British Heritage: AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1999 Letters

 | British Heritage Editorials  | 0 comments  | Print This Post  | Email This Post

Somewhat more lasting might have been the effects of a long and happy reign by Arthur Tudor, eldest son of Henry VII. During the rule of a King Arthur and Queen Catherine of Aragon, Henry’s younger son, also named Henry (an athletic lad whom many may have felt would have made a better king than his brother), would probably be best remembered for strengthening England’s ties to the papacy by writing his treatise against the teachings of Martin Luther. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry could possibly have succeeded in keeping the Protestant Reformation from crossing the Channel and winning large numbers of converts in England. Arthur’s son, Arthur II, married to Mary, Queen of Scots, might even have allied England with Spain in a campaign against the Dutch, sending an English Armada to threaten the ports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Against this rising tide of orthodoxy, Puritans would never have succeeding in establishing a foothold in England, let alone crossing the Atlantic to build Anglo-America. In their place, French Huguenots eventually would have settled all of North America . . . conceivably, at least. On the other hand, Arthur I, after fathering three successive daughters, might have petitioned the Pope to annul his marriage. . . .

Perhaps history has no true “turning points.” As Asa Briggs points out, the events we are tempted to call turning points are often more correctly identified simply as “landmarks.” On the whole, history seems to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, with precious few opportunities for drastic deviation from an inevitable path. You may choose to call this fate or predestination or maybe just inertia, at your own preference.

Logically, this intransigent nature of history ought to have an intriguing consequence. If the course of human history is more or less inevitable, we should be able to predict the future with a great degree of precision. Sir Arthur C. Clarke does his best to accomplish this in “A Thousand Years Hence.” It is probably fortunate, however, that the many variables that determine history’s ongoing course are most apparent in retrospect. As a result, history’s landmarks will surely continue to surprise and delight us all in the next Millennium.

Bruce Heydt
Managing Editor

THE MAN (OR WOMAN) OF THE MILLENNIUM?
SOME CHOICES BY BRITISH HERITAGE READERS

WINSTON CHURCHILL: “There can be no other serious choice than Winston Churchill. He is a giant of all human history, not merely the last 1,000 years.”

MARGARET THATCHER: “Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, but also the century’s strongest leader.”

QUEEN VICTORIA: “She was the longest reigning monarch of the Empire. She led Britain through some of its most glorious of years. Through her character and power, she made Britain arguably the greatest Empire ever to exist on earth.”

JAMES COOK: “The great mariner mapped the East Coast of Australia, and he is my favourite British subject. We Aussies are forever grateful to him; pity the rest of you don’t show the same mettle!”

THE EARL OF SANDWICH: “The invention of the sandwich is certainly one of universal appeal, and I can’t imagine how any of us would manage without it. Hurray for the sandwich and that canny Earl who invented it.”

VERA BRITTAIN: “A prolific speaker, lecturer, journalist, and writer–devoted to the causes of peace and feminism. She wrote 29 books. The most famous one, Testament of Youth, is a passionate record of the Great War and a loving memorial to a ‘lost generation.’”

Letters should be addressed to: The Editors, BRITISH HERITAGE, 6405 Flank Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17112-2753 USA.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to