have been such a tempting prize when the king’s actions were controlled by the Parliament.

Who would be king would be up to Parliament’s decision anyway -- as shown by the English people’s government’s predilection for Protestant over Catholic candidates when the Catholic’s rights were plain as 1-2-3.

And the wars between England and France, so costly in lives and wealth, wouldn’t have happened in all likelihood. Or perhaps they would, but the excuses would have been a clear matter of trade dominance rather than genealogical niceties. 

We’ve seen that people’s governments will surely go to war if it looks like a prospect for monopoly might be in it – be it monopoly of the wool processing trade, the Silk Route, petroleum or whatever is the dominant way to riches at the moment.

There is an intriguing aspect of history since the advent of governments guided by the vote of the people: that is the vast increase in competitive trade and what, in 19^th century America, was referred to as “building a better mouse trap.” 

This urge to develop something new and more appealing to the shopper is the engine that has changed our world. Horse travel, by cart or astride, has been replaced by a worldwide fleet of internal combustion engines. And now we’re trying to replace those.

Communications no longer are dependent upon the footman you keep; the stranger who happens to be going from Joppa to Toulouse where you hope your letter from Palestine will be received; the ship that may founder on its way from you in New York to your business partner in Canton.

That wonder of orderly government, the Postal System, has been all but replaced now by the instant communications of the internet and email.

Might these developments not have occurred if monarchy had continued to hold sway? Monarchy thrives on old customs and traditions and has a vested interest in shunning the new. 

We can see that in those countries where monarchy lasted late – monarchy curbed by elected government being the striking exception – the innovations that have changed the world did not take place.

If government by the people had lasted unperturbed from 1265 onward, would Nicholas Tesla and Bill Gates – no doubt with some other names – have brought forth their world changing discoveries by the year 1500? What would our world be now, five hundred years into further development?

Of course this isn’t what I spoke of at the Mortimer Society conference. I talked of Joachim de Flore and the Millennium – but I’ll write of that here next time.

book website: www.simon-de-montfort.com
personal website: www.katherineashe.com

Katherine Ashe is the author of the  four volume Montfort novelized series
http://www.amazon.com/Katherine-Ashe/e/B004OTWHNQ/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1398361940&sr=1-2-ent