And welcome back to The Case For More.

Subscribe now

This week we are dealing with something I touched on during my piece on the RNLI. Namely, that Christian imagery, symbols, and chants are making their way into right-wing protests. However, a recent Theos (a Christian Think Tank) survey has shown that this group of ‘identity integrationists’, often referred to as ‘Christian Nationalists’, are the least church going. So, what’s going on?

The Theos report

I won’t give the statistics in full, you can read them here if you wish (link), but I will summarise the key points.

The Theos report identified five groups with different views on Christianity and British identity. The most relevant are the ‘identity integrationists’, who make up 11% of respondents and are most closely associated with what is commonly called Christian nationalism, and the ‘belief integrationists’, who make up 13%. The former sees Christianity as fundamental to British identity and want to defend Britain’s Christian heritage, but only 13% attend church weekly, compared with 31% of the latter group. And yet, despite the low church attendance, 90% of identity integrationists believe that defending Britain’s Christian culture and heritage is important to being Christian. But the differences extend beyond church attendance.

Only 19% of identity integrationists agree that Christian values require welcoming and supporting asylum seekers, compared with 48% of belief integrationists. Similarly, just 30% support equal treatment of religions in public life, compared with 63% of belief integrationists. The findings, therefore, reveal a distinction between those who see Christianity primarily as part of Britain’s national identity and those whose relationship with Christianity is more rooted in religious belief and practice.

The report does not establish why identity integrationists rarely attend church, nor whether they want to embrace Christianity as a faith rather than a cultural inheritance. However, it does reveal a group for whom Christianity remains important, even thought they do not necessarily practice it by going to Church.

And so, for the Church, the question is what to do with that information. Dismiss it as nationalism? Or recognise an opportunity to engage people who remain drawn to Britain’s Christian heritage?

The juxtaposition

There is an easy temptation with data like this to fall into one of two camps.

The first, is to say that these people are not Christian at all, they do not understand Christianity, and they are wrong to associate with it. This is the position, sadly, I see many clergy and churches taking. Many of these so-called ‘Christian Nationalists’ are opposed to immigration, asylum seeking (only 19% agreed with asylum), and many of the DEI policies the church has worked hard to implement and publicise.

The second, and I think equally wrong, is a group that claims these people to be the ‘real’ Christians. That to be Christian is to oppose these things and the people that identify with them. They think that the Church has ‘gone woke’, and that, therefore, these people are indeed Christian but have chosen to excuse themselves from such churches.

I think the answer, as ever, lies in the middle.

It is true, particularly if we look at Churches like the CofE, Methodists, and URC, that some churches have ‘gone woke’. Their preferred ministry group looks diverse, hip, and maybe a little sexually edgy. They want to tick the intersectional boxes. They worship the environment at the shrine of solar panels. Their efforts focus on bridging the gap for LGBTQ+ people. Their posters and teams feature (or at least try to) a diverse range of colours and types of people – a wheelchair user is a bonus.

On the other hand, this data from Theos does indeed show us that this group does not attend church. Maybe they did as a child, but no longer. When it comes to many of their opinions, they are not aligned with the teachings of the Bible or the historic Church. For example, it is unchristian to oppose genuine asylum seeking. We can have serious conversations about numbers, scams, what counts etc., but there is a clear biblical precedent for aiding the foreigner in your land. And as for these churches’ desire to be welcoming, that isChrist-like behaviour.

To be Christian is not necessarily to be right-wing, but nor is being left-wing.

The real truth of the research

What the Theos research actually shows us is more substantial than either side of the political spectrum may wish to admit.

Firstly, it shows us that, at least in the minds of those who care about Britain (and whatever you think of them or their views, these people do care about Britain), Christianity is prominent.

I will say this until I’m blue in the face, but Britain has been primarily shaped by Christianity. There are other factors too, of course – even quite prominent factors – but nothing like the guiding hand Christianity has had on British life.

These people, for better or worse, are recognising something true. That Britain is worse off without its Christian values. That since we have downgraded the position of Christianity in our governance, things have felt worse. And, most importantly, that maintaining the Britain we love is only possible with Christianity.

Many of these people feel that the dilution of British culture by mass migration has shown just how valuable what we had was. As parts of the un-Christianised world bring their cultures to Britain, it is increasingly clear to some that some of these values are at odds with British culture and Christianity. In an effort to maintain Britain, I think many of these ‘Christian Nationalist’ types are trying to revert to the source – Christianity.

Some people are taking this research to be signs of a ‘Christian revival’. I think this is a stretch, but it does indicate an important thing, which is that there is a group seemingly that wants to identify with Christianity, and sees the importance of it – if only culturally. At many right-wing rallies such as the Unite the Kingdom rallies, we see images of crosses, banners with Bible verse, and chants of ‘Christ is King’. That shouldn’t fill the Church with fear, but with hope.

The more important revelation

The second thing the research reveals is what I have just alluded too – these people are identifying as Christian, and that’s something! They may not go to Church, they may not understand the faith, but something, even something we may detest, is pulling them towards it.

Unfortunately, in its pursuit of diversity and intersectional trends, some churches have overlooked their primary mission field – the ordinary Brit.

I spoke in a Spectator article recently about a stereotype of a British ‘EDL-type’; the man with the bald head, missing teeth, broken grammar, chant of “Ingerland” at full volume… This is who the church is forgetting.

He doesn’t look good on a welcome poster. He might not be polite in the parish meeting. He may have views about race, gender, and immigration that you disagree with, but perhaps, when he is waving his cross shouting ‘Christ is King’, flat out rejection is not what he needs.

The data doesn’t tell us entirely why these people don’t go to Church. Maybe it really is because it is a hollow nationalist symbol, or maybe, and I suspect this is the case, they do not feel the church is for them anymore.

At one time, everyone went to Church in Britain. It was central to community life and all were welcome. But, even though that may remain true, I speak to people all the time who do not see it as welcoming. When they read about another ‘woke’ Fau par, or a methodist minister shouting ‘Free Palestine’, or a CofE advert for a candidate who must be BAME, I can see why they might feel dejected.

There is a huge mission field there for the church, amongst those many are too quick to deem ‘far-right’.

Many churches are involved there, and do amazing work with those forgotten by modern Britain. But sadly the voice from the top of the Church is near-consistent condemnation.

The answer

So, what is the answer? What can churches do?

Leave a comment

Whilst I don’t presume to have all of the answers, I do have one major piece of advice – stop criticising them.

Every time there is a right-wing ‘nationalist’ rally, we see interviews with bishops, or read articles by ministers, trying as hard as possible to distance themselves from those people. They look down on them, and join the chorus cry of ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, and ‘fascist’.

But my response? If you really do think they are all of those things, all the more reason to see them as a mission field!

What if, instead of knee-jerk condemnation, Sarah Mulally, for example, as Archbishop of Canterbury, said something along the lines of, ‘these people, although we disagree with their message, are children of God, made in His image. They are hurt, they have been abandoned, and we want to bridge that gap. The CofE will now be devoting resources to listening to these people, understanding them, in the hope that we can grow together in our Christian faith and learn from one another.’

What a difference a message like that would make.

A break from the slander and distancing.

Welcoming them back to the Church with open arms.

I think that day is a long way off, but hopefully, this research from Theos, gives churches a moment’s pause to ask – how do we reach these people?

Until next week,

Tom

Image Credits:

Title Image – Unite the Kingdom Rally – https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/former-archbishop-of-canterbury-concerned-by-misuse-of-christianity/

Canterbury Cathedral – https://medievalbritain.com/type/medieval-life/architecture/cathedrals-middle-ages/

Christian march – https://baptisttimes.co.uk/Articles/737279/More_than_a.aspx

Unite the Kingdom Rally – https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/former-archbishop-of-canterbury-concerned-by-misuse-of-christianity/

Vicar at protest – https://ceec.info/the-rise-of-christian-nationalism-in-the-uk/

And welcome back to The Case For More.

Subscribe now

Last week we looked at whether Britain is prepared for war and national defence. But this week, we turn our attention to something completely different with a look at parenting and the all-important ‘school WhatsApp group’.

Teachers beware

Ask any teacher you know what they think of their school’s parent’s WhatsApp group and you are likely to get a rollercoaster of a response.

Unfortunately, at least from a teacher’s perspective, they have become a source of no end of bother: false information, rumours, gossip, insults, and a place for parents to air their grievances either with the school, or about individual teachers.

As a teacher myself, I have been on the receiving end of some of this abuse. Luckily, I was not given the exact wording – more of the broad brushstrokes – but from time to time, a parent will come forward with screenshots from the group to alert the school, or parents will forget that one of the other parents works for that school.

Either way, the parent’s WhatsApp group is an idea that sends a shudder down many a teacher’s spine.

Parents less so

However, a recent survey from Parent Kind (linked here) has shown a more mixed view of the place teachers’ fear to tread.

In the YouGov-conducted survey of 6,053 parents, Parent Kind found that around 43.5% of parents belong to a parent messaging group (usually WhatsApp by my own experience), with 12% unsure and 45% not. This was more common amongst primary school parents (59%) than secondary school parents (35%), but still a substantial chunk of parents.

The survey estimated that more than 100 million messages are sent on these groups each week – 100 million!

Of those who had experience of these groups, there were some interesting stats.

Firstly, just because a parent isn’t in a group chat doesn’t mean they don’t want to be. Only 12% of parents said they would decline an invitation to such a group, with 81% saying they would accept. But 1 in 10 parents say they have left a parent chat – why?

Whilst 67% of parents in such groups said that they had seen messages sharing useful information, 51% that they had seen useful information about PTA events, and 59% that they felt like they receive just the right number of messages, there is a darker side – the side teachers fear.

Firstly, these groups can certainly over-message, with almost a third of these parents saying they receive too many messages. But the contents of the messages are perhaps more worrying.

Of the parents in these groups, 40% said they had seen messages complaining about the school; 32% had seen excessive or irrelevant messages; 20% had seen conflict and argument between parents; 19% had seen incorrect information about school matters; and 10% had seen personal attacks or abuse against school staff.

At the lower end, we also find that 7% had seen photos of children shared without consent, and 6% had seen inappropriate/offensive content in these groups.

They’re not going anywhere

The reality is that these parent groups are not going anywhere. And whilst I’m sure many teachers and schools wish they didn’t exist, or that they could be run by the school, that is just not going to happen.

We have seen cases in the news where a school has taken the contents of such groups too far, such as in the case of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, who were detained by police for 11 hours over comments they made about Cowley Hill Primary School in Borehamwood.

This, of course, is too far.

I am more of a free-speech absolutist anyway (other than genuine, demonstrable incitement of violence), so I have a bias here, but I don’t think parents should be prosecuted for the things they say on these groups beyond genuine threats of physical harm.

However, such cases, and the stats above, prove what a toxic place these groups can be.

On the one hand, we have many parents who try to do their bit for their children’s school to make the place better, and the lives of teachers, staff, and their children easier.

Parents who make sure their child is ready for school, has the right equipment, has done their homework, has their lunch, is prepared for the day. Parents who volunteer, join the PTA, join the school’s governors, do their bit.

On the other hand, there are parents who just wish to complain.

That isn’t to deny that there are genuine complaints about schools – there are – but one has to wonder whether, when it comes to education, increasing numbers of parents are quick to point out their rights, but slow to engage with their responsibilities.

The balance

We have seen this most clearly, of late, with regard to the announcements about children arriving at primary school not potty trained. Speak to teachers, and you will hear countless stories of times they were berated by parents for giving their child a detention for something that child had done wrong.

Grades and parents’ evenings can walk a similar line, where parents accuse teachers of not doing enough to support their child whilst their child is unruly in class and never completes homework or does revision.

Unfortunately, whilst these parent groups can do tremendous good, they also have the capacity to create a mob mentality of disdain for their child’s school (or particular staff members). But it seems that, in the past couple of decades, increasingly fewer parents are asking themselves about their own parental responsibilities, favouring handing them over to the school.

I will touch on this perhaps another time, but schools are not the primary carer; the parent is, and parents need to be empowered to take back responsibility for their child.

On the other hand, the survey also revealed that there had been a drop by a fifth since 2023 in the number of parents who felt involved in their child’s education. This number was even lower amongst the poorest parents with less than half feeling involved– a drop of a third since 2023.

Clearly, something is starting to go wrong in the relationships between schools and parents.

There is hope

Almost half of the parents surveyed said they would like to be more involved in their child’s learning at home. Parents are also starting to feel ignored by educational policy, as shown by the 55% of parents who said they didn’t feel the government listened to parents when making educational policy. This is despite 71% saying they want a say in their child’s education.

At a more local level, the results show, however, that most parents do think their child’s school listens to them, and they do trust teachers to respond appropriately.

And there’s the crux.

This has been an unusual statistical piece from me this week, but if you’ve made it this far, well done, because this is where hope lies.

These stats show us that parents want to be involved; they trust schools, and they want to work with them – that’s very positive indeed.

The issue really comes down to responsibility, time, and mechanisms. And yet, that change is still possible.

Leave a comment

National Parents Alliance

I am excited to announce that, in my own life, I have recently agreed to help co-found and conduct research for the National Parents Alliance (website linked here). This is a new organisation dedicated to helping affect change, helping parents take more responsibility for their child, beginning with education, and then branching out.

For teachers, one of the hardest parts of the job is dealing with parents, but parents feel disconnected from their child’s education and voiceless when it comes to matters of government policy. This shouldn’t be the case, and the NPA has been set up to change that.

I am delighted to be working with them, and look forward to the exciting and positive change we can bring about.

If you have any questions about it, or if you are a UK parent wondering how you can get involved, please feel free to email me at tom.cas@nationalparentsalliance.org or register your interest in joining here.

I hope, in addition to being a part of The Case For More, you will also join me over at the NPA.

Next week, we will return to our usual discourse on British inheritance, culture, politics and history, but until then, have a great week.

Tom

Image Credits:

Title Image – Parents Group – https://lovinmalta.com/lifestyle/living-in-malta/back-to-school-rules-for-parents-whatsapp-group-chats-in-malta/

Exhausted Teacher – https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/exhausted-professor

Parents Group – https://lovinmalta.com/lifestyle/living-in-malta/back-to-school-rules-for-parents-whatsapp-group-chats-in-malta/

Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine – https://www.correio24horas.com.br/mundo/pais-sao-presos-por-reclamar-da-escola-em-grupo-de-whatsapp-0325

Potty training – https://ukhealthcare.uky.edu/wellness-community/blog/uk-healthcast-tips-potty-training-your-toddler

Education protest – https://www.frometimes.co.uk/frome-parents-rally-for-childrens-rights-in-face-of-new-parliamentary-bill/

NPA – https://nationalparentsalliance.org

And welcome back to The Case For More.

Subscribe now

This week we are turning our attention to national preparedness, and asking the question: is Britain really ready for war? To do so, I want to begin in a rather odd place – the Shire.

“…and there in that pleasant corner of the world they plied their well-ordered business of living, and they heeded less and less the world outside where dark things moved, until they came to think that peace and plenty were the rule in Middle-earth and the right of all sensible folk. They forgot or ignored what little they had ever known of the Guardians, and of the labours of those that made possible the long peace of the Shire. They were, in fact, sheltered, but they had ceased to remember it… So, though there was still some store of weapons in the Shire, these were used mostly as trophies, hanging above hearths or on walls, or gathered into the museum at Michel Delving… Nonetheless, ease and peace had left this people still curiously tough.”

This extract is from the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. In the passage, Tolkien is talking about the lifestyle and history of the Hobbits prior to the events of the LOTR.

I remember when I read this for the first time. I sat up, turned to my wife, and began to read the section aloud.

“This is us”, I exclaimed as she looked at me with that sympathetic look only a wife can give to a husband excited about something they themselves have no interest in. I continued nonetheless.

“This is Britain. A land that once, although sometimes reluctantly, was able to fight and defend itself, but now it is reduced to thinking that peace is the way of the world, forgetting what it takes to maintain it.”

Britain as the Shire

I hope the parallels from the extract between Hobbits and Brits are obvious, but just to highlight a couple of points.

We live in a pleasant corner of the world. Although we get some heavy rain and flooding, ultimately, the British Isles see little in terms of natural disasters or famine.

Also, as an island nation, Britain has a natural moat around it, making it hard to invade – indeed, our last full-scale invasion was in 1066.

Because of these factors, in Britain, many have a habit of thinking that peace and kindness are the way of the world, and that the incidents that befall other countries could never befall or harm us. And although we remain a somewhat hardy people, forged by miserable weather and seafaring, we do enjoy a life of relative peace.

But all of that is changing.

The times are changing

Even if you don’t pay much attention to the news, you will likely be aware that the government has begun reviews of our national preparedness strategies and homeland defence. Their aim is to consider how the country could militarily defend itself, talks of conscription grow, questions about civilian policy worry, and advice to the population about emergency preparedness remain elusive.

Some of this guidance, although still seemingly informal, includes measures such as a small stock of water and tinned food, as well as spare batteries, torches, windup radios etc.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the stability of the post-WWII era is ending, and many countries are starting to recognise this.

Germany moved to pass regulations that would mean men between 17 and 45 would need to obtain approval before travelling abroad for more than three months. Ireland released an emergency preparedness booklet to its citizens (here). Defence spending and conscription are increasingly common discussions amongst European nations, with many eastern-European countries actively starting the process of mobilisation.

Beyond the concerns about Russia, the events in the Middle East, and particularly between the US and Iran, are putting a stranglehold on shipping and oil. Petrol prices are skyrocketing, and as the oil prices begin to hit fertiliser markets, food prices will shoot up too.

Internally, many European countries, and Britain certainly among them, are facing increased domestic threats such as terrorism, cyber-attacks, and infrastructure attacks.

Germany reported Russian drones were responsible for airport attacks in Leipzig.

In Britain, along with the curious and unusual events around RAF Fairford in recent days, we have had our own spate of unusual fires, infrastructure problems, and air traffic control issues.

Whilst some of these things may be unrelated, the outcome is the same – we are moving into a turbulent period in our nation’s history.

Preparedness as a way of life

Last week we talked about the RNLI, which, in its own way, represents a form of preparedness – someone is always on call if you get into trouble at sea. But there are many other areas of life in Britain where we are completely, woefully, unprepared.

At the start of Covid, we saw the panic as supermarket shelves were stripped bare by unprepared people desperately buying food and loo roll.

Even government supplies and agencies, such as PPE and the NHS, turned out to be completely unprepared to deal with a large-scale outbreak.

This raises serious, and important questions about how prepared Britain is to deal with a crisis. And whilst agencies always add ‘climate change’ as a factor for the desire to be prepared, it is increasingly clear that what we are preparing for looks more akin to war, large-scale terror attacks, civil war, or infrastructure outages.

Material or civilisational?

Sadly, the reality is, that we live on an island that has forgotten, at least in any meaningful way, the cost of maintaining safety and sovereignty. Whilst we have had wars since WWII, nothing on the existential scale of that conflict has come to Britain in the eighty years since.

A well-functioning civilisation, nonetheless, should prepare for such things, but we haven’t. And whilst material and governmental preparedness are incredibly important – if deeply lacking – I fear something more substantial is missing; the main thing that allows a society to weather the storms of the world.

If you speak to those increasing few who remember WWII and the Blitz, some things always stand out; the community cohesion; the shared sense of duty; the ‘blitz spirit’; ordered queueing for rations; a shared ambition for the survival of the country.

From the Monarch and government to school children, the soldiers to the women in factories, everyone was in it together. Britain mobilised, worked together, and won. But they were only able to do so because they knew what they were fighting for.

An overly idyllic vision of this green and pleasant land? Maybe. But the mythology and romance of Britain, its history and culture, is what is needed to bear the worst of storms.

The question is today, would that still happen?

Whilst there was a sense of community later into covid as lockdowns came in, I think the start of the crisis revealed the increasing selfishness and individualism of society. It’s one thing to be shut in your house on zoom and baking cakes, it’s quite another to have the grid shutdown or be under aerial bombardment.

Mental preparedness is an overlooked factor because material preparedness is so much easier to manage – and we aren’t even materially prepared! But when the young men are called up to fight, or energy and supplies are rationed, it is belief in the vision of Britain that will matter most in keeping the nation afloat.

What happens when people ask, ‘what is the point’? ‘What are we fighting for? What is the Britain we are trying to save?’

The truth is we have taught several generations now that Britain is evil. It is a land of colonisation that owes the world reparations for its evil. It is a land of racism, thuggery, and a place without a culture worth defending.

Leave a comment

What are we defending?

When crisis comes, what then? Only 6% of young people have said they would fight for the country. And whilst there are still traditional rural communities that are cohesive, many in the cities do not know, or are actively wary of their neighbour. Major cities are ghettoised with communities that do not interact with one another.

Ideas such as duty, selflessness, and love of country are not taught or exemplified in schools anymore, and so it is only fair to ask how this moral change will impact our ability to maintain a contemporary ‘blitz spirit’?

In this regard, the government cannot have its cake and eat it too.

It cannot spend decades selling Britain out, degrading it, underfunding its military and preparedness, and educating its children to dislike their own country, and then also expect us to rally behind the flag when disaster strikes. Particularly not when we have been told that that flag is divisive and racist.

Sadly, many of the institutions that once bound us culturally and communally have long since passed. We are increasingly an island of strangers governed under a system that has forgotten, or actively dislikes, the culture that gave birth to it.

We are unprepared because, perhaps, we are no longer sure what it is we are preserving. And whilst apathy and ignorance play a role, at a national level, it’s increasingly unclear whether those in charge want our society to survive, or whether they would rather have an opportunity to re-write the whole thing in their image.

But to end on a note of optimism.

In Tolkien’s work, the Hobbits do find their courage and resilience, proving that despite their comfortable lives of peace, when push comes to shove, they can show their mettle.

Although their weapons hung in museums and they developed a love for peace, it was still within them to prepare and defend.

But they had forgotten.

Forgotten what it meant to preserve and earn their peace.

If that is true, then perhaps the most meaningful way Britain can prepare for an uncertain future is to remember what it is protecting, and why it is worth fighting for.

Share

Until next week,

Tom

Image Credits:

Title Image – Ripped Union Jack – https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sevenoaks/news/arrests-made-after-flag-burned-26334/

Hobbiton – https://www.newzealand.com/us/plan/business/hobbiton-movie-set-tours/

Green and pleasant land –

UK preparedness kit – https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2037691/brits-warned-survival-kit-russia-sabotage

Covid – https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-london-51878004

Blitz Spirit – https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/how-a-chummy-blitz-spirit-keeps-metro-exodus-from-falling-apart

Ripped Union Jack – https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sevenoaks/news/arrests-made-after-flag-burned-26334/

And welcome back to The Case For More. It has been a while since I have written, and as you will have likely seen, I have managed to get a few exciting projects out through The Spectator. In that regard, I would also like to welcome our new subscribers that have found me through those articles.

Subscribe now

This week, we are going to turn our attention to the incidents that occurred in Portsmouth in early September, and how these put the RNLI, and its duty to save lives, in the political crosshairs.

Portsmouth

On 6^th September, a mega-dinghy arrived in Eastney carrying around 120 people (predominantly MAMs) who had made the crossing from France attempting to enter Britain illegally. Two RNLI lifeboats came to the dinghy’s assistance and helped to bring its passengers ashore. And, as is becoming increasingly common, police, who had been tracking the dinghy, were waiting on shore to receive the passengers and to take them to immigration centres.

What was new, however, is that a crowd of protestors were also waiting for the arrival, and were ready to make their thoughts about the police and RNLI’s assistance of these passengers clear. In the ensuing furore, police officers were injured, vehicles were damaged, and RNLI volunteers were harassed. The incident led to the local RNLI station being temporarily taken out of service.

Rather than a neutral act of duty to life, many protestors saw the RNLI team as aiding and abetting the “invaders” in their attempt to break into Britain.

The RNLI

The RNLI is an apolitical organisation, not affiliated with the government. It serves to uphold a duty older than our current political disputations – namely, that those in trouble at sea should be saved.

In 2025, the RNLI launched 9,058 times to rescue people. Of that number, around 1.2% was to help migrants in the channel.

Whilst that isn’t to say therefore that the RNLI’s participation should be ignored, it is important to note that events such as those that occurred in Eastney make up an incredibly small proportion of what the RNLI do, leaving us with an important question – how did the RNLI get so caught up in such a politically contentious issue?

For readers not from the UK who do not know, the RNLI (Royal National Lifeboat Institution) is a 200-year-old charity that responds to issues within UK waters such as sinking boats, or swimmers dragged out to sea. They operate a fleet of helicopters and boats around the UK from 238 stations, and act to save those who have got into trouble in British waters. They are predominantly a volunteer organisation, and are mostly funded by donations from the public.

In the case of helping migrant boats, the RNLI is, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, doing precisely what they are meant to do – save people from drowning.

Our institutional history

We often have a habit nowadays of thinking that every institution or action is political. That the RNLI, by saving migrants, is acting on behalf of the government. What we forget, is that before the post-WWII era, much of the welfare state, and most charitable services, were not under the government, but run by volunteers and benefactors who chose to fund their efforts.

The RNLI, as a surviving historical charity, is one of only countless examples of schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, counselling services, clubs, and rescue organisations that were set up by local British communities to help those in need.

Most of the time, these charities were founded on Christian principles and duties of loving one’s neighbour, regardless of their characteristics.

These charities (although not always) had an advantage in that they were politically impartial. They were not run by whoever happened to be voted in at that time, or the whims of particular ministers or civil servants. Instead, they were governed by duty and charity – care for those in need, regardless.

The RNLI, when it receives a call, is not judging the rescue based on the characteristics of those involved; they’re not asking if the people involved deserve rescuing. They do not arrive at a capsizing boat and ask for passports; or ask each crew member if they approve of that individual’s returning to shore.

The questions the RNLI asks before a rescue are not political, but deontological (questions of duty).

The immigration issue

Regardless of your thoughts on immigration, the question as to whether or not the RNLI should continue to rescue people is a dangerous one.

As Brits, we should be able to agree that people deserve rescuing, even if we then decide they are not deserving of anything else, and are returned to their place of origin.

Someone can have no right to enter Britain, but does that mean they have a right to drown?

Someone can break the law, but that doesn’t negate their right to be pulled out of the water.

Someone can be your political opponent, maybe even a danger, and still be worth saving.

This is, in many respects, an inherently Christian ideal, and maybe that is why we have forgotten how to carry it out. Loving our neighbour, turning the other cheek, the Good Samaritan.

That does not mean we cannot have honest discussion about what happens to illegal migrants once they set foot on British shores, nor that we cannot have important discussion about the recklessness of the French attitudes to Channel crossings. But it does mean that berating or withholding funds from an institution for fulfilling its important duty should be off the cards.

Leave a comment

The ‘Christian’ right

The irony is that, increasingly, those drifting further to the extremes of the right are using Christian imagery as a part of their protest.

I like the idea that more people are recognising the importance of Christian heritage and morality, but when this is superficial, a placard or a chant of ‘Christ is King’ at a protest, it can become dangerous.

The underlying message of Christianity is self-sacrifice that saves the lost and dying. It is a message of hope and charity. These are ideals that, although not explicitly Christian, the RNLI continues to uphold.

Again, once those individuals are ashore, the political conversations can begin, but turning the saving of a drowning individual into a political football begins a dangerous series of events.

Is the RNLI to become political too?

And this leads to a deeper question – what happens when everything, even duty, becomes political?

What about when universities become ideological? Or when churches become divided left and right? When schools become political battleground? Or when media become propaganda?

Polarisation is dangerous enough, but the loss of shared institutions represents a more existential threat.

The RNLI was founded in 1824 and has endured a tremendously tumultuous period of British history.

It has survived the Victorian era, two world wars, decolonisation, industrialisation, the Cold War, the digital age, mass immigration, and the political disputes of the modern era. It is estimated that in that time it has saved nearly 150,000 lives.

We are tremendously lucky in modern Britain to inherit such a remarkable and dutiful institution that operates 24/7, three hundred and sixty-five days of the year.

But that inheritance isn’t just the lifeboat stations, or the history, or the institution itself, it is the habit of duty that the RNLI continues to preserve.

A concerning closure

Right now, in Portsmouth, an RNLI station has had to temporarily close because the safety of it, and its volunteers, cannot be guaranteed.

Whilst those seeking to protest mass-migration believe they are doing so to protect the UK, they are actually achieving the opposite by harassing those who have volunteered to protect those in our waters.

I, personally, am opposed to illegal immigration, and think reform of the immigration system, and a review of illegal and legal migration, is sorely needed.

I deeply empathise with those who feel that the only option left open to them, when their voices have been ignored for so long, is to protest precisely where the boats are coming ashore.

I am frustrated at the apathy of the British and French governments to do anything about the channel crossings.

And whilst, as an Englishman, I completely understand the desire to escape France, I do not think that crossing the channel is the same as a genuine asylum claim from a war-torn country.

But I continue to value the RNLI and its devotion to duty.

I respect their instinct to save people regardless.

To rescue without ever asking the concerning question: is this person worth saving?

Until next week,

Tom

Image Credits:

Title Image – RNLI Boat – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq93121z7zo

Portsmouth Protest – https://www.gbnews.com/news/portsmouth-migrant-protest-man-jailed-two-years-throwing-bottle-swearing-at-police

RNLI Boat – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpq93121z7zo

Old RNLI photo – https://www.classicboat.co.uk/articles/rnli-200-years-history-of-life-saving-boat-design/

UKIP protest – https://guce.yahoo.com/consent?brandType=nonEu&gcrumb=E2KqxEQ&done=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2Fpolice-ban-ukip-tower-hamlets-192405930.html

RNLI 200 years – https://rnli.org/about-us/our-history/2024

Subscribe now

And welcome back to The Case For More.

I want to do something a little different this week. Rather than arguing for a particular position, I want to ask a series of questions to which I have no clear answers.

That may seem like a weird article, one without even a hint of certainty or clear opinion, but at the same time, the aim of the article is to promote a conversation – because we cannot arrive at answers unless we first know what questions to ask.

The latest context

On 9^th July reports began to emerge that Ann Widdecombe had died in suspicious circumstances, in her home on 8^th July.

Over the next week, as new information has come to light, it seems that an individual drove 300 miles to her house and inflicted serious injuries upon her, murdering her in the process.

Although a motive has not been given, the discovery of political material and the involvement of Counter Terrorism Policing has led to widespread speculation that the attack may have had a political motive, although the investigation is continuing.

As an outspoken Conservative – formerly a Conservative MP and later a member of Reform – Widdecombe was not shy about sharing her conservative views, defending Catholic morality, and speaking out against societal changes such as gay marriage and abortion.

I had a soft spot for Ann Widdecombe; her matronly and fiery approach was something politics needs more of – perhaps why I like Kemi Badenoch so much. But regardless of whether one liked her or not, we should continue to pray for the repose of her soul, for justice to be served, and for her family and friends.

But Widdecombe, if the attack is ultimately found to have been politically motivated, would not be alone among public figures targeted because of their political views.

On 15^th October 2021, Sir David Amess MP was stabbed to death in an act of Islamist extremism whilst conducting constituency surgery in Leigh-On-Sea. His death remains a dark moment in recent British politics, as many of his colleagues were hesitant to discuss the Islamist motive of his murder.

On the converse, but equally sad, was the murder of Jo Cox MP, who was horrifically murdered in Birstall just prior to starting constituency surgery there. The motive for the shooting and stabbing of Cox was the white supremacy and far right neo-Nazism of her attacker.

Safety concerns

In recent years, not only have there been the murders of high-ranking political figures, but also countless death threats against them – on the left, and the right.

Nigel Farage, for example, has received countless death threats. One notable example was Afghan migrant Fayaz Husseini, who was jailed for 5 years for his threats against the Reform leader.

Sir Keir Starmer had his London house, and a car connected to him, firebombed, leading to the arrest and conviction of Stanislav Carpuic and Roman Lavrynovych.

Whatever you think of these people, and I’m not a huge fan of either, I think we can all agree that this behaviour is unacceptable.

Increasingly, MPs, political figures, judges, people in the civil service, are coming under threats and genuine violence because of their political orientations and the decisions they have made in their positions of power.

The questions

Whilst the above cases are factual, the questions they lead to are ones I do not yet think we have good answers to. Specifically, how do we keep our MPs and other political figures safe?

It would be unreasonable, at least at this point, to suggest that we give all MPs or political figures security. Firstly, the restrictions this would place on their lives would be disproportionate to the level of threat most face, but more importantly, the cost would be enormous.

Whilst it would be fair to assume that Tony Blair receives a lot more threats than most, his own security costs the British taxpayer around £250,000 a year. Even a more limited security team for each MP and political candidate would be a colossal bill that we simply cannot afford.

So, the next question becomes, how should we decide who receives security?

Is it just given to the cabinet and shadow cabinet? Whilst they are perhaps more directly responsible for decisions, neither Widdecombe, Amess, nor Cox were members of the cabinet at the time of their murders. Farage, likewise, is not in the cabinet, nor the shadow cabinet, and yet seems to be one of the largest targets of hateful threats in the current political climate.

If we base it upon threat level, that may work, but people who wish violence can be patient. Unfortunately, it seems likely that even though an individual could be protected during a particularly controversial time, once their security allowance was then lowered or dropped, a person could wait to carry out their evil intentions.

Finally, what level of security?

Starmer, for example, will always have quite a high level of security. This will likely decrease now that he is no longer PM, and I suspect it will taper down over the years. But what is needed to protect other ministers?

We don’t want our MPs driven round in bulletproof cars, kept at a distance from their constituency behind ballistic glass, that would be absurd. But at the same time, for those figures that receive the most hate, surely a single police officer may not suffice?

Do we have plain clothes units shadowing our MPs? Or a single bodyguard like the royals at university?

Although circumstances are different in the US, we have seen in recent years that even with a large security team, determined individuals can still get through. The murder of Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassination of Trump in Butler show this clearly.

So how do we ensure that the security is sufficient whilst balancing freedom and public accessibility?

Leave a comment

A troubling dilemma

All of this feels almost dystopian. It is a sad state of affairs that we now live in a country where these are questions we have to ask.

Democracy requires that our representatives are accessible, and yet that accessibility creates a vulnerability for those representatives on both sides.

And perhaps that is the key problem – ‘both sides’.

Whilst there are real differences between the right and the left, the reality is that most people fall somewhere in the middle on most issues barring perhaps some more binary moral issues.

I regularly meet with a friend specifically to talk about politics.

He is more of a classical liberal, just left-of-centre, new Labour-esque. I am generally more right-of-centre, sitting roughly where the Tories would have been in the 1990s.

We have lots we disagree on, but very often, less than we initially think.

Nearly always, we agree on the goal – we want education to be better, people to be better off, better healthcare, a more efficient government, careful defence of the country…

We agree on the end point, we want the same things, we just have different ways of getting there.

And that’s what a political discussion should be.

Too often people ascribe motive rather than looking at what the person is really saying.

“I want to lower immigration” – “you must be a racist” – no.

“I want increased benefits” – you must be lazy – no.

When I speak with this friend, we really try to see each other’s opinions, and understand. Very often, our responses are something along the lines of, ‘I can see how you got there, I understand, I just disagree on this point because I’m not sure it’s practical…’.

I don’t call him a ‘godless commie’, and he doesn’t call me a ‘far-right fascist’. We know the other means well; we just disagree about how to get there.

We discuss the issues without feeling the need to diagnose the motives of the other because we know that one another means well.

I wish this is how politics could be, because, if it was, we wouldn’t even need to be asking these questions.

We wouldn’t need to have a public conversation about security for political figures.

Perhaps, if politics were more like our conversations, our representatives could remain both accessible and safe. Something that, at the moment, feels increasingly difficult.

Until next week,

Tom

Image credits:

Title Image – Armed Police – https://news.sky.com/story/met-rolls-out-body-cameras-for-armed-officers-10987773

Ann Widdecombe – https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/2229751/sky-news-issue-ann-widdecombe-update

Amess and Cox – https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-cox-david-amess-mps-21872604

Armed Police – https://news.sky.com/story/met-rolls-out-body-cameras-for-armed-officers-10987773

Trump – https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/14/us/video/trump-rally-shooting-secret-service-wackrow-digvid

And welcome back to The Case For More.

In the recently released Sovereign Grant Annual Report 2025-26, keen-eyed readers noticed something that should concern all citizens of the United Kingdom.

Whilst monarchs of the UK have normally been referred to as ‘Defender of the Faith’ since the title was given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo, or ‘Supreme Governor of the Church of England’ since Elizabeth I after her father’s break with Rome (Henry opted for ‘Supreme Head’, not ‘Governor’), a new statement found its way into the titles of the Monarch in the report.

King Charles was referred to as “His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”

Now, whilst there are potential constitutional problems with this, these are not actually what I want to discuss – for that I would recommend Dr Gavin Ashenden’s piece in the Catholic Herald here.

Instead, I want to discuss why this is problematic in light of what a monarch, at least in the Western/British sense, actually is.

Biblical Kingship

Although the model of British monarchy has evolved over time from absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, there are similarities to the model of kingship found in the Bible – particularly David and Solomon.

Whilst the constitutional makeup of our monarchy has developed over time out of the Anglo-Saxon Witan, the idea of an consecrated king with a council of advisers that represented their people socially and culturally is something we find in the Bible with the likes of David and the elders of the localities that advised him.

To say that the reigns of David and Solomon were constitutional monarchies with representative governments would be a stretching of the facts, but we see the seeds there, and then also present in seed form in the Anglo-Saxon court.

In this regard then, it would be fair to say that, at least at a theological level, our monarchical system owes credit to the model of monarchy we find in the Bible.

British Monarchs

And this relationship to biblical monarchy is something many monarchs, including Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II have taken very seriously – her Christmas messages were clear evidence of this.

The monarch’s right to rule did not, and actually does not, come from the people. Unlike the government, the monarch does not serve at the people’s pleasure.

Instead, the monarch serves in the temporal realm such that only God and His Church are above them.

In pre-reformation England, this meant that the only person above the King, really, was the Pope (and by extension his representatives such as the Archbishop of Canterbury). Although this relationship was historically shaky, it was widely theologically accepted that the spiritual authority of the Pope overruled the temporal authority of the monarch in relation to the souls of Christians.

Since Henry VIII’s break with Rome, and the monarch’s supreme governorship of the CofE, only God is above the monarch in the hierarchy of the state.

But why? What makes them beholden only to God? Is it just birth?

It’s not just any oil, not even M&S oil

The most noteworthy part of this is the anointing with oil.

As Charles entered Westminster Abbey for his coronation, like every monarch before since 1727, he arrived to the emphatic sounds of ‘Zadok the Priest’ by Handel.

For those not familiar with the words:

“Zadok the priest,

and Nathan the prophet,

anointed Solomon, king.

And all the people rejoiced, and said,

God save the king.”

It’s a bit more repetitive than that, but you get the gist.

The key moment there, quoted from the Bible, is that the King, Solomon, is anointed. And that this is performed by a priest and a prophet.

In our own traditions in the UK, we do the same. The pinnacle of the coronation, the moment Charles truly became a consecrated king, was the moment his hands, breast, and head were anointed with holy oil in the Act of Consecration.

Although legally he had been king from the moment of Queen Elizabeth’s death, this was the moment that, theologically at least, he stepped into his full kingship.

The act, performed in veiled secret as soldiers stood guard, marked the moment that he was rightfully consecrated king under God by the then Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby.

Charles himself was anointed with Chrism oil from the Mount of Olives, blessed by the Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem and the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem in a ceremony in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre – the place of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.

His Divine right to rule

The Act of Consecration, however, is not some historic remnant, nor a piece of pageantry; it describes in an act the most crucial element of a monarch of the United Kingdom – that they have a divine right to rule as their vocation is given by God.

Whilst in our approach to monarchy, we may not think of them as divinely appointed, this ceremony suggests otherwise. And although we no longer maintain that the monarch cannot be resisted on account of their divine right, the coronation narrative still shows that the monarch’s authority ultimately comes from God.

In fact, the exact wording used by Welby during the Act says precisely this:

“Be your hands anointed with holy oil.

Be your breast anointed with holy oil.

Be your head anointed with holy oil,

as kings, priests, and prophets were anointed.

And as Solomon was anointed king by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet,

so may you be anointed, blessed, and consecrated King over the peoples,

whom the Lord your God has given you to rule and govern;

in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

The king is not just another political figure; he is consecrated, and that means something more significant than most today perhaps realise.

Rule by which God?

In case there was any doubt, the coronation service, littered with Christian imagery, words, Bible readings, and liturgy, being performed by the clergy, is definite in its proclamation of the God under whom Charles is being consecrated – the God of the Reformed Protestant tradition.

The God, customs, and religions that Charles swore to uphold then, are those of Christianity.

Now as a Catholic, there may be a case to make that this anointing is invalid due to the invalid orders of the clergy performing the anointing, but given that the Orthodox patriarch was happy to bless the oil, and Cardinal Vincent Nichols was happy to attend the coronation, praying for the new king, that issue can perhaps be parked for now.

Instead, it is important that the God by which Charles receives his right to rule is not a polymorphous blend of harmonic interreligious pluralism. The God by whose pleasure Charles governs is the triune God of the Christian faith.

He’s done a nice thing

So back to the new addition, that King Charles “protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”

It sounds nice.

It sounds welcoming and appeasing.

It sounds like a wonderful way to continue with a vibrant melting pot of diverse religious ideas and freedoms.

The problem is two-fold; the aim is self-refuting, and it may undermine King Charles’ authority to rule.

Firstly – self-refuting.

The problem, and it is the same problem with pluralism in general, is that the idea of a multi-faith nation that protects space for other faiths is oxymoronic.

If a religion is opposed to religious freedom, and believes that it alone should exist as the one religion with the state, then how and why should one protect this? It’s the same discussion that can be had about being tolerant of intolerant – protecting the thing that wants to destroy the other things you have vowed to protect.

Secondly, the king’s divine right to rule is hinged specifically upon the Christian faith, and whilst this statement is not a denial of that, it is a downgrading of the primacy Christianity should continue to have to the monarchy and the state?

Primacy is not bigotry

When I say that Christianity should have primacy, that is not to say that other religions have no place in the UK. Nor is it to say other religions should not be allowed to be observed freely, be protected, or have the same basic rights.

However, it is to say that Christianity should have within the heart of the monarchy a special and privileged place since it is the very thing that has put them where they are.

As I have said, and shown, over my last year of articles – Britain is fundamentally Christian.

That does not mean that everyone in it is Christian, nor that it necessarily looks very Christian today, but it is to say that its foundations, its most important structures, and its constitutional history are inseparably Christian.

King Charles’ new protectorate, then, pays a disservice to his role because it is not his job to protect all faiths, it is the government.

Whilst I fully accept Ashenden’s notion that it is unwise to offer advice to a King, and I hope that is not what I am doing (or it, at least, is not my intention to), it seems inherent in his titles, consecration, and role as the supreme governor of the CofE, that his role is to protect the Christian faith in the UK. Not to disparage other faiths, nor to limit their freedoms, but not to ‘protect’ them either.

God Save the King

On a final note.

Whilst I have been quite negative about this decision, I do want to make one thing very clear at the end.

As an Englishman, and as a patriot, I am proud to have our monarchy.

I am glad to call King Charles my king, because he is my king.

I respect his right to rule, and believe that God has placed him in the role for a time and a reason.

As the head of my nation and of the armed forces that keep me and my family safe, I owe him a debt and my allegiance.

King Charles will always have my deepest respect for the great work that he does, and the strength with which he carries out his solemn vows.

I just fear, on this point, he is opening the monarchy up to something it isn’t, whilst beginning to reject the very thing that makes him ours, and my, king.

Leave a comment

Until next week,

Tom

Share

Subscribe now

Image credits:

Title Image – Christian leaders – https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/16/could-king-charles-be-our-last-monarch/

King Charles – https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=1_cc-session_ab9fd7c4-3ab6-4e91-9aac-d819e4a1a16e

Kind David – https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/story-king-david-goliath

Solomon anointed – https://jerusalemchannel.tv/when-a-king-is-anointed/

Holy oil consecrated – https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/04/uk/king-charles-iii-coronation-oil-gbr-intl

Coronation of King Charles III – https://www.ledauphine.com/societe/2023/05/06/charles-iii-revivez-son-couronnement-en-images

Christian leaders – https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/02/16/could-king-charles-be-our-last-monarch/

Multi-Faith leaders – https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/06/uk/gallery/coronation-king-charles/index.html

King Charles III official portrait – https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/16/uk/king-charles-official-portrait-scli-intl-gbr/index.html

And welcome back to The Case For More. During the week, I had my first piece published in The Spectator, which was exciting, but with word contrasts, I didn’t get to say everything I wanted to say. In this newsletter, we will discuss the deeper issue - beyond just immigration and asylum housing - the undemocratic culture within government.

Subscribe now

Asylum Housing

As you will likely be aware, the government announced on 25^th June that it would be housing migrants in former military sites across the country.

In an attempt to remove reliance on hotels, it will now use RAF Barnham, MOD Bicester, and RAF Linton-On-Ouse as processing centres for those seeking asylum instead.

Importantly, the government did this suddenly, and with little warning. MPs have admitted that they were caught completely off-guard by the decision, with many of them opposed to it. Perhaps the most notable was Sir Lindsay Hoyle, calling the secrecy ‘unacceptable’, and stating that, “MPs on all sides should hear any news first as it is their constituents that are effected.”

Understandably, many people are concerned for the reason you will likely already be aware of. The arguments about culture and safety are now well established and make up the bulk of the opposition to the plans.

But reviewing opposition to these plans, another argument rings clear, and it is the same one voiced by MPs like Hoyle – the central government is governing without consent.

The Most Alien Culture

The most alien culture revealed by the government’s decision to house asylum seekers at these sites may not be the cultures arriving from abroad, but the one making decisions in Whitehall.

Whether through political calculation or bureaucratic instinct, the effect was the same; MPs, councillors, and residents alike were presented with a decision rather than being consulted.

We are constantly told that, along with diversity and tolerance, democracy is a defining British value. But democracy, in the case of these migrant camps, has once again been disregarded.

Historical Constitution

It would be fair to say, therefore, that whilst residents are concerned about the un-British cultures due to arrive on their doorstep, they are equally concerned about the un-British culture that seems to be running Whitehall – a culture that is alien to them, and that they do not want.

Britain’s constitutional tradition has long been founded upon the idea that government should rule through consent rather than command. English political culture has rested upon the belief that power should be exercised with consent, through Parliament, local institutions, and the Common Law.

But increasingly, Britain appears to operate on the assumption that administrative efficiency is itself sufficient justification for major decisions. The public’s role in such a state, is reduced to simple compliance.

Britain’s constitutional tradition reflects a long-standing suspicion of concentrated executive power. That instinct can be seen in the value traditionally attached to local government, parliamentary scrutiny, and limits on arbitrary authority.

It is for similar reasons that the barons demanded Magna Carta to restrain the crown; why Parliament fought the Crown over arbitrary government resulting in the Petition of Right; and why voters rejected integration with the EU. Each case, in different centuries, represented the ordinary Briton’s desire to resist power exercised without sufficient consent.

Simply put, we are an island that does not trust concentrated power. Furthermore, we want to be persuaded, rather than simply instructed.

Share

One of the peculiar strengths of Britain’s constitutional tradition has been its preference for consent over coercion. It is what once made our legal system so prized by those seeking restraint, consultation, and legitimacy, and what makes the culture now apparent in Whitehall so alien to us.

It is for this reason that, historically, consultation was an important part of British political life. If a development was being planned in one’s area, you were consulted, and the politicians listened.

A New Reality

Instead, announcements were disseminated to the media rather than elected officials. When MPs and councillors should have been the first to know, they were the last to hear.

What is more, these plans were a statement, rather than a question. They were not, ‘we are proposing this, what do you think?’ No, instead they were a notice of what is going to happen.

In such a system, consent becomes the inconvenience.

Unfortunately, this is less about one particular party, than it is about a governing class whose instinct is increasingly managerial rather than representative. Citizens become populations to be managed, and local objections become obstacles to implementation.

Nor is the use of military bases for asylum seekers an isolated example. In recent years, governments of different political colours have repeatedly been accused of centralising decision-making while reducing the scope for meaningful local consent. Whether over housing targets imposed from Whitehall, the siting of major infrastructure projects, or immigration accommodation announced with minimal local consultation, the pattern is familiar – consultation often follows decisions rather than informing them.

Democracy

The irony, of course, is that for years people have tried to fight such plans democratically. They have been voting against illegal immigration, against high levels of legal migration, against the way their communities have changed, and against the laws that prevent deportations.

Leave a comment

At the same time, they have been told that they must continue to use only democratic means to speak against the government, as even that freedom to speak has come under increasing undemocratic suppression.

Whether one supports or opposes asylum accommodation is ultimately secondary, the larger question concerns how Britain governs itself. A political culture which increasingly treats consultation as optional should not be surprised if public trust continues to erode. The constitutional habits that once distinguished Britain were not merely elections, but consent, locality, and restraint.

If those habits disappear, Britain’s greatest cultural transformation may not come from those arriving on its shores, but from the way Britain itself has become governed.

And that may prove to be the most alien culture of all.

Until next week,

Tom

Share

Image Credits:

Title Image - Whitehall - https://www.inf-inet.com/whitehall-at-camino-building-style/

Magna Carta - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta

Westminster - https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/after-the-johnson-years-its-time-to-renew-british-democracy/

All other images are my own.

And welcome back to The Case For More, where the politics of the last week has been shifting quicker than most can keep up with.

Subscribe now

Having insisted he would remain as Labour leader, Keir Starmer announced his resignation. Having initially been blocked from running as an MP, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham’s, victory to become MP of Makerfield has now paved the way for him to become the new Labour leader.

Having failed to win the leadership twice before, it now seems likely that Burnham will become the next Prime Minister.

Whilst many are calling for a general election, just as Labour MPs did during the farce that was the Conservative’s regular leadership changes, it seems unlikely that Labour will allow a general election, knowing full well that polling suggests Reform would wipe the floor with them.

This is likely not news to you.

But what might be is the underlying political philosophy that is governing the change we are seeing Labour bring to our country.

Andy Burnham, like Keir Starmer and every Labour PM before him (https://fabians.org.uk/on-the-horizon/) is a Fabian. A word that you likely will have heard, but may not know a lot about.

The Fabians

As revolution and Communism began to rock Europe at the end of the 19^th century, a group of socialites met in London to discuss how best to implement reform in British society. Branching out from the Orwellian named Fellowship of New Life, on 4^th January 1884 the Fabian Society was born.

Initially, it was a group of academic socialists who wanted to see Britain reshaped according to socialist principles, and who regarded the great size of the unwashed masses to be a strain on earths resources. One of its founding members, Havelock Ellis, was, for example, a eugenicist, and so it is little wonder that early ideas included the need to reduce the earth’s population significantly.

However, unlike on the continent, the Fabians realised that revolutionary Marxism would never make headway here. No, Britain would need a different tactic. Something slower, but more concrete. Something Marx had overlooked.

Instead of revolt, the socialist project could be implemented through slow change across generations. Instead of violence, guided evolution was needed.

That is why they called themselves ‘Fabians’ – after the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus who had defeated the Carthaginian armies using a slow tactic of attrition, earning him the nickname ‘Cunctator’, or ‘delayer’.

Yes, the Fabians had realised that if they wanted to impose socialism on the Britain, they would need to chip away at its institutions slowly but surely.

In case their plan wasn’t clear enough, they made their emblem a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and set to work as their members rose high up in Britain’s great institutions – in its parliament, its universities, and its civil service.

Increasingly freedom, Christianity, family, and local institutions would be expected to give way to a larger role for the state.

Subscribe now

The tortoise that outran the wolf

In time, the Fabians decided that the wolf in sheep’s clothing emblem was too nefarious, even for them, and so they changed their emblem to a tortoise, with the words ‘when I strike, I strike hard’, written underneath. A nod to their desire to continue to slowly work their way further up, and deeper into the institutions of the British state, and to eventually unleash their ideas in fuller form.

In 1967, the German socialist student Rudi Dutschke coined the term, ‘the long march through the institutions.’, realising that many Western nations would not succumb to socialist revolution, instead, socialists should focus on placing themselves and their members into positions of authority. By doing so, they could influence the next generation of would-be socialists, and so on, until the great masses were of one cohesive socialist mindset.

The Fabian Society would likely have recognised something familiar in these words, as gradual influence through institutions had been central to its strategy for decades.

Slowly but surely, the civil service, the Labour party, and education in Britain had begun to swing left as more Fabian members and other socialist sympathisers had gained positions of power.

Why are so many young people emerging from universities sympathetic to socialism and increasingly comfortable with state intervention? There are many reasons, but the long Fabian influence on education is undoubtedly one of them.

The Blair switch project

In 1997, the Fabians’ time had arrived as New Labour, led by Tony Blair, gained office. For the next 13 years Blair (and his successor Gordon Brown), sought to bring about many of the policies that Fabianism explicitly lobbied for.

However, these were not ‘nefarious’ aims, they seemed kind, compassionate, and even perhaps in the best interest of the British people.

Immigration exploded. The welfare state boomed. Government began to inflate beyond anyone’s expectations as policies and laws began to govern every inch of our lives. But into this compassionate mix, silly or odd decisions seemed to slip through.

Brown sold British gold at its lowest price. Immigration appeared to be getting out of control. The inflated welfare state meant that taxes had to be hiked up.

The British people began to realise things were not looking good, and that Britain was sliding into decay, slowly losing its Britishness in favour of a more globalist vision of harmony, an EU vision of unity, and a Fabian vision of the abolition of sovereignty.

Although the Conservatives gained coalition power in 2010, I am sure Cameron’s desire to continue Blair’s project would have brought some relief to the Fabians. And for the next 14 years the Tories continued Fabianism as immigration boomed, and the requests for increased sovereignty through the EU referendum were obfuscated and retarded.

The British people had had their say, as they would continue to insist with each new election, but the government had no willingness to pump the brakes on now – the Fabian project was in motion.

The institutions, that once served the British people, had been switched out by Fabians and their sympathisers, and now seem to serve the state itself, and a more globalist vision of utopian unity.

No matter which Conservative was in office, the civil service was so awash with Fabians and other questionable actors, that the whole system was ground to a halt.

And in 2024, Labour returned, and with it, a whole new cabinet interspersed with Fabians, and with it, the ability continue the project of undermining British democracy and sovereignty with decisions that seemed ludicrous to the British people.

Things such as not drilling for North sea oil, but buying it from Norway instead. Giving the Chagos Islands to the Mauritanians along with several billion pounds. Ignoring demands for remigration and an end to illegal immigration. Releasing criminals in favour of tweeters. Attempts to remove the 800-year-old right to trial by jury in some cases. Demonising right wing views. And ultimately suppressing the free speech that allows for true democracy.

Leave a comment

And so too Christianity fell

The socialist vision tends heavily towards atheism. This is most clearly seen in places like the USSR, China, and North Korea. But the reasoning is not always clear to people.

The state must become God.

Every society has an ultimate authority. For Christians it is God. For the socialist, it increasingly becomes the state.

The state provides. It makes you (hopefully) fat, happy, and ignorant. Do as the state says, and you will get your safety, your food, your housing, your laws, your education, and your entertainment – ‘bread and circus’ we might say – all whilst the state gets on with the difficult work of governing that you could not possible understand.

In many respects, Fabianism believes this too, and favours technocracy over democracy.

Technocracy says that experts should be in charge, not the people. And whilst there is some sense in this – i.e., I want an expert in medicine to be my doctor, not a salesman – Fabianism takes this to its extreme. Trial by my peers? No, they are not experts in the law – the judge will decide your fate.

Where Christianity once built Britain from the bottom up – family, parish, county, guild, kingdom – Fabianism seeks to build society from the top down – expert, department, agency, ministry, state.

One begins with communities and works upwards. The other begins with administration and works downwards.

The Christian vision of the human person is that God is the master, not the state. And that whilst obedience to our leaders is commanded in the Bible, the state is not to become our God. Instead, the dignity and freedom of each human person is to be respect.

Human flourishing then, is not to be found in state control or provision, but in my God-given freedoms, rights, and reason.

It is my reason and freedoms that bring me closer to God as I reason his existence and plan for my life, and use my freedoms to honour and worship Him by living according to His laws.

This is clearly at odds with the Fabian vision.

And so, as Fabianism grew, so too did a tendency to atheism, and the belief that the experts set over me were to guide my every decision, not God.

Share

Is Christianity the answer?

Whilst there are a lot of conspiracies around Fabianism, the truth of the matter is that they do indeed exist, and they are very influential. According to their own literature they truly do want what they perceive to be a utopia of socialist democracy. Many early Fabian thinkers embraced ideas such as eugenics and population control, reflecting a belief that society could be engineered by experts for the common good.

Such ideas are antithetical to the Christian vision of the human person, the family, and the sovereignty of the nation.

True Christianity, and its vision for society, is perhaps the last bastion of hope against the Fabian ideology that has seeped into every corner of Britian’s institutions.

Christianity offers a vision of statehood, sovereignty, and human flourishing that atheist political philosophies simply cannot.

And so, whilst I wish Andy Burnham well, and hope he does a good job when he likely becomes PM, he really is ‘not the messiah’ (as was shouted in parliament at his swearing in), and he really is just a ‘very naughty boy’.

Fabianism is one of many corrupting forces in British politics, and when we realise that much of the British governmental project of the last few decades has been influenced by its visionaries, I think most would agree that it has not been a force for good.

But the genius of Fabianism was that it understood something Marx never did.

The British were not revolutionaries.

They would never storm Buckingham Palace or drag capitalists through the streets.

But they would accept one new department…

One new regulator… One new tax… One new programme… One new expert… One new restriction…

And so, while Marx dreamed of revolution, the Fabians understood that Britain could be transformed one administrative reform at a time.

We look today at a Britain today that is weakened, divided, struggling, and taxed beyond its limits, and have to ask, how did it happen? We didn’t vote for this, did we?

The answer, I’m afraid to say, is that Fabianism won – at least in part. Not all of it; globalism, neoliberalism, and ineptitude that borders on the imbecilic have played their part too. But if we wish to understand how Britain changed so dramatically without a revolution, then we must understand the tortoise that won the race.

Until next time, have a good, and hopefully cooler, weekend.

Tom

Share

Image credits:

Title Image – Fabian Tortoise – https://ukreloaded.com/the-secret-society-dedicated-to-a-new-world-order-the-fabians/

Burnham and Starmer – https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/andy-burnham-sparks-angry-labour-backlash-after-latest-attack-on-keir-starmer_uk_68d3d4ebe4b0da7d3de2b6eb?origin=home-featured-unit

Fabian Society Wolf logo – https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Fabian_Society_coat_of_arms.svg/1920px-Fabian_Society_coat_of_arms.svg.png

Fabian Tortoise – https://zeroaggressionproject.org/mental-lever/fabian-libertarian/

Blair and Brown – https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-new-labour-consigned-to-the-dustbin-of-history-as-progress-drops-the-label-9333746.html

Soviet Anti-Religious propaganda – https://mcbcollection.com/early-soviet-anti-religious-propaganda

Burnham sworn in as MP – https://news.stv.tv/world/burnham-sworn-in-as-mp-following-starmers-resignation

As England squabbled amongst itself, an enemy to the East was looking for new lands.

As the clergy got fat off their wealth and laziness, instead of fasting and praying, swords were sharpened and shields lifted.

As the noblemen chose an easy monastic life over their duty to defend the realm, the boats were boarded, and their sails set to turn West.

This is the story of the Viking arrival at Lindisfarne, and the story of the day God abandoned England.

Subscribe now

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. We have been shifting to commentary on recent events over the last few weeks, and that will continue on Fridays. But our Wednesdays are returning to history as we continue our journey of the Origins of Britain from the Stone Age to 1066.

Last time we talked generally about how England went from a Heptarchy of kingdoms to a unified kingdom through Alfred the Great and Athelstan. Within that were the raids by Vikings, and the establishment of the Danelaw. With that in mind, we will spend the next few newsletters going into detail about what happened between the time of the Heptarchy and Alfred, beginning with the arrival of the Vikings.

Lindisfarne

Lindisfarne (or Holy Island) is an island of the Northumberland coast just across from Bamburgh castle, which is cut off by the sea at high-tide, but can be walked to at low-tide. This made it the perfect setting for a monastery; for those who wished to separate themselves from the world and live a life of prayer and contemplation.

The monastery of Lindisfarne was founded in 634 by St Aiden who was sent by his bishop on Iona after the newly installed King Oswald of Northumbria requested a bishop. Oswald had become Christian on Iona whilst in exile from his kingdom, and upon his return to power had desired for his kingdom to be Christianised.

St Aiden was given Lindisfarne as a base from which to evangelise Northumbria, and it became the heart of Christianity in the north of England as a priory was founded there. With its distinctive Celtic ways influenced by the Ionian and Irish Christianity from which it came, its clergy run ins with the returning Latin Christianity but remained a vital monastery.

Along with St Aiden, Lindisfarne later became home to another important saint, St Cuthbert, who was Bishop there for a time before secluding himself further on the island of Inner Farne.

Cuthbert was responsible for many great miracles and for the continuation of the faith in Northumbria, and a Vita of his life written by the monks of Lindisfarne, as well as Bede’s records of him, still survive to this day.

Whilst Lindisfarne is remote and cut off, it is worth remembering that, in a day where travel by sea was quicker, and sometimes safer, than by land, Lindisfarne sat in a crucial sea lane down the English coast, and served as a landmark for any ships arriving from the east.

Prophetic concerns

On 5^th November 734, shortly before his death, Bede wrote a famous letter (EEE) to the Bishop of York, Egbert, concerned about the state of Christianity in England in his day. In his Ecclesiastical History (EH), Bede had made strong allusions to his concerns, but these are written more plainly in EEE.

His concerns were that the clergy were lazy, irreligious, adulterous, and above all, greedy. He was worried that those noble sons who should be defending the land were instead taking easy nepotistic positions as abbots, and that from this, the spiritual life of the Northumbrians was decaying. Bede wrote:

“…there are numerous places, as we are all well aware, described by the title monastery by a most foolish pen, but which have absolutely no trace of monastic life… there are very many extensive sites of this kind, which are, as is commonly said, neither of use to God nor men because quite clearly no regular monastic life as God desires it is followed there.” (EEE.x-xi.)

And,

“These few words are addressed against the poison of greed. But if I were to wish to discuss drunkenness, gluttony, excess, and the other infections of this kind in similar vein, the length of this letter would become enormous.” (EEE.xviii)

He warned, as many Old Testaments prophets before him had, that if the clergy did not change their ways, and if the laity were not better instructed, God’s wrath would fall upon them.

Unfortunately, Bede’s prophecies came to fruition. Something that, as we shall see, a later monk called Alcuin, would reflect on.

Leave a comment

The raid

On 8^th June 793, sails appeared on the horizon across from Lindisfarne – not unusual for a place on a shipping lane. But as they drew closer, the monks would likely have realised that these were no ordinary merchant ships, but strange ships from the east, carrying ferocious warriors.

As their battle cries rang out, the monks must have been terrified. As the ships slide with a crunch up the shores of the beach, the monks must have knelt, weeping in prayer for God to save them.

The Vikings had arrived.

Over the next few hours, they sacked the monastery.

The monks, trained in the arts of prayer, gardening, scripture, and writing had little to no chance at physical defence against such a force.

The monastery was built as a sanctuary, not a fortress, and so without high walls and defensive gates, its buildings were open to the Vikings with little to no resistance.

As the bells once used to call people to prayer now rang out in fear, the soldiers at Bamburgh castle were too far away to come to the aid of the monks who were now running in fear for their lives.

As the screams of slaughter began to die down, they were replaced with the moans of the dying, the jangle of chains, and the crashing of treasures being loaded on to boats.

One of the holiest sites in England lay in ruins.

The Vikings had arrived.

Many of the monks had been killed, and those that weren’t were rounded up and sailed back to Scandinavia to be sold into slavery. Many buildings were put to the torch and the holy places were looted of their finery.

The destruction was total, and the fear it inspired was all consuming.

The raid that was more than a raid

The Vikings raided and sacked many places, so why was this such a poignant moment in English history?

Well, this was the first notable raid on British soil by the Vikings. Whilst it is likely they had done small raids before this, Lindisfarne was markedly different because it became such a big story in the medieval world.

Secondly, Lindisfarne was one of England’s holiest sites after Canterbury and York. By raiding this site specifically, the Vikings were seen as agents of God’s wrath and judgement. Bede’s warnings, to those that knew them, had come true. The people had not changed their ways. To invert 2 Chronicles 7:14, the people had not called on God’s name, humbled themselves, prayed, sought God’s face, nor turned from their wicked ways, and so God had not heard from heaven or forgiven their sins, but instead brought destruction to their lands.

In many respects, although this was just the first of a great wave of destruction by the Vikings that brought God’s wrath to England, it made those clergy paying attention take stock, and overtime, monasticism in England would be rebuilt into the holy image Bede had desired.

Share

The news spreads

Given the importance of Lindisfarne, and the legends of Ss Aiden and Cuthbert that had come forth from it, news of its destruction rapidly spread through England and onto the continent.

One of the best English sources we have following the sacking of Lindisfarne is that of an English monk in Charlemagne’s court, who wrote about the event at great length.

Alcuin had been raised in the Abbey in York, and studied under Bishop Albert of York who was Ecgbert’s (the subject of EEE) successor. At York, it is likely that Alcuin had read Bede’s letter to Ecgbert (I think he definitely had), and as such, would have been all too aware of Bede’s warnings. So, when Alcuin, now in France, heard of the sack of a holy site so dear to his faith, Bede’s words must have rushed back to him.

We can surmise this because of a letter Æthelred, King of Northumbria, shortly after the raid. He wrote:

“Consider carefully, brothers, and examine diligently, lest perchance this unaccustomed and unheard-of evil was merited by some unheard-of evil practice. I do not say that formerly there were no sins of fornication among people. But from the days of King Ælfwold fornications, adulteries and incest have poured over the land, so that these sins have been committed without any shame and even against handmaids dedicated to God. What may I say about avarice [greed], robbery and violent judgement? – when it is clearer than day how much these crimes have increased everywhere, and a despoiled people testifies to it.”

Alcuin himself prophesied in this same letter, warning the king that this was just the start. God’s judgement had arrived on English soil, and that over the next few decades, his wrath would continue to wash upon the shores of his homeland.

“Behold, judgement has begun, with great terror, at the house of God, in which rest such lights of the whole of Britain. What should be expected for other places, when the divine judgement has not spared this holy place?”

The sack on Lindisfarne was not just a one off. It was the beginning of a great Viking expedition to settle in English lands. And over the next century they would make considerable headway.

For the English, it was clear that God had now abandoned them, and that they must prepare themselves for defensive warfare. That the monasteries had failed in their prayerful and holy duties, and so, as a nation, the English must now pray for forgiveness, turn back to God, and in time, unify, in order to defeat such a powerful seafaring enemy.

Share

But that defeat is still a long way off.

Victory was still a long way off, and many more Lindisfarne’s would fall before a King could rally the people against the invaders once and for all.

Before long, the Vikings would stop coming for treasures and slaves, they would come for the fertile lands, the cities, and England itself.

And so next week, we shall turn our attention to what comes next in the story of the Viking invasion of England.

Until then, have a great rest of your week, and try to stay cool in this roasting weather!

Tom

If you are interested in seeing a good depiction of the sacking of Lindisfarne, I would recommend the first episode of the TV series Vikings. Part of which can be watch here:

[Warning – it is quite graphic]

Image Credits:

Title Image – Viking raid on Lindisfarne – https://production.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/lindisfarne-priory/History/viking-raid/

Lindisfarne – https://www.thecollector.com/christianization-anglo-saxon-england-germanic-paganism/

St Cuthbert – https://www.stcuthbertorthodoxchurch.org/completelife

The Sack of Lindisfarne – https://larryvienneauprints.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-raven-and-viking-raid-on-lindisfarne.html

Lindisfarne ruins – https://www.andrewswalks.co.uk/lindisfarne.html

Alcuin and Charlemagne – https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Alcuin-Of-York/

Vikings – https://storage.googleapis.com/dxkrcshkwyrkje/biggest-viking-fleet.html

Subscribe now

And welcome back to The Case For More. The last couple of newsletters have focused on the recent events of the murder of Novak and attempted beheading of Ogilvy on the streets of Britain. And with so much going on in Britain, History Wednesdays is on hold for the time being. Instead, this week I want to turn to something slightly different, but as you will hopefully see, just as pressing.

Kier Starmer announced this week that there will be a ban on social media use for under-16s.

The aim of this law is to prevent child exploitation, radicalisation, grooming, and all of the other problems that social media has produced within our society.

Quite aside from the irony that the head of the party that allegedly oversaw the cover up of the systematic child rape gangs (something I may cover in the coming weeks if I can sum up the strength to approach it) is now trying to protect children, it sounds like a good idea.

I mean, surely, anyone with half a braincell would want to protect children, right?

The internet is a dangerous place, not just because of what children can access, but also because of who can gain access into the life of that child. It is only right in a time of limited attention spans, growing radicalisation, and exploitation, that the government should want to do something about it?

I thought so too.

As a secondary school teacher, I am all too aware of the issues the online world presents, and spend far too much of my time dealing with the fallout. Whether that be reports of grooming, cyber-bullying, or PREVENT worthy radicalisation, teacher’s see the impacts of social media and want change.

However, my views on this shifted radically as soon as I spent more than 5 minutes thinking in depth about it – about its implications, and about its enactment. Beyond the headlines, and the wording of the proposals lies something far darker and more sinister.

Now obviously, I do not want children to be harmed – very few people do – and so phrasing this bill as about ‘protecting children’, as we have already seen with the so-called ‘Online Safety Act’, means that opposition to it can immediately be contorted into a response of ‘oh, so you want children to be unsafe then?’.

But this is wholly unfair.

I actually fully support a ban on the selling of smartphones to under-16s in the way we ID check for alcohol or cigarettes. And whilst there would still be children who got hold of them, or who had parents reckless enough to give them one, it would likely drastically reduce the number of children using them.

But this social media ban is different, and the Online Safety Act gives us good precedent to show that what I’m about to say is not conspiratorial waffle but clearly rooted in reality.

Firstly – whose responsibility is it?

My first concern, as a parent myself, is about government overreach into the lives of parents. Is it the governments job to protect my child?

Well yes, to a degree, but too often parental responsibility is replaced with government policy that encroaches ever further into the private life of the family – new homeschooling legislation is a good example of this. And whilst I can already see the arguments about those children with absentee or irresponsible parents, I think it is fair to say that some parents have taken their eye off the ball precisely because they have become too reliant on the state to parent their children for them. Be that through laws, schooling, social care, welfare, or other means; too many parents expect the government to solve what should be their responsibility.

Secondly – do the government understand tech?

Whilst I am sure there has been lots of consultations with lofty tech think tanks and dreary child psychologists, I think the government is severely (or maybe intentionally) misunderstanding the tech savvy of young people.

In an age where a teenager can create an app in a few minutes, does the government really think it can regulate this? Children will just create new social media apps, totally unmanaged by the laws that regulate normal companies. And when those get shut down, like a hydra, ten more will spring up to take their place. There is no way to monitor this.

And that’s the problem. At least in its current form, teenagers tend to use known and somewhat regulated social media, with legal duties and responsibilities. But this new world would create totally unregulatable social medias that the older generation just will not be able to keep track of.

This will be more unsafe, and less transparent.

A clear example of this followed the Online Safety Act, where there was a massive uptick in the number of VPN downloads. Children often don’t by their VPNs through reputable companies, they download them for free from dodgy sources, opening them up to a world of blackmail, information theft, and fraud that they are completely unaware of. Furthermore, it just pushes them into the darker corners of the internet, beyond the prying eyes of the state, where the most horrible and harmful of content festers.

I suspect he social media ban will, sadly, only encourage the more of same.

Thirdly – what about my freedom of speech?

This may seem selfish to ask, and the response is always the same, ‘what about the children?’. But it is a very important question.

The Online Safety Act promised to protect children from ‘harmful’ online content, and whilst I fully suspect that it has made no difference at all as I have already said, it does sound very good.

The problem is, who decides what is harmful? And how do you make sure it only applies just to children? The answer is incredibly opaque.

‘Harmful’ is such a moving target that is becomes almost impossible to pin down. Pornography? Sure. But ‘extremism’? Is extremism actually extremism, or is it just something the government doesn’t want you to see today?

This has already happened. Since the Online Safety Act, footage and reports of incidents that go against the utopian vision of multicultural bliss have been widely suppressed for British internet users on sites like X. It is no longer baseless conspiracy to say that the government wants to control the narrative of such events, and so anything to the contrary can easily be labelled ‘harmful’, ‘extreme’ or ‘misinformation’. It’s all very 1984.

The point I am trying to make is that hidden within all of these kinds of measures is a further suppression of freedoms for law-abiding British citizens.

We give so much up in the name of ‘safety’, that many of our basic freedoms have been taken away with very little fuss. One only has to look at things like the new facial recognition cameras being rolled out by police, or the vast size of the CCTV surveillance network across the country, to see the increased overreach.

‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’. Sounds good until the tide shifts, and you realise you are now on the ‘wrong-side’ of an issue. If you feel safe about Labour having state surveillance capabilities online or in person, I’d question your sanity, but I’d also ask how you would feel if Reform then had control of this apparatus after the next election? If it was suddenly used to supress your views? The issue becomes very different when the shoe is suddenly and unexpectedly on the other foot.

Finally – how will this be enforced?

Currently, AI software is being used to guess people’s ages based on scans of their faces. Quite aside from the fact this can then link your face to your account, it is notoriously bad at guessing.

So, the obvious fix is that you need to link some form of ID to the account in question.

This has already happened, for example, with some Apple software updates, where people have been asked for credit cards etc to confirm they are over-18 so as to allow full access to their iPhone’s capabilities online. But this is increasingly dystopian.

You can’t just ask under-16s for their ID, that obviously does not work. In order to implement it, ever single social media user in the UK must register their ID to their social media to check they are over 16.

I’ll repeat that; every UK citizen will have their ID attached to their social media.

Online anonymity, which although sometimes used for ill can also be used for good, will be a thing of the past. No more arduous police investigation to find out which anonymous user said the thing the judiciary have decided are today’s hurty words. No, your face, address, and all your information will be accessible at the touch of a button.

Again, to those of you saying ‘I have nothing to fear, I’m law-abiding’, I would thoroughly suggest you read some history – particularly that of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Jews in occupied Holland. If people in the 1930s were able to so thoroughly supress the freedoms of a people with 20^th century technology, imagine how much more is possible with today’s technology and AI picking up the workload.

This ban, ultimately, is Digital ID through the backdoor – something most of the UK population are staunchly against. Once again, the voice of the people is being flat out ignored, and dirty tactics – such as a façade of caring for children – are being used to wield the power of the state over its people.

Unfortunately, too many people don’t read past the headlines, or care about their social media too much, or just don’t care about politics enough, and so will go along with it.

The government doesn’t have to enforce Digital ID, it just has to tart it up as safety, and make it slightly inconvenient for people to not use it, and bam, it’s the new normal.

On a final point, and perhaps a little more conspiratorial, Digital ID will not just stop at social media, employment, or passports. With all of your information, it is then easily and automatically linked to your national insurance and tax, your banking, your spending, your movements through phone location tracking, your social media, your travel, your carbon footprint, your news sources, your contacts, your biometric data, your face, your speech... There is very little limit to what can be encompassed under Digital ID in an internet age once it arrives.

China shows what happens when this is allowed to happen. And if you don’t think Britain could become a totalitarian state, that ‘oh, but that stuff just doesn’t happen here’, then once again, I would ask you to pay closer attention to both the precedents of history, and the reality of the present.

Share

In the meantime, and assuming this doesn’t get me censored, I will write soon.

Until then, have a freedom filled week.

Tom

Our Lady of Walsingham, England’s Dowry, pray for us.

Image credits:

Title Image – age verification – https://claspo.io/blog/age-verification-pop-up-why-do-you-need-it-and-how-to-add-one-to-your-website/

Starmer phone – https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/starmer-under-16-social-media-ban-policy/

Cyberbullying – https://myemotionalfirstaid.org/en/risk-and-protective-factors/

Homeschooling – https://www.yosofunny.com/kids/why-homeschooling-may-be-right-for-your-family

Free Speech – https://www.rt.com/uk/421430-free-speech-rt-license/

Age Verification – https://amani.ai/age-verification/

Digital ID – https://lightaware.org/twenty-reasons-why-digital-id-will-lead-to-the-exclusion-of-people-with-disabilities-from-society/

And welcome back to The Case For More.

On Wednesday I put out a newsletter addressing the current climate of division and hate within UK culture in response to an ongoing wave of horrific incidents highlighted by the cases of Novak and Olgivy.

Since then, I’ve received a few comments, and seen further discussion online asking, in essence, ‘how can we not hate?’. I intend to answer precisely that today. But if you have not already done so, please make sure to subscribe – it really helps me grow this Substack and reach more people with this message. A like or a share also go a long way!

Subscribe now

Share

A couple of things first.

I can completely empathise with the feeling of hatred towards those who have committed, allowed, or ignored the incidents that have taken place. I myself have felt hatred, rage, and anger – something I have had to, and continue to, take before God and repent of.

I am not belittling those feelings, nor am I telling people to just push them down. The incidents at hand are some of the most heinous and disgusting Modern Britain has known and so anger and hatred is completely understandable. At their core, they are a most human of reactions, not to be dismissed.

Secondly, I also completely understand why people feel that democracy has failed them. After years of most of the public voting against mass immigration at every opportunity, and the political system ignoring the voice of the people whilst labelling opposition as ‘far-right’, it is only a natural response to feel desperation.

If I had to summarise the mood of the average British citizen today, I would give three words – anger, hatred, and injustice.

Anger.

Because to read about incidents so violent and disgusting, let alone to watch them, can only provoke anger in anyone with any sense of humanity. In the face of violence the human compulsion to anger grows strong, and puts us into fight or flight such that it overwhelms us.

Hate.

As anger grows, so does hatred. Hatred towards those committing such atrocities, to those facilitating them, to those ignoring them, to those who downplay them, and to those associated in any way with the individuals responsible.

Injustice.

Both of these feelings lead to a feeling of injustice. In Britain we have a phenomenally strong tradition of justice and fairness, and so to see that changing and being discarded can only make us feel that a great injustice has been done. Furthermore, that injustice isn’t just isolated to the incidents at hand, it is the growing feeling that injustice is now a central theme in our nation’s policies and judicial system. Terms such as ‘two-tier justice’, questions around why some groups appear to have different rights, and why newcomers seem to receive more than those that have paid their way. All of these demonstrate the growing feeling (and perhaps, observation), that things have become less just.

If we are an island of people who are infuriated by a queue-jumper, then how much more enraged will we be at such horrific incidents if we.

As I say, these emotions are understandable, but controversially, I do not think they are helpful, and not for the reasons you might think.

When you hear, in the face of these incidents, people (normally politicians and the media) calling for calm, peace, and the healing of divisions within 24 hours of a horrific event, it can feel inhuman and patronising. And I totally agree – it is insensitive, and hints at a broader subversive motive that causes greater feelings of distrust.

But when, in my last newsletter, I said we need peace and the healings of division, I did not mean it in the ‘woke’, ‘leftist’, or ‘neo-liberal’ way many often understand it.

Allow me to explain.

I want peace, order, and unity, not because I think we need to let these incidents slide and continue acting like nothing has happened, but because I think that is the way we remain human, how true justice can be carried out, and how further horrors are averted.

Let me give you some examples.

After Southport and further revelations about the rape gangs, some notable people have been calling of a referendum on the death penalty. I agree that it would be good for a genuine public discussion of this matter to take place, possibly resulting in a referendum on it. This is democracy and justice in action. On the other hand, anger and hatred that boils over into roving gangs of vigilantes lynching those deemed guilty would be a complete injustice.

A serious public discussion – and politicians actually listening – about ending illegal immigration, limiting legal migration, and even about mass deportations, although difficult, is what is needed. Fire-bombing people’s homes or accommodation to drive them out is not justice, its tyranny.

Continuing to vote, protest, rally, and put pressure on politicians to force them to listen to the public is democratically positive. Rebellion, insurrection, and civil war are not, and nearly always end with a country in a worse state.

My point is, although things feel desperate, and perhaps they now are, swinging into anarchy will only make things worse – even if in the moment it feels cathartic or just.

But I also said that anger, hatred, and injustice diminish our humanity.

Without getting too philosophically high flung, I want to propose that Virtue Ethics holds the answer.

Virtue Ethics comes from the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, and was engrained into much of the Western medieval world through Christianity and Thomas Aquinas.

It begins by suggesting that human flourishing is to be found in living as the most virtuous person we can be – that therein lies the good life, the summum bonum or ‘highest good’. That to use our reason to be virtuous to live in line with our true humanity, our telos or purpose as people.

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics proposes that there is a golden mean for every feeling/action, and that this is where virtue lies – in the middle. At either end of this virtue however, we find the vices of excess and deficiency.

For example, if the virtue is generosity, the vice of deficiency would be frugality, and the vice of excess would be prodigality. If the virtue is courage, the deficiency would be cowardice, and the excess would be rashness.

I would say that right now, in the face of these events, many of our leaders fall into that deficiency – cowardice. They have not addressed the issues, they have ignored, and they have failed to bring about change. But to respond with rashness in which one riots or wages war against one’s own state is to go into excess.

Courage is needed at this time.

The courage to stand up and speak, even if there are consequences. To hold the government to account to its people by the means of justice and democracy. That is courage – not to a kind of violence which is easy but not actually courageous.

Those in Belfast protesting – courageous. The politicians and media trying to downplay it as a ‘stabbing’ – cowardly. But those torching homes and buses – rash.

Let’s take Virtue Ethics then and apply it to our aforementioned words that summarise the mood.

Anger.

This is a deficiency of the virtue of self-control. Whilst many people may feel their anger is righteous, too often it’s only self-righteous, and slides into festering rot or explosive reactionism. On the other hand, I do also appreciate that seeing those who show no anger – namely the excess of rigidity – is angering. The robotic, bureaucratic, and unempathetic voice of Keir Starmer’s national addresses in times like these are a good example – the voice of the state saying, ‘computer says no’. The virtue of self-control is needed now more than ever to control the urge to reactionism, to speak clearly and wisely. If people do, this is the thing that will show righteousness of the public’s pleas for change.

Hate.

This is the excess of the virtue of charity. Charity is to continue to love, even in difficult situations. Love does not mean letting things slide, not holding people to account, or not requiring change, but it does mean that we do not let hate consume or blind us. The deficiency of this is indifference, which again, is sadly how the political system seems to react to these events. But sliding into hate means that we start to make blanket statements that are just not true.

Immigration is a great example of this. Those in deficiency, who are indifferent, will act like all immigration and immigrants are good, role-model citizens making Britain a better place, and if they don’t, ‘so what? Britain is terrible anyway.’ But the response of excessive hate which says that everyone who is not British and comes here is bad, is equally naïve. There are good and bad immigrants, just as there are good and bad Brits – basically, some people are good, some are not, humans are complicated beings. Going into the excess of hate, no matter how tempting it is, allows for those who are indifferent to just ignore those they deem ‘hateful’. But courageous words spoken against the laxity of the current immigration system spoken in charity, are much more reasonable to average people, and thus much harder to ignore.

Injustice.

This is the deficiency of justice. Unfortunately, in the face of its own growing injustice, the state has increasingly responded with the excess of tyranny – supressing free speech and lawful protesting. They are wrong to do this. But to respond to these vices with an equal level of injustice and tyranny will only exacerbate the problem. Justice needs to be served to those at fault – both the perpetrators, and the leaders who allowed it. But so-called ‘justice’ at the hands of vigilantism is just tyranny in disguise. If we fall into that trap, as countless war-torn nations before us have, only greater injustices will come of it.

Although a bit longer than my last newsletter, I hope this clarifies a few things. I am not calling for indifference, but I’m not calling for hatred either.

I’m not trying to minimise or be insensitive, I know what I am proposing is a hard call – but I truly believe it is the right one. When I say that at this crucial crossroad in British history I really do think virtue must win out, even if that is the more difficult path, I really mean it.

And even if you don’t, or you strongly disagree, I will continue to try and live that way, even if imperfectly.

I hope you have a virtuous weekend, and I look forward to writing to you soon.

Until then,

Tom

Our Lady of Walsingham, England’s Dowry, pray for us.

Image credits:

Title Image – Belfast fire – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c992rvpyj99o

Belfast riots June 2026 – https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/10/europe/ballymena-northern-ireland-riots-intl-hnk

‘Anti-Racism’ protest – https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-60814799

Aristotle – https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle

Little Britain – https://imgflip.com/i/72v0xy

Street on fire in Belfast – https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/11/belfast-riots-latest-rioters-dodge-police-water-cannons-hurl-bricks-antrim-28732103/

And welcome back to The Case For More, where our spotty hiatus is coming to an end and more regular newsletters will continue. However, I would be remiss today if I did not comment on what has happened in the past few days as it’s impacts on the country, society, and culture I love have been so shockingly profound.

Although this channel is primarily dedicated to British history and Christianity, I want to take a slight diversion to discuss an important piece of English literature. Specifically a poem by Rudyard Kipling, and how it relates to the incidents of the past few days.

No doubt you will know, but in the past week several significant issues have taken place, highlighted dramatically by the murder of Henry Novak by Vickrum Digwa using his Sikh ceremonial kirpan, and the attempted beheading of Steven Ogilvy in Belfast by a Sudanese migrant named Hadi Alodid.

Now, for perhaps obvious legal reasons – as well as the emotional reasons that it makes me feel sick – I do not want to discuss the specifics of these cases. In fact, I don’t even particularly want to discuss the surrounding issues such a policing, immigration, or socio-economic factors, right now – not least because we are likely all well versed in these issues and there is little more I can add to the discussion in this short time.

Instead, I want to the fallout; the subsequent riots, talks of ‘enough is enough’, and even concerning allusions to civil war by some online commentators. And I want to do this in light of a poem by Rudyard Kipling.

In 1917, three years into WWI and after the death of his son, Kipling composed perhaps one of the most poignant representations of English emotion ever penned. Although it is about the ‘English’ and aimed at the Germans, I think we can easily take this to refer to the UK and multiculturalism today.

The poem is called The Beginnings, but is often referred to as ‘When the English began to hate’. And it goes like this:

It was not part of their blood,

It came to them very late

With long arrears to make good,

When the English began to hate.

They were not easily moved,

They were icy-willing to wait

Till every count should be proved,

Ere the English began to hate.

Their voices were even and low,

Their eyes were level and straight.

There was neither sign nor show,

When the English began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd,

It was not taught by the State.

No man spoke it aloud,

When the English began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred,

It will not swiftly abate,

Through the chill years ahead,

When Time shall count from the date

That the English began to hate.

Now, I want to clarify a couple of things for legal reasons before we delve in. I am NOT, suggesting that hate or violence should be the response to these incidents – even my own anger at these circumstances is something I must take to God and ask forgiveness for. Secondly, I do not, even if Kipling did, mean ‘English’ in any racial/ethnic sense. The points I am about to make in no way refer to a racial division, instead they refer to cultural differences of temperament, attitudes, and proclivities.

So, with that clarified.

Kipling’s point, I think, speaks quite clearly for itself. That the nature of the English compared to other cultures of the world, is generally of slow and even temperament. A good example would be the different responses to driving laws in England and France. In England we grumble or write an angry letter; in France, the country regularly shuts down as protests erupt.

Although we have had our fair share of riots in recent years, historically, the English have been very slow to hate, anger, and rioting. In fact, I think the recent increased proclivity to riot amongst the English clearly demonstrates both that we have lost a fair bit of our cultural Englishness, and that Kipling’s observation is sadly coming true.

A good example of the even English temperament would be how we submit ourselves to laws and generally (at least historically) trust the government in times of national uncertainty. Now to people of other cultures, particularly Americans for example, this may seem weak-willed and cowardly, but until recently, the UK had a proud heritage of fairness, justice, and trust between the people and the government. This meant that trust in the government and social order made a tremendous amount of sense.

Naïve in the light of what the UK faces today? Maybe. But historically the UK’s general public would rather have peace and security over riots, protests, or civil war.

A clear example of this trust, and one that is an issue of liberty other cultures may deem fundamental, is the right to own firearms. The removal of the right to easily own firearms started with the 1920 Firearm Act which required licenses to be obtained to own a firearm, and tightening restrictions have continued ever since to the point where even crossbows, air rifles, and even bows are increasingly regulated. This was done, by all accounts, with incredible ease and peace. The public saw (or at least were convinced of) the benefits of such legislation, and went along with it peacefully. By comparison, because of the culture of the America, I highly doubt the same would be true if the US government decided to repeal the 2^nd Amendment. We trusted the government, and adhered to laws that brought greater peace, even if they somewhat restricted our freedoms.

But back to the poem.

Kipling’s point then is that it takes a while to fire the English up, to anger them to a point where instead of singing Oasis’ ‘Don’t look back in anger’ as they did after the horrific Manchester Arena bombing, they begin to hate and swell towards violence.

Unfortunately, it seems that time is near, if not now a present reality. The murder of Novak and the attempted beheading of Ogilvy seem to have triggered a different reaction to previous incidents – with the exception perhaps of Southport.

Whilst the Northern Irish and English do have different temperaments in some respects, they are not wholly dissimilar in culture, and so Kipling’s words can speak to their frustrations also. But it is clear in the online space, the quiet conversations in pub corners, and the discussions behind closed doors, that something is shifting – and not necessarily for the better.

Kipling’s prophecy (if you will) seems to be becoming an increasingly clear reality – that the English are beginning to hate.

As a Christian, I do not think this is a good thing. Whilst I think there is a place for righteous anger, and severe lawful penalties for perpetrators, appeasers, and those that have allowed these things to happen, I do not want this to descend further into distrust, hatred, and violence. But the question for many ordinary citizens is increasingly becoming, ‘what happens when the English can no longer trust the government to intervene on their behalf?’ Or put another way, ‘what happens when democracy has failed and the will of the people is ignored for decades?’

Every opportunity the British have had to lawfully and democratically reverse the course the UK is on, they have voted to do precisely that. But the country has continued to move in the opposite direction to the democratic wishes of the majority, and so at what point is the ‘division’ and ‘hate’ no longer being caused by rioting citizens, but by the very people in charge who are calling for calm?

This newsletter is not a call for hate, rioting, or violence. But it is a call for politicians and policy-makers to take the words of Kipling seriously.

I do not want to live in a state that is in turmoil, rot, violence, and civil war, but unfortunately, unless drastic action is taken by the government and the course is reversed, that seems an increasingly likely outcome of these events.

It may be wrong to question at what point a government becomes so tyrannical and undemocratic that other throw is justified, and it’s not particularly a discussion I want to have because we know how it ends, but to pretend that the political decisions of the last few decades haven’t forced people to begin trying to answer that question would be incredibly naïve and dangerous. And if we pretend those conversations aren’t happening, try to suppress them, or create further division with isolating terms like ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’, the problem is only going to fester.

But.

There is still time.

There is still time for politicians to quell the hate before it bubbles over.

There is still time for the current trajectory of both governmental policy and hatred to be reversed.

There is still time for peace to take hold and English cultural identity to be restored.

But not if the root problems are ignored, shouted down, or if discussion of them is suppressed.

Evil grows most quickly in the dark. In the cold light of a computer screen when public and honest conversation has ceased. It festers in the whispered conversations as the hate grows deeper and darker. Bringing these hard discussions into the public sphere, having them openly and honestly, even if imperfectly, may yet manage to put the fire out before it gets out of control.

People just want to speak, to be heard, and to have a voice. And yes, that even applies to the impoverished, white working-class ‘thugs’ and ‘EDL-types’ the media, politicians, and sadly the Church too, are so quick to ignore and belittle in their attempts to virtue signal.

Jesus came to save the least and the lost. And in many areas across Britain today, the least, the lost, the forgotten, the downtrodden, the patronised, do look like those for whom these islands have been home for centuries. Whose ancestors forged this country. And who today feel they are unheard as they are called ‘stupid’, fascist’, racist’, or ‘nazi’. To paraphrase something Douglas Murray once said, ‘what precisely are these people meant to do? Or is voicing political opinion and being listened to only for the Oxbridge educated Guardian columnists?’ Even if we disagree, we need to listen and discuss, not shout down and exclude.

We are now creeping along the stanzas of Kipling’s poem, and it is not a roadmap we should want to follow. But unless politicians take Kipling’s words seriously, and realise that they are in fact incredibly prescient, then his prophecy will come to fruition.

We need to pray especially fervently for the UK at this time, for peace and resolution.

But until next time, have a peaceful week.

Tom

Our Lady of Walsingham, England’s Dowry, pray for us.

Image credits:

Title Image – Southport riots – https://www.egyptindependent.com/violent-scenes-as-far-right-protesters-crash-vigil-for-three-girls-killed-in-southport-knife-attack/

Henry Novak – https://news.inbox.lv/150bzz4-believed-the-killer-not-the-victim-britain-shocked-by-video-of-henry-novak-s-final-moments

Stephen Ogilvie – https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/belfast-stabbing-victim-named-as-scot-stephen-ogilvie-8667128

Rudyard Kipling – https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/people/rare-painting-from-rudyard-kiplings-the-jungle-book-to-go-on-display-at-authors-sussex-home-4521135

French riot – https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-65099736

Firearms from 1920 surrender – https://british-police-history.uk/f/greater-manchester

Keir Starmer – https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cr47x99k5n6t

Belfast riot June 2026 – https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cr47x99k5n6t

For centuries there was no England, only rival kings, burning villages, and shifting borders.

Mercia fought Northumbria; Wessex fought Mercia; pagan raiders struck from the sea while Christian monks prayed for survival.

Yet a crisis within this fractured and violent world made a single kingdom emerge victorious, and with it, the first idea of England.

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. As I explained in my last newsletter, I have taken some time away from Substack to work out what to do after being made redundant. Despite that issue remaining unresolved, we are back and carrying on with where we left off.

Last History Wednesday article was a brief history of each of the seven kingdoms (Heptarchy) of England during the Anglo-Saxon period. And this week we are going to see how these went from seven divided kingdoms into one England.

The Heptarchy

It is worth reminding ourselves at the start that the Heptarchy was not a stable political unit. Although there were times when a Bretwalda overlorded all the other kingdoms, rivalries were deeply held and fiercely fought over.

The borders of each kingdom changed drastically over the centuries, and smaller kingdoms became puppet states of their neighbours, or were subsumed altogether.

If you were an Anglo-Saxon peasant living on one of those borders, life was tense. The threat of a horde of soldiers raiding into your village and killing your loved ones was an ever-present reality.

Although the Heptarchy had within it the seeds of England, it was not yet England, and the formation of such a country was not guaranteed.

Or was it? What do you think? Was it inevitable that the kingdoms of England would unite? Let me know below in the comments.

Leave a comment

Why unity was difficult

Initially, the kingdoms were divided among racial/cultural lines. Some kingdoms were Saxon, others were Angles or Jutes, and whilst after a few generations the importance of this diminished, kings still traced their authority and lineage back to those first invaders.

Furthermore, whilst paganism had mostly disappeared and the kingdoms were united by Christianity, there were still patches or outbursts of return to paganism and syncretism well into the eighth century. And in some places, these church systems, although united by Rome, operated independently of one another.

Finally, each kingdom had its own laws, traditions, and histories. It can be hard to imagine today as they all seem fairly similar to us, but many people (at least in nobility) were patriotic about their kingdoms and were willing to fight and die for them.

For a long time, Mercia was the dominant kingdom, and a kingdom like Wessex was very much in its shadow. In the north, Northumbria was undergoing something of a monastic golden age of learning and scholarship that set it apart from the others. Meanwhile a kingdom like Kent was continental facing, less troubled by the warring of its neighbours.

At this time, kingdoms looked after themselves and fought for dominance. Nobody was trying to create an ‘England’, they were just trying to come out on top. Other than amongst a few writers such as Bede, the idea that the Anglo-Saxons were/could be one people called ‘English’ was as yet unthought of.

The Nordic shift

So why did that change?

We will talk about this in more detail next newsletter, but the Viking raid on Lindisfarne changed everything.

On June 8^th 793 a small Viking raiding party from Scandinavia arrived on the island monastery of Lindisfarne, sacking it, killing its monks, and burning its buildings. This small attack on the heartland of northern Christianity represented something much bigger – the time of the Vikings had arrived.

Over the next century or so the Vikings began to make headway into England, particularly with the arrival of the Great Heathen army in 865. In time, the Vikings took vast parts of Northumbria, making the ancient city of Eboracum their capital and renaming it Jorvik (York).

They established the Danelaw, a Viking kingdom on English soil, under its own laws, rituals, and governance. In East Anglia, the river ways allowed them to penetrate deeply into the kingdom, and it’s capital of Thetford fell shortly after the Great Heathen army’s arrival.

A unifying enemy

It is well known in psychology and warfare that a potent enemy has the power to unite where there is division, and the Vikings certainly were a potent enemy.

With the threat in the north and the east growing by the day, and more Vikings arriving and settling on English soil, what remained of the diminished heptarchy had to put aside its difference and unite to face this foe. After centuries of dynastic fighting, there was now something bigger to fight for.

This is a very simplified version of what happened, and there were still many divisions and squabbles along the way, but the Viking threat did work to eventually unite the Christian Anglo-Saxon kingdoms against its pagan foe in war for God and the very existence of England.

But once again, even now, the vision of England was not a given. The Vikings could have been successful. Today, we could be speaking a variant of Scandinavian and have closer ties with the Nordic countries rather France and Germany – indeed, many places in the north of England still bear the names and town of the Danelaw.

What can men do against such reckless hate?

To use a quote from King Theoden in LOTR, fear at the Viking’s seemingly ‘reckless hate’ is truly how the Anglo-Saxons felt towards their new neighbours.

There was no shortage of brutality amongst the Anglo-Saxons, but the pagan ways, rumours of human sacrifice, and worship of war amongst the Vikings made them a terrifying force. Their belief in a warrior’s death earning them a place in Valhalla made them particularly ferocious warriors and fighting them must have been a horrifying experience.

But Wessex answered the call, and with it, one of the most important figures in English history.

As I say, we will break this down in more detail over the next few newsletters (this newsletter is just giving a broad overview to set the stage), but in Wessex the idea of England had begun to form.

And at the centre of that story stands one man – Alfred of Wessex.

Alfred had a big dream of an England united into one kingdom, stretching up to Scotland and to the sea in the east, that could push back the Vikings once and for all – and maybe even Christianise them in the process.

Although Alfred would not fully realise his dream, his son Athelstan would go on to be the first king of England.

Next week we will go back and break down some of these aspects in more detail starting with the Viking raid on Lindisfarne and what it meant to the people of Northumbria before moving onto the Great Heathen army, the Danelaw, and the dominance of Wessex.

As ever, if you have enjoyed this today, why not share it with someone you know is interested in history? You can do that here.

Share

Have a great week.

Tom

Image Credits:

Title Image – Vikings – https://archaeology.org/issues/march-april-2018/features/viking-great-army/

Anglo-Saxon reenactors – https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/gallery/anglo-saxon-warriors-launch-new-7955105

The sack of Lindisfarne – https://larryvienneauprints.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-raven-and-viking-raid-on-lindisfarne.html

The Danelaw – https://schoolhistory.co.uk/ancient-world/the-danelaw/

Theoden – https://screenrant.com/lord-of-the-rings-what-your-favorite-character-says-about-you/

Alfred the Great – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_Alfred_the_Great

As you may have noticed, it has been a few weeks since I have consistently posted and I felt that a message to explain why would be important.

Although I have still released a few pieces, my work has been a little spotty since just before Easter. This is not because The Case For More is closing or stopping, but instead some other factors outside of control such as illness and job loss.

Sadly, like many other great British institutions of late, the very ancient school I currently work at is closing, and as such I am now on an employment hunt. This school was first founded on this site in 631AD, likely under the instruction of King Sigebert of East Anglia, and was also once the school of Thomas Paine, but it is closing for good.

For the moment, I will avoid the politics, and of course, I have my own personal feelings and concerns, but it is another reminder of the slow erosion and collapse of many ancient and prestigious of British institutions.

With this is mind, a couple of things:

Firstly, my articles may remain spotty for a couple more weeks as I look for jobs and try to get things in order as this job loss will likely also accompany the need to move house. So I would ask for your patience whilst I do this.

Secondly, The Case For More will however continue, and my hope is to grow it. My dream in starting this was that one day it would grow from a Substack into courses, curriculums, and a voice in British affairs, and that remains my intention. I know that this will not happen over night, nor in time to replace my job, but these efforts will pick up with fervour.

Finally, I am aware I likely have a lot of supporters on here who have roles within history, theology, and media organisations. And so rather shamelessly, I would ask that if you know of any jobs that may be suitable, it would be wonderful if you could let me know so I can look into them. I have a range of skills, experience, and education, and so would be happy to discuss this further over messages or email.

This issue has not just impacted me, but my wife and child too as it is a time of uncertainty. Nevertheless, I will continue to grow The Case For More, and so your support, more than ever, is invaluable.

Thank you for your time and continued support,

Tom

Imagine a land with no England. No single king. No united people.

Instead, seven rival kingdoms – each with its own ruler, its own ambitions, and its own claim to power.

No, it’s not Game of Thrones, this was Britain in the centuries after the Anglo-Saxon arrival: not a nation, but a battleground. And yet, from this chaos, England would emerge.

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. Last time, we imagined a Britain where the Anglo-Saxons never came. This week, we return to reality – a far more violent story – because the Anglo-Saxons did come. And what they built was not one kingdom, but many.

The Heptarchy of England

I have mentioned ‘heptarchy’ several times in recent articles. So, before we explore the kingdoms, let’s examine this word and whether it’s accurate.

Heptarchy means ‘rule of seven’. Prior to the unification efforts by Alfred and Æthelstan (which we will get to), England was seven separate kingdoms, normally vying for land and power from the others.

Well, sort of. The reality is a lot more fluid, and much messier.

There were actually more than seven kingdoms, and this also discounts Cornwall which was still Brittonic and closely aligned with the Welsh Kingdoms. Also, at least early on, there were other smaller kingdoms too such as Hwicce and Middle-Anglia. However, since these were often puppet kingdoms, and eventually subsumed into the larger seven kingdoms, we tend to overlook these – but they do have interesting histories of their own.

Finally, I am saying that these kingdoms were not unified, but this isn’t entirely true either. There was a semi-official position known as Bretwalda – king above kings.

The Bretwalda was normally the king of the most powerful and influential kingdom at the time, and often held considerable sway over other kingdoms. One such example we have already seen is Æthelberht of Kent, who was Bretwalda at the time of the Augustinian mission, and as such had sway over the kingdom of Essex allowing for Mellitus to preach there.

However, as I say, for our purposes today we are going to stick to the seven major kingdoms. So let’s begin as the Anglo-Saxon raiding parties did, with Kent.

Kingdom of Kent – the gateway to Europe

Kent was not a particularly large kingdom, but it was a powerful kingdom early on, with good trade connections to the continent due to its proximity.

It was initially founded by the Jutes when, as Gildas tells us, Hengist and Horsa arrived there with three boats of warriors. By the Augustinian mission in 597, it had become a well-functioning kingdom and was the first in England to convert to Christianity.

Although it was eventually absorbed, Kent, and particularly its capital at Canterbury, retained an importance in England as the seat of Christianity and the home of the primate of England – the Archbishop of Canterbury. But if Kent was the gateway, Wessex was the citadel.

Kingdom of Wessex – the would-be England

Wessex was a major player in early English history, eventually becoming the preeminent kingdom under Alfred the Great, and the unifier of the heptarchy.

As the name implies, Wessex was founded by Saxons, and tradition holds that it too was founded by two invaders – called Cerdic and Cynric. These warriors travelled up the Southampton estuary with five boats and defeated the Britons in 495. Alfred himself claimed direct descent from these rulers.

As for its conversion to Christianity, although Liudhard and Augustine in Kent may have played a role, its conversion is typically attributed to Birinus in 630s. Birinus was sent by Pope Honorius II to Wessex, and eventually baptised King Cynegils leading to the conversion of his kingdom.

There were some relapses into paganism such as under King Cædwalla, but even he seems to have eventually converted as Bede records him as having abdicated to go on pilgrimage to Rome after becoming Christian thanks to Bishop Wilfrid in the late 600s.

Kingdom of Sussex – the tiny one

Sussex, like Wessex, was a kingdom of Saxons – south Saxons in this case. Tradition claims that the Britons of the area were defeated by the Saxon King Ælla and three boats of warriors in 477, and subsequent kings of Sussex would claim descent from him.

As the smallest kingdom of the Heptarchy, Sussex was vulnerable, and became a sub-kingdom of Wessex after the defeat of Æthelwealh in 688. Overtime it changed hands between Mercia and Wessex until its complete absorption into the latter by King Egbert in 825.

Wilfrid is often given credit for the converion of Sussex c.680, and the founding of the See of Selsey there. However, given their proximity to other Christian kingdoms, there is some debate over the extent of Wilfrid’s influence.

Kingdom of Essex – the almost forgotten

Essex was another Saxon kingdom, but little has been written about it as it was a puppet state for most of its history. London, its captial, whilst important, was not the major city it is today (Winchester, Canterbury, and York were more prominent), but it did hold strategic and religious importance.

It was eventually subsumed into Mercia in the mid-700s, and from there, into Wessex in 829. As such, it remains a somewhat overlooked kingdom.

We do, however, know how it was converted, and have discussed this before. Due to Æthelberht’s sway over Essex, Augustine and Gregory were able to send Mellitus to convert the kingdom, which he did, becoming the first Bishop of London. Like much of England, there had been Christianity in the area prior to the Anglo-Saxon arrival – in this case amongst the Brittonic Trinovantes and the Romans at Colchester – but (re)conversion as needed in the time of the Anglo-Saxons.

If you had lived in this period, which kingdom would you have chosen to belong to, and why? Let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

Kingdom of East Anglia – pagan or Christian?

Although East Anglia today is sometimes seen as a farming backwater or holiday destination, it was once a very powerful kingdom of the Angles. Sadly, our knowledge of its history is limited as its records were destroyed by Viking raids in the ninth-century.

Roger of Wendover tells us that the kingdom was likely established under King Wuffa in 571. However, whether Wuffa came from the Germanic Angles who had arrived in the fifth century, or his family were part of the Swedish monarchy who (according to Beowulf) fled Scandinavia in sixth-century, is unknown. Whatever the case, it is from Wuffa that the East Anglian kings claimed their kingship, and they became known as Wuffingas.

Perhaps the most famous aspect of East Anglia is the amazing burials at Sutton Hoo, where the main mound is thought to be for King Rædwald, who had overthrown Kentish influence and become Bretwalda at Æthelberht’s death in 616.

Like many in Anglo-Saxon England, Rædwald’s Christianity fluctuated over his life, as it did for his kingdom. Although he was likely baptized at Æthelberht’s behest by Augustine in c.604, he reverted to paganism and, if the burial mound at Sutton Hoo is his, died pagan (judging by the burial objects found).

However, Christianity returned to East Anglia through his sons and eventually Sigbert, who allowed St Felix to establish a See at Dunwich in the early to mid-600s. Sigbert eventually renounced his throne to live a monastic life, to his cousin Anna, father of St Ætheldreda of Ely to whom we shall return in time.

Kingdom of Mercia – the brutal powerhouse

Mercia was one of the most powerful kingdoms of the Heptarchy, and its name derives from merce or ‘people of the boundaries’ (due to its border with Wales and Northumbria), but it was a kingdom of Angles. Despite its power, it was taken over by Wessex in 829, likely due to being weakened by Viking attacks.

Little is known about the origins of the kingdom, and its king lists don’t seem to give a clear founder. Given this confusion, many king lists begin with King Penda (c.633-55) who expanded Mercia and may have been Bretwalda at the time.

We do know, however, that Mercia was converted under Penda’s son Wulfhere (658-75) who had become Christian. His faith opened the door for missionaries to enter the kingdom, and the eventual founding of the See at Lichfield. St Chad may have also played a substantial role in the conversion of Mercia, and is credited by the likes of Bede. Wulfhere’s brother, who ascended the throne, allowed the construction of many monasteries before his own abdication to become a monk in the late 600s.

Worthy of brief mention here also is King Offa, who would construct Offa’s dyke, acting as a defensive border between Wales and England for centuries to come. But further north, a different story was unfolding.

Kingdom of Northumbria – the home of Lindisfarne

Northumbria is named for being ‘North of the Humber River’, and it is unique in that it was not initially Anglo-Saxon, but Brittonic. It had a turbulent history as it was originally two kingdoms, Bernicia and Deira (both named after Brittonic tribes). Despite the Brittonic tribes being overthrown by the Angles, it retained a Brittonic heritage not found in other kingdoms. This may explain some modern North/South differences in England, and played a role in how it was converted.

Ælla was Deira’s first notable king, but it is likely he inherited his throne from his father Yffa, and grandfather Wuscfrea. Ælla became king around the time of the Augustinian mission. Bernicia’s first king, on the other hand, was Ida, but his grandfather, Oessa, may have been the one to establish the kingdom.

Unification occurred under King Æthelfrith of Bernicia (592-616), who took Deira and banished Ælla’s son Edwin, who sought refuge in Rædwald’s East Anglia. It is likely there that, after Rædwald’s death, he converted to Christianity. He eventually retook Northumbria, but it re-divided again after his death at the Battle of Hatfield Chase against Cadwallon of Gwynedd and Penda of Mercia. This also led to Bernicia and Deira’s return to paganism.

Christianity returned to Northumbria when the Christian King Oswald returned from exile in Dalriada, requesting that the Celtic Christians on Iona send him a bishop. St Aiden was sent, and he established the important monastery of Lindisfarne from whence Northumbria was converted. However, the conversion of the north by Celtic missionaries, and of the south by Latin missionaries, would lead to problems between the two Churches. In particular with the Latin missionary Paulinus’ arrival in the Northumbria c.625 who became the first Bishop of York.

True Northumbrian unification didn’t come until after Oswald however, possibly in the time of Bede, and it may have even been Bede who first came up with the designation ‘Northumbria’ for this new kingdom.

What do you think? Which kingdom seems the most powerful to you?

Leave a comment

What does this mean for us?

Whilst this can seem detailed and complicated, it points to one salient point – the origin of England was not straightforward.

The England we know today was not inevitable, it was fought over and bloody in its founding.

We haven’t even got to the Vikings or Alfred yet, but the history of the Heptarchy is an important time in English history that should not be overlooked if we want to discover the story of who we are, and what ‘England’ really means.

Do you think England was destined to unite – or could these kingdoms have remained divided forever? Let me know down below.

Leave a comment

Next week we will look in more detail at why this Heptarchy matters. Because from this fractured, violent world, one kingdom would rise – and begin the long, unlikely process of becoming England.

Have a great week.

Tom

If this article has helped you understand English history better, even a little, share it with someone who you is interested in history! It would really help this Substack each more people.

Image Credits:

Title Image – Heptarchy Map – https://www.wellandantiquemaps.co.uk/product/englalond-anglia-anglosaxonum-heptarchia-by-william-hole-1607-1610/

We tend to think civilisation is built by power – kings, armies, or governments. But England was not built that way.

It was built in silence and prayer – by men who never fought a battle, never wore a crown, and never sought power at all.

These are the monks that shaped England, and today we recover their story.

If you’re interested in the hidden forces that shaped Britain—not just kings and battles, but ideas, institutions, and faith—consider subscribing below.

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. Last week we saw how Bede was foundational to the idea that would become England. Before Alfred or Athelstan envisioned a unified England, Bede had coined ‘English’, as the new term for the ‘people of Angle Land’. Today, we are going to look at a broader expanse of time as we consider how vital monasteries were to the building of England – its learning, laws, and culture.

Spiritual or temporal power?

Because history is often written by the victors, we can be fooled into thinking that the course of history is dictated by monarchs, aristocrats, battles, and political forces. But this isn’t entirely the case – not even half of it.

Whilst monarchs, battles, and politics play an important role (as we will see next week) their influence on culture is often minimal compared to that of other forces such as religion. A king may conquer a land by himself, but he cannot be the sole arbiter of its culture and traditions.

Culture is built where education, religion, and community meet, not by power alone. So, if you want to understand a civilisation, you don’t start with its kings, but with its institutions.

Enter England’s monasteries

It is hard to overstate how important monasteries were to the founding of England.

In a time when most people no longer see monks or nuns in their communities, nor have never met those living in religious life, imagining a time when monastic houses were the heart and cultural centre of a town is difficult.

Whilst monasteries were primarily places of spiritual devotion, where people chose a celibate life of devotion to God, they were so much more.

For starters, monastic houses were often attached to the main (or one of the main) churches or cathedrals in a town/city. People would hear the monks daily as they sang the litany of the hours, prayers, and mass. Also, whilst there were many closed religious houses, plenty more were involved in their communities and had local public masses in their chapels.

Learning, charity, medicine, and order

Many of the world’s oldest schools and universities, particularly in Britain, were once monasteries. Winchester, Thetford, York, Canterbury, Oxford and Cambridge universities; all of these institutions, which are some of the oldest in the world, can trace their origins back to monasteries. These places, and countless more, became the intellectual powerhouses of our nation that would go on to produce some of the greatest minds in human history.

How? Why?

Well monks were the photocopiers of their day, and as such, were able to read and write, making them among the most learned people in the land.

In the scriptoriums, monks would copy out texts (religious and secular) by hand so that they were preserved. Many monasteries, such as York, or Bede’s at Wearmouth-Jarrow, became home to massive libraries, and along with them, a lot of literate monks with time to read and learn.

Monks became the teachers of their day, with many wealthy families having their boys educated in monastic houses. At a time when few people could read, let alone compose new works, monasteries stood out as places of profound thinking and learning.

Because of their devotion abilities, monks also often became responsible for record keeping – writing up laws, contracts, and histories. They preserved classical works from the Greco-Roman world and advised kings, often writing down their actions and words for posterity in the process.

However, we shouldn’t think of monasteries as merely a sort of church school, they were the centre of civilisation. They not only recorded and preserved its foundations, they were also responsible for progress in law, recording current events, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge – all whilst living spiritual, and often austere lives.

But the place of monasteries in shaping England does not stop there.

Monasteries were also centres of charity. This came in multiple forms, but the most obvious were provisions for the poor, sick, and pilgrims.

The first hospitals in England were within monastery walls. Monastery hospitals often had sick bays, their own cloisters, and their own chapel. These early hospitals not only provided medical care for the monks, but for the local community too, making them vital to people in the surrounding areas.

What is more, these hospitals, although literally medieval by our standards today, were on the cutting edge of medical science at the time. They tested new medical theories, treatments, and cures. And although many of these seem bizarre by today’s standards, they paved the way for modern medicine, biology, and anatomy. St Bartholomew’s in London, for example, is one such institution that can traces its origins as a hospital back to 1123.

But where there is influence, there is always the opportunity for power and corruption.

If this has changed how you see history – even slightly – tap the like button. It helps more people see that civilisation isn’t built the way we’re often told.

The royal connection

We would be naïve to think that, although many monasteries were austere, spiritual, charitable, and communal places, there weren’t also more corrupt forms of behaviour that influenced the building of England.

Many monastic houses were run by minor royals or second-children of noble families. With monasteries came tremendous amounts of land, and with that, power, so it was a desirable place for a noble child with no chance of inheriting lands.

Whilst not always used for evil, monks, priests, and especially bishops, could hold tremendous sway over political powers by family ties, the strength of their character and authority, or simply the sheer amount of land they held. This naturally led to plenty of examples of corruption and nepotism.

But spiritual authority could be used positively however; to give voice to the poor, prevent war, and encourage justice.

The influence of monks on law can be seen perhaps most clearly in England where, with the likes of Magna Carta, we can see Christian influences and principles shining through in some of the most advanced and just legal documents of their respective ages. None of this is to pretend monasteries were perfect – they weren’t – but even in their failures, they built far more than they destroyed.

This raises an interesting question:

Do you think institutions like this tend to elevate society – or inevitably become corrupted over time?

I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

The Christian elements

Unfortunately, there are many historians today who chose to view these monastic ventures through the lens of materialism. They may arrive at the conclusion that monastic houses were primarily about power and land.

Others may take a more secular humanist approach and appreciate that monastic houses were centres of charity and learning, but think that this was solely out a love of humanity, rather than anything spiritual.

However, to ignore that Christianity genuinely played the primary role in the monastic influence on the founding of England, is to ignore one of the keys to unlocking what made England – and for that matter much of Western Europe – so successful. It is no mistake that where we see the arrival of medieval style monasteries, we see a wellspring of learning, knowledge, science, and justice – if only initially in seedling form.

Monasteries modelled, often imperfectly, the life that the community should have been striving for. They modelled and held the wisdom, traditions, and learning of centuries within their walls, and shared it with those outside.

In time, these monasteries became the schools, universities, hospitals, and centres of law that we in modern England take for granted.

If you’re enjoying this series on Britain’s Christian inheritance, make sure you’re subscribed – next week we’ll look at how kings interacted with these institutions, and the results weren’t always what you might expect

Subscribe now

Monasteries today

Sadly, there are very few monasteries in England today compared to the hundreds of the high middle-ages. Many have never met or seen a monk, let alone spent any significant time with one.

Additionally, the connection to monastic houses has been lost by such a rapid population boom.

A century ago, pretty much all hospitals, schools, and universities were in some way connected to, or birthed out of monasteries or churches. But today, most aren’t. This isn’t because they don’t exist, it’s simply the practicalities of rapidly needing to expand social services to meet the requirements of a larger population at a time when secular authorities provide the welfare state once run by the Church. Sadly, that means that many people are disconnected from the history that would otherwise surround them.

I have had the privilege of attend one of the world’s oldest universities, and teaching in two of the world’s oldest schools, and there is a feeling that you are stepping into something ancient and hallowed that you just don’t get from modern institutions. Those places have a connection to centuries of tradition, and you can sometimes feel it in the grounds, buildings, culture, and ethos of those places. They give their stakeholders an opportunity to buy into something so much grander and older than themselves.

But if you are in a modern concrete ex-polytechnic, or new comprehensive built in 2015 to meet expansion requirements, you do not get that same opportunity to buy into the lasting legacy of those monasteries – particularly when many ex-monastic schools are fee-paying, and not everyone goes to university (let alone an old one).

We have detached ourselves from what was once the fertile ground that grew the intellectual, moral, and cultural flower of England – and in the process, we are changed.

We live in a civilisation that was once shaped by monasteries, even if we no longer recognise that.

If we wish to reclaim the England that seems to be slipping away, re-acquainting ourselves with the importance of monasteries and with its thinkers, is a good step along that road.

When we forget or overlook something as foundational to our culture as its monasteries, I fear that we are forgetting what makes us who we are.

Monks did not rule this land, but without them, there would be no England.

What do you think?

Can a civilisation survive once it forgets the institutions that built it – or does something essential begin to unravel?

Let me know in the comments – I’ll reply to every response.

Leave a comment

I look forward to hearing from you, and I hope you have a wonderful weekend.

Tom

If this helped you see England differently, share it with someone who cares about history, culture, or where our society is heading.

Share

Image Credits:

Title Image – Abbey – https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/travel-guides/top-abbeys/

Medieval battle – https://www.thecollector.com/greatest-medieval-battles-sieges/

Medieval Westminster Abbey – https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/588142032573269025/

Lindisfarne Gospels – https://www.worldhistory.org/image/8044/lindisfarne-gospels/

Bishop – https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/424605071121115946/

Benedictine monks – https://www.benedictines.org.uk/our_houses_douai_abbey/

Before a nation can exist, it has to know its own story. It has to understand where it came from, who it is, and what binds its people together. In early Anglo-Saxon England, that story did not exist – at least, not in any unified form.

That changed in the early eighth century, when a Northumbrian monk set out to gather the story of a people.

His name was Bede. And in telling the story of the English, he helped create the idea of England itself.

If you’re interested in how Britain’s story was formed – not just what happened, but how it was understood – consider subscribing below. Each week at The Case For More we recover the ideas that shaped these islands.

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. After a hiatus last week due to illness and the need for a break, we are back in earnest with a topic very close to my heart. St Bede is important to me for a number of reasons, including being the subject of my master’s thesis. But he is primarily important to me for the same reason he is of unique importance to our discussions about Britain. As a founding architect of England, Bede holds a special place in the story of our nation – of its people, religion, and memory.

Who was Bede?

The Venerable St Bede (c.672-735AD) was a Northumbrian monk who had the unique privilege of growing up in a monastery with one of the largest libraries in Britain. This fuelled his love of knowledge and learning, and so it is of little surprise that he went on to become a teacher, scholar, theologian, and historian. Those who knew him spoke highly of him, as a kind, gentle, and learned man who was both an intellectual and spiritual powerhouse, and I think that comes through in his writings.

Bede wrote many works, including biblical commentaries, scientific documents on time, and pastoral works. But the work he is best known for, and the one we will be discussing today, is his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, or ‘Historia’, written around 731AD.

The Historia tells the history of Britain, particularly England, from the time of Julius Caesar’s arrival in c.55BC to Bede’s own day. In tracking a span of nearly eight-hundred years, Bede chose to focus both on the fluctuations of history and the place of Christianity in the founding of England.

Bede collected many stories and documents through primary and secondary means to build his Historia, and once completed, it remained the most complete and impressive history of England for centuries. It truly is a masterful work of history, and whilst one may question the miraculous elements and hagiographies (saint’s lives) contained in the work, a lot of what he wrote has formed the foundations of Early English studies to this day.

First, a little more context

We will be discussing this more in our History Wednesday newsletters, but in Bede’s day there still was not an ‘England’ in any unified sense.

The Anglo-Saxons had come and established rule, but this was a Heptarchy of kingdoms that rose and fell in prominence. A unified ‘England’ would not be possible until the time of Alfred the Great and Athelstan, and so Bede is somewhat prophetic in his desire for a unified English people.

What is more, the idea of ‘England’ didn’t really exist. Although the divisions between Angle, Saxon, Jute, and Frisian had faded through inter-marriage, Bede was the first to coin the term ‘gens anglorum’ or ‘English’, for this new group, and to refer to this land as ‘England’ – land of the Angles. Although many kings wished to rule over the whole landmass of the Heptarchy, Bede was seemingly the first to see this possibility as ‘England’.

The English Church of Bede’s day was quite divided too, and part of Historia’s aims was to address these divisions. Whilst the south and midlands had been converted by Roman missionaries following in St Augustine’s steps, Northern England had been converted by missionaries from Iona who had received their Celtic strain of Christianity from Ireland. This Christianity had been mostly cut off from Rome for a couple of centuries as the Anglo-Saxon takeover of England had interrupted links. In 664AD the Synod of Whitby had been called to address these divisions, but with mixed success.

Bede’s England

So what was the point of Bede’s work? Why go to all the effort of writing such a comprehensive history?

Bede’s intention in writing Historia was not just to produce a history, but to do theology.

Bede was looking forward as well as backwards as he unified the story of England to create a narrative that could bind and unite its kingdoms into one new people – English.

But history and story alone were not enough to unite them, Bede also recognised, from its very conception, that the story of England needed to be rooted firmly in its Christian faith. This is why Historia pays so much attention to the stories of the great saints that walked these lands and converted its peoples, saints such as Augustine, Mellitus, Cuthbert, and Ætheldreda.

These were not just mystical miracle workers to Bede, they were a sign that the founding of England and the uniting of its people was only possible with the hand of God and the spread of His message.

What Bede did, primarily, was not just about myth and memory, but he was literally writing a new nation into existence, bound by the ties of Christianity and history. For Bede, you could not have one without the other. England’s history and its Christianity were inseparable, and even more so, you could not have England without its Christianity.

If you’ve found this interesting so far, tapping share helps others discover it.

Share

Why Bede still matters today

Today we are asking questions about what is means to be British, or English. And whilst there is an ethnic element to Bede’s narrative that could be negatively exploited, his work is more relevant than ever.

Whilst doing my masters I found something interesting – the younger a person was, the less likely they were to already know who Bede was. When people asked me about my masters, older folk would know the name Bede and a bit about him, whilst people my own age and younger were clueless.

That should worry us.

If the only people who have a memory of who Bede was are the elderly, and the young are not taught about him, it is little wonder we are so lost about our identity. If we do not learn about one of our nation’s most influential founders, we cannot be surprised when we are increasingly less clear about who we are.

Whether his absence is intentional or accidental, I do not know, but the fact Bede’s Historia ties ours nation’s story quite so heavily to Christianity is perhaps something that is seen today as culturally insensitive. However, it really matters, now perhaps more than ever, to remember that England was founded on Christianity.

Not on ‘British values’, buzzwords like ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’, or even on vague ‘Christian principles’, England was born predominantly out of its faith and its Church. This may be uncomfortable for many, but I think we can reverse engineer the idea to show the truth of it.

It is difficult to ignore the parallel decline in both Christianity and historical memory. As figures like Bede disappear from education, so too does clarity about who we are. In turn, this has now led to a time when people are looking at our country, and particularly its laws, and asking what happened? Where has the England we thought we knew gone?

The England we recognise is deeply Christian, but this new unrecognisable form is precisely that – unrecognisable – because it is lacking the very thing that makes it what it is. We see new political decisions such as free speech infringements and scrapping of jury trials, and it becomes harder to say that this is still England in any meaningful sense.

But why?

Well because it turns out it was Christianity all along that undergirded our basic rights, freedoms, culture, and national identity.

Strip it away, forget Bede, forget his historical narrative centred on Christianity, and it’s not clear to me that you still have England.

Do you think a nation can survive without a shared story? Or does identity depend on remembering where we come from? I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

What happens next?

Well one option is that we continue on our current course and find out.

Perhaps we continue as we are – increasingly uncertain of who we are, and therefore unsure of what we are building.

Or perhaps, Bede’s history can be re-embraced.

I am seeing increasing numbers of public commentators, particularly on the right or centre, who have realised precisely what I have outlined. That our history, as Bede wrote, is connected to our religion. Many of these in turn, whether earnestly or not, have begun to speak about a need for Christianity in understanding ourselves as a nation.

This does not mean mass or forced conversions – that isn’t what Christianity is about. But it does mean a remembering and re-integration of Christianity into our social, political, and particularly educational structures.

In short, if we want to remember what it means to be English, educating people on Bede’s Historia is not a bad place to start. Because if we continue to forget him and his message, as we have done over the last few decades, it’s not clear that we will even have an England anymore.

And that is what The Case For More is trying to do. Not to convert or proselytise, but to remember. To recover the story that made England in the hope that we might yet renew it.

Next week we will continue with our monastic theme as we discuss the founding of England’s monasteries, and why this monumental effort by our ancestors still matters today.

Until then, have a blessed Easter weekend.

Tom

If you found this piece interesting, feel free to share it with someone interested in British history or identity.

Image Credits:

Title Image – Bede Painting – https://fineartamerica.com/featured/saint-bede-marchela-dimitrova.html

Medieval painting of Bede – http://www.thomryng.com/amateurmonk/the-venerable-bede-2/saint-bede-the-venerable/

Heptarchy map – https://www.euratlas.net/bar/britain_700.html

UK Courts – https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/leaving-the-european-convention-on-human-rights/

Education - https://www.history.org.uk/higher-ed/resource/10557/school-history-faqs

Imagine landing in Britain in the year 800. You hear no English spoken. Instead, the language sounds closer to Welsh or Breton. The towns still bear traces of Rome, and the kings trace their lineage not to Hengist or Horsa, but to the old Romano-British elite.

There is no ‘England’ – no land of the Angles. Only Britain.

No English language. No English people.

This is not fantasy for its own sake, but a serious historical question – what if the Anglo-Saxons had never come?

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. It’s been two weeks since our last newsletter as I decided a well-earned break was needed before Easter to refresh and realign.

In our last article we discussed whether the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain really was a genocide, replacement, or an integration. We saw that whilst the fate of many Romano-Britons was fleeing to Celtic lands, or being killed, new genetic evidence suggests that over time there was inter-marriage and integration, resulting in the birth of a new people – what Bede would come to call ‘English’.

This week we are asking a more speculative question, which is – what if the Anglo-Saxons had never arrived in the first place? What would England look like today? Would it even be England?

The possibility

The question is worth asking because it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Anglo-Saxons may not have arrived. Or, arrived in negligible numbers or with negligible cultural impact.

We know that prior to their invasion, there were small settlements of Anglo-Saxons on British soil, and trading links between the two worlds. Perhaps things could have stayed at this level?

What we have seen in our previous discussions is that the shift caused by the Anglo-Saxons was radical – a complete change of language, religion, and culture. But it didn’t have to be this way. Another option is that the Anglo-Saxons could have been repelled altogether.

Gildas tells us that the Anglo-Saxons came to England on the invitation of the tyrant King Vortigern to help defend against the Scotti from Ireland and the Picts from Scotland who were raiding into Britain, but what if this had never happened?

What if, like in the legend of Arthur, there had been many defenders of Britain such that the Anglo-Saxons, Scotti, and Picts were all repelled. A Britain that created a strong and fearsome standing army to defend its lands from pirates, with or without Roman aid.

History did not go this way, but it is possible that it could have. Which begs an important question – had this all come to pass differently, and Britain remained in its post-Roman state, what might it look like today?

First, to the geography and land

It is firstly important to remember what Britain looked like in the fifth century before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons.

Wales had been subdued by the Romans, but life there continued, particularly after the Roman withdrawal, in the Celtic ways it had for centuries. Whilst there were new forts and roads, life in Wales continued to look Brittonic.

The same is true for much of what is today, England. Whilst it had Romanised cities and roads, the countryside was still very Brittonic. What we have across the area of modern Wales and England then is one continuous culture that had centres of Romanisation, but was predominantly still Celto-Brittonic (with some tribal differences).

Many of these people had been Christianised, but Celtic religions still flourished in the groves, valleys, mountains, and forests of the countryside. However, it is likely that in time, just as with Ireland, all of these people would have been Christianised.

Cornwall remained somewhat isolated. It had held out against Roman invasion and remained an independent Celto-Brittonic state, but had good trading links with the Roman Empire on the Continent.

In Ireland and Scotland, there were a series of Scotti and Pictish kingdoms, about which we know very little, but a dominant force was the kingdom of Dal Raida which covered Northern Ireland and Southwestern Scotland into the North of England.

So, in many respects, if one fuses England and Wales into one country, the borderlines of the British Isles did not look too dissimilar to that of today. Had the Anglo-Saxons never come, we may have seen a united country across England, Wales, and Cornwall, a separate Pictish Scotland, and a Scotti Ireland (assuming the Irish didn’t settle Scotland and push the Picts back).

But no England

It is important to note that, whilst I am using the term ‘England’, this is only to discuss the land area. Without the Anglo-Saxon arrival, there is no ‘England’. Instead, there is Britain, a Celtic land covering England, Wales, and Cornwall – from The Channel to Hadrian’s Wall, The Irish Sea to East Anglia (although not called that!).

Or, perhaps over time the Romano-Britons would have descended back into tribal feuds, and instead of a unified Briton, we would have a number of smaller tribal kingdoms.

Whatever the case, this would not have been England, so what would it have been?

We speak no English

Obviously, without England, there is no ‘English’ – both the people and the language.

English is heavily influenced by both Anglo-Saxon and French – with some Nordic Viking words such as place names. Most of our language is therefore Germanic, and the Latin influences we do get are not from the Romans, but the Normans.

Therefore English, may have instead remained as a Celtic language, a Brittonic language. This Brittonic language would have likely looked very similar to Welsh, Breton or Cornish, as these are example of how the Brittonic language was preserved up to today. There may have been Latin influence on this language, directly from the Roman-age, but it would have likely remained predominantly Celtic.

Perhaps we would have found it easier, if not seamless, to communicate with Welsh, Cornish, Breton, and even Gaelic speakers.

Even the word “England” would not exist. London itself might bear a name closer to its Roman or Brittonic origins, as may many other places such as those with ‘-ham’ or ‘-ton’ in their names.

Would you prefer if we spoke a Celtic language? Welsh has always sounded very cool to me, and I love seeing the Welsh language. But the spread of English as a globally dominant language does make travel and communication easier. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Leave a comment

Cultural identity

Of course, another big change would be our culture.

We have far less than we might expect of our Celtic and Roman heritage in everyday English life. English culture almost entirely finds its roots in Anglo-Saxon and Norman culture. But had the Anglo-Saxons never arrived, and particularly if Christianity had not taken root, perhaps our life would look more akin to that of the Celts.

Or, perhaps our legal systems would have remained Roman, our cities thrived in a Roman style economic and social environment, and something more akin to the Italian states would have arisen here.

Our myths and legends, which the Anglo-Saxons brought with them but were largely diminished by the Normans, may have been tales of ancient Celtic heroes. Legends of groves, caves, and druids.

The ethnicity of England too, a culmination of Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and Celtic, would have been different. With the dominant ethnicity likely being more similar to the Welsh and Irish than the Germans and French.

Do you think language shapes identity – or does identity shape language? Let me know what you think.

Leave a comment

Christianity and the English Church

As I have already mentioned, it is likely that without the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, Christianity would have eventually diffused itself into every corner of Britain, as it did in Ireland. What might this have looked like?

Well, there probably would have been no need for an Augustine type figure. Thanks to the Romans, the British Church, prior to the Anglo-Saxons, was linked with the Church Catholic on the continent, and likely would have continued to be so.

Instead of the need for a renewal, or the later disputes between the Celtic and Latin Churches, there would have been one seamless Church across Britain that was connected to Rome by its bishops.

Or, perhaps a disconnect between the British Isles and the continent would have happened anyway, and we would have a Celtic Christianity such as the type that flourished in Ireland and Scotland in the early days of Anglo-Saxon England.

The Vikings and the Normans

As already mentioned, the Normans particularly go on to play a big role in England’s development, but so did the Vikings. With the arrival of both of them, England drastically changed from Anglo-Saxon dominance to a differing culture and language.

However, how would the Britons, had the Anglo-Saxons never arrived, fared against these opponents?

Would a more unified Celtic Britain have been able to repel these invasions? Or would fractured tribal conflicts have meant a more absolute erasure?

The future could have looked different

Of course, we can never know the definite answers to these questions, but speculation is important because it tells us something about how things are now.

England didn’t have to be this way, or even form in the first place.

England arose out of invasion and conquest, not a continuous and homogenous Celtic origin.

The language, culture, timeline, and ethnicity of this island were completely changed by the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. England today, for better or worse, is a product of this shift, and we cannot ignore that when we look at what comes next.

If a country is its history, language, and stories, then ours took a drastic turn in the fifth century, going on to become the nation we know today. Without the Anglo-Saxon influence, perhaps we never would have explored and ventured beyond our islands. Perhaps empire, the spread of our language, our ideas, and our inventions never would have happened. In this regard, a non-English England does not just have implications at home, but it radically changes the whole world as we know it today.

And that is worth considering because it reminds us that the world we inhabit was not inevitable, but chosen, shaped, and fought into existence.

If you’ve enjoyed this exploration into the Britain that never was, make sure you’re subscribed – next week we return to what actually happened, as the story of early England continues and we look in more detail at the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and address the heptarchy that would one day become England.

Share

A question for the comments.

If the Anglo-Saxons had never come, would Britain be more unified today – or less? What do you think we would have gained… and what would we have lost? Let me know in the comments below.

Leave a comment

Have a great week and a happy Easter!

Tom

Image Credits:

Title Image – Wales sign – https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/videos/matthew-wales

Anglo-Saxon warriors – https://www.hampshireattractions.co.uk/anglo-saxons-do-battle-at-ancient-farm/

500AD Map – Craig, Karl. 2007. Britannia AD 570. The History Jar: Tim Clarkson.

Celtic Language tree – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages

Celtic Cross – https://www.christianity.com/wiki/history/what-is-celtic-christianity.html

Celtic nations flag – https://flagsireland.com/en-gb/products/celtic-nations-flag

We often think of religious conversion as something deeply personal – a matter of belief, conscience, and faith.

But in early England, conversion was never just personal.

The conversion of a king changed his kingdom, his laws, and the future of his people – not just his soul.

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. Last week we discussed the arrival of Augustine of Canterbury, and the importance of his mission, sent by Pope Gregory, in converting England and bring its church under the authority of the Church in Rome. We also mentioned how Christianity brought with it ties to the continent, as well as political change and this is what we are going to be discussing today.

Next week’s letter will be for paid subscribers, where we will go deeper into the primary sources – the letters, law codes, and writings that shaped early England.

If you want to move beyond the surface and really understand this period, you can upgrade below.

Conversion in the 21^st century

Today when we think of religious conversion, we often think of something deeply personal and private.

In the West we treat religion as something to be kept to oneself. Consciously or not, we take a secular view of keeping religion out of the public sphere, and particularly politics, as much as possible. Except in cases of extreme moral issue, such as current political debates about euthanasia and abortion up to birth, we like our politicians and commentators to be silent on religion.

This was perhaps most obviously true in the case of Tim Farron where he was hounded out of office by the media for his own, religiously based views on same-sex marriage. In his 2017 resignation speech, he decried the media for making his role as leader of the Liberal Democrats untenable, and said he was saddened by how his Christian faith had been treated.

This is perhaps why, in the 2026 Gorton and Denton election, and the 2024 General Election, there was so much confusion about accusations of family voting along religious lines. The accusations were levelled primarily at Muslim voters, and fears about sectarianism.

However, what this conversation misses is that the idea of separate secular and religious worlds is relatively new, and initially an invention of Catholic Europe to help distinguish between monarchical and ecclesial authorities.

For most people, for most of history (and even today), the idea of making legal or political decisions without using one’s faith would seems bizarre. The religious tone of a kingdom played a direct role in the politics there.

Tying this back to Anglo-Saxon England than, and Æthelberht of Kent, when Augustine converted him to Christianity there was little chance this was not going to impact the entire political, economic, and legal structure of his kingdom.

Æthelberht’s motives were likely not solely personal.

As we discussed last week, King Æthelberht of Kent would likely have already been aware of the political benefits Christianity brought thanks to his Frankish wife Bertha. Her family’s kingdom was Christian, and it showed in their socio-economic and political structures.

Being a Christian king, rather than a pagan one, gave Æthelberht a variety of advantages.

Firstly, as a Christian king he was not just a ruler chosen by a council, he had a divine right to rule as an anointed appointee of God – chosen for this purpose from before time began.

Secondly, by being a Christian king he now had firmer access to the continent and the Church in Rome. This gave him new trading options, the ability to make treaties and pacts more easily, and the support of the Pope who could make decrees about secular issues.

Christianity also gave birth to education and writing that had been lacking in Anglo-Saxon England. This created an educated elite – useful for collecting and managing taxes, creating written law codes and contracts, and spreading knowledge amongst the educated class.

Finally, Christianity offered an opportunity for stability and unity, not just with Europe, but within his own kingdom. Once the king became Christian, his kingdom began to convert and this created greater unity. Christianity offered a different moral and social framework – one that emphasised order, law, and a shared moral vision across the kingdom.

In time, many England’s kings began to convert, and eventually, as England became one kingdom, most nobles, and even the common people, were firmly Christian.

If you’ve found this helpful so far, tapping the like button really helps others discover it. And if you’re enjoying this exploration of how Christianity shaped England, consider subscribing below. Each week at The Case For More we uncover the ideas and events that formed Britain’s civilisation.

Subscribe now

So were these conversions genuine?

One of the obvious follow on points from conversion is therefore to ask whether the conversion were genuine and legitimate, or whether they were done for political gain.

This view has become increasingly popular amongst Marxist-influenced historians who wish to read history in entirely material terms. However, I do not think this is the case.

Whilst there were indeed more benefits to become Christian, even in a material sense, we cannot therefore say that conversion were entirely out of a desire for material or political gain. I think this is a very shallow reading of history.

This is not to say that these factors did not play a role, or ease the decision, but we have to remember the context of conversion.

When King Æthelberht, for example, converted, he was one of only a handful of Christians in England, and more importantly, in his own kingdom. Although his wife was Christian, and some nobles had likely converted by this point, Christianity by no means represented the majority of the populace.

By becoming Christian, King Æthelberht was turning his back on the gods, and on the culture of the people he ruled. Religion and culture were not two separate things that could be shifted – they were unified. In becoming Christian he was, in some way, rejecting his Anglo-Saxon life.

In theory, this could have caused more issues for him than it solved. In theory, his nobles could have removed his right to rule, his people could have risen up against him, or he could have been assassinated for his decision. None of this happened, likely because he was such a strong and powerful ruler, but these must have been possibilities and fears Æthelberht was wary of.

We know in other kingdoms such as in Essex that upon the death of Æthelberht’s Christian nephew Sæberht who was king there, Sæberht’s sons, who had remained pagan, drove Christians such as St Mellitus out of the kingdom. It was a while before Christianity could return and a new king, Sigeberht, converted to Christianity.

Did kings just convert for political power?

Although not straightforward, I think the answer to this is no.

I think it is possible that, even likely, that kings, particularly early on in Christianity’s presence in England, did indeed convert for personal reasons of spiritual and religious conviction. However, this is not to deny the perks Christianity brought and they likely would have been aware of.

What also cannot be denied is that, with the conversion of a king, life in that kingdom really did change.

New systems of laws, economics, trade, politics, and rhythms of life entered. Although the Anglo-Saxons remained culturally Anglo-Saxon until 1066, something was lost. The slow disappearance of Anglo-Saxon paganism did change the cultural and social life of everyday people. Christianised Anglo-Saxon culture did look and feel different in many aspects to pagan culture.

This is not necessarily a bad thing – just an observation.

This new way of life, politics, and law, would in time become the foundations of the systems we know and hold today – or at least have until recently. Christian England became fertile ground for learning, innovation, unity, and a first-rate legal system. This took time, sure, but the seeds were sown with the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kings.

What does this mean for us today?

Well, it means that we need to read history differently, and ask questions about our own political assumptions today. Should religion and politics really be juxtaposed?

Why do we think of politics and religion, and think that never the twain shall meet?

It should also help us understand that our secular divide is unique, and that we cannot assume those from other cultures will automatically fall into that same pattern of thinking.

Maybe we need to rethink how we treat secularism, and the separation of religion and politics. I do not mean rampant sectarianism, but I do mean a realisation that whilst many do not mix the two, others do, and we shouldn’t be surprised by that.

Without the merging of religion and politics, we would not have the England that exists today. We would not have the legal, political, and educational inheritance we are so privileged to call our own. To understand England, we have to understand this union – not ignore it.

What do you think?

Do you think belief can ever be purely private — or does it inevitably shape laws, politics, and society?

And do you think we’re right today to try to separate the two?

I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

If you found this piece helpful, feel free to share it with someone interested in British history.

Share

Next week will be a paid subscribers only letter in which we will be taking a deeper dive into the primary sources, discovering the letters, law codes, and theological works that paved the way for England. So if you want to get that newsletter, upgrade to paid to get it straight to your inbox.

Until next time,

Tom

Image Credits:

Title Image – Anglo-Saxon Gods – https://www.historyhit.com/important-anglo-saxon-gods/

Tim Farron resignation – https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/15/tim-farron-resigns-impossible-to-be-liberal-democr/

Æthelberht of Kent – https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aethelberht

Conversion – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons

Anglo-Saxon Gods – https://www.historyhit.com/important-anglo-saxon-gods/

Law code of Æthelberht of Kent – https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/the-law-code-of-king-aethelberht-of-kent--435652963958765644/

When Hengist and Horsa first set foot on the shores of Britain, the stories tell us fire and blood followed in their wake. Cities were razed, families slaughtered, and the native Britons driven to the hills and to foreign lands.

For centuries, historians told a simple story – the Anglo-Saxons came and wiped the Britons out or forced them into Celtic lands.

But new evidence is challenging that tale. DNA from skeletons buried a thousand years ago is telling a different story – one not of extermination, but of slow integration, of two peoples gradually becoming one.

So, what really happened after the Roman world collapsed? Today we will find out.

Subscribe now

Hello,

And welcome back to The Case For More. Last week we discussed the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, and their establishment of a heptarchy of Kingdoms. However, we were left with the question of what happened to the Romano-Britons who lived in these areas. This week we are going to explore the records, archaeology, and genetic evidence to find out. And so our question is – replacement, or integration?

What do you think? Do you imagine Britain emptied, torched, and resettled, or a slow blending of peoples? Let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

The traditional view.

When David Hume and Tobias Smollett sat down to write their work The History of England, they set out clearly the traditional view of what happened. They wrote,

“[Hengist, the leader of the Saxons] being chiefly anxious to spread the terror of his arms, he spared neither age, nor sex, nor condition, wherever he marched his victorious forces. The private and public edifices of the Britons were reduced to ashes… the people, flying to the mountains and deserts, were intercepted and butchered in heaps: some were glad to accept life and servitude under their victors: others, deserting their native country, took shelter in the province of Armorica…” (Hume, Smollett, and Nolan 1872, 21)

And,

“The first invaders from Germany, instead of excluding other adventurers, who must share with them the spoils of the ancient inhabitants, were obliged to solicit fresh supplies from their own country; and a total extermination of the Britons became the sole expedient for providing a settlement and subsistence to the new planters. Hence there have been found in history few conquests more ruinous that that of the Saxons; and few revolutions more violent than that which they introduced.” (Hume, Smollett, and Nolan 1872, 23)

Not a pretty picture then.

The traditional view is that the Anglo-Saxon raped, burned, pillaged, and then kill everything in their path as they took over Britain. Even those that tried to flee were not spared, but instead kettled and killed.

Those lucky few who did escape became refugees in the Celtic lands, predominantly Wales and Cornwall, but some went to Scotland, Ireland, and Amorica (Brittany).

Hume and Smollett did not invent this view, or pluck it from thin air. They are reflecting over a millennium of tradition.

Although we have few contemporary writers from this period of Anglo-Saxon invasion, those that did write afterwards such as Bede and Gildas, seem to indicate that a genocide had taken place. That word gets banded around a lot these days, but if these writers are correct, then this truly was a genocide.

In the space of a few decades there are no Britons left in England other than salves, and most have been killed with a few uprooted and banished from their homelands – sound a lot like a real genocide to me.

There is only one way to see this view then – replacement.

Totally and completely, the Britons were replaced by Anglo-Saxons, explaining why our culture, language, and even ethnic name (‘English’) are separate to our Celtic cousins in Wales, Ireland, and Scotland.

However, newer evidence seems to be challenging this story.

Now, I’m not going to comment here on possible political and social motivations for this new research, that is for you to decide. But the latest data coming out of the world of archaeology, and particularly genetics, does indicate a different story to the one traditionally given.

In 2006, Mark G. Thomas, Michael P. H. Stumpf, and Heinrich Härke produced a paper titled ‘Evidence for an Apartheid-Like Social Structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England.’

This paper was fairly revolutionary in the world of Anglo-Saxon studies as it challenged the traditional notion of death and destruction, suggesting instead that two parallel societies emerged – more similar to aparthied.

Now, this doesn’t mean there wasn’t some death and destruction, and the Anglo-Saxons certainly become the overlords, likely by force, but it does challenge the idea of total replacement by genocide.

Despite the apartheid, genetic evidence indicates that over time there was some intermarriage between the Britons and Anglo-Saxons, which by the time of the fifteenth generation had made Anglo-Saxons and Britons indistinguishable.

Whilst many likely did still flee to the Celtic lands, and some would have been killed, it seems that overtime the aparthied ended naturally, and people began to identify as one new ethnic group – English (a term coined by Bede).

Following this paper, a series of papers went back and forth in academic journals between Thomas et al. and John E. Pattison debating the extent to which intermarriage occurred.

Whilst Thomas et al. had said it did happen, they felt it was fairly limited, at least at first, with parallel societies for generations instead of intergration early on.

Pattison on the otherhand argued from genetic evidence that there was much greater intergration from early on, and that the distinction between Anglo-Saxon and Briton fizzled out fairly quickly.

The question then becomes not about genocide, but about the speed of intergration – aparthied, eventually leading to intergration, or intergration from early on with no aparthied.

Why this question matters.

Regardless of the truth, which we may never know, it is important to highlight why this matters to us today, prompting a slightly different question – why is England today more Germanic than Celtic.

“If integration happened slowly, why do so few traces of Brittonic language and culture survive in England today?”

Leave a comment

In many respects, England today in terms of its language and culture, seems more like the Germanic peoples than the Welsh. We have very little (if any) Brittonic in our culture, language, traditions, and customs, but this is not the case in Wales.

If there really was integration, why do we not see more elements of Romano-Brittonic influence in English society today? But if the genocide hypothesis is true, then wouldn’t we expect to see that playing out in the genetic evidence, with purely Germanic Early English skeletons rather than mixes with Brittonic DNA.

It’s worth thinking about. If there had been a blending of the cultures, or at least a faster one, what might England look like today? Might we have more Welsh elements in our language, or more deeply engrained Latin elements coming directly from Roman occupation rather than through the Norman conquest. I’d love to hear you views on this in the comments – what might a Celtic England have looked like.

Arguably, it doesn’t matter because we will never know. But on the other hand, without the Anglo-Saxon invasion, or at least one that completely re-wrote British life, we wouldn’t have ‘England’. Quite literally! We would not be the land of the Angles – we might still be Britons. Descendants (genetically and culturally) of the Celts and Romans rather than of the Anglo-Saxons.

The new evidence and discussions, in the light of older traditions does tell us one thing for certain, however. And that is that the beginnings of English history are more complicated and nuanced than they perhaps seem at first.

What do you think? Were the Britons wiped out, or did they slowly merge with the Anglo-Saxons?

Leave a comment

Next week, we’ll ask — if the Anglo-Saxons had never arrived, how might Britain, and the English language itself, look today?”

If you want to find out, and aren’t already, make sure you’re subscribed to get that article as soon as it is out. And if you’ve like this today, please do drop a like below or share this article, it helps me reach more people with the content, and get the message out about the historical inheritance we seem to have collectively lost.

Share

Until next time, have a great week.

Tom

This article is part of an ongoing series exploring the origins of Britain – from the first prehistoric settlers to the events of 1066 that shaped the nation we recognise today. If you’ve enjoyed this piece and would like to follow the series as it continues, you can subscribe to receive each new article directly in your inbox.

Citations:

Hume, David, Tobias G. Smollett, and E. H. Nolan. 1872. The History of England by Hume and Smollett with a continuation ot the year 1872 by Dr. E. H. Nolan. IV vols. Vol. I. London: Virtue & Co.

Pattison, John E. 2008. “Is It Necessary to Assume an Apartheid-Like Social Structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England?” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 275 (1650): 2423-2429. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25249823.

---. 2011. “Integration Versus Apartheid in Post-Roman Britain: A Response to Thomas et al. (2008).” Human Biology 83 (6): 715-733. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41466778.

Thomas, Mark G., Michael P. H. Stumpf, and Heinrich Härke. 2006. “Evidence for an Apartheid-Like Social Structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England.” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 273 (1601): 2651-2657. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25223656.

---. 2008. “Integration versus Apartheid in Post-Roman Britain: A Response to Pattison.” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 275 (1650): 2419-2421.

Image Credits:

Title Image – Anglo-Saxon village – https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zq2m6sg

David Hume, The History of England – https://www.zvab.com/HISTORY-ENGLAND-HUME-David/72645463/bd

Genetics – https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/new-genetic-evidence-affirms-human-uniqueness

Welsh sign – https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/bilingual-scotland-british-uk-road-signs-science-dangerous-639757