|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2019 8:45:34 GMT
When I saw the heading, I thought that it was related to the 1964 General Election. Of course Labour didn't win the old Hastings seat in 1945, 1964 or 1966.
If we are talking Saxon/Norman though look no further than the Liberal MP for Hastings (1869-80) Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth. Ughtred is a name first recorded in the early eleventh century as the son of Earl Waltheof of Northumberland.
The Normans could fight back with Artur Du Cros, Tory MP for the seat (1906-18) but the family were Irish and the Du Cros named goes back to Auvergne, not Normandy.
Freeman Freeman-Thomas , Liberal MP (1900-06) is also worth a mention. Freeman being, of course, a Saxon name indicating that you were, well a free born man.
Yes, Hastings was a seat that the Liberals won in 1900, but lost in the landslide of 1906. Go figure.
Maidstone was another such example - these cases often involved corrupt practices
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 25, 2019 8:53:35 GMT
Of course Labour didn't win the old Hastings seat in 1945, 1964 or 1966.
If we are talking Saxon/Norman though look no further than the Liberal MP for Hastings (1869-80) Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth. Ughtred is a name first recorded in the early eleventh century as the son of Earl Waltheof of Northumberland.
The Normans could fight back with Artur Du Cros, Tory MP for the seat (1906-18) but the family were Irish and the Du Cros named goes back to Auvergne, not Normandy.
Freeman Freeman-Thomas , Liberal MP (1900-06) is also worth a mention. Freeman being, of course, a Saxon name indicating that you were, well a free born man.
Yes, Hastings was a seat that the Liberals won in 1900, but lost in the landslide of 1906. Go figure.
Inspiration for The Last Kingdom TV series and central to Richard Fletcher's book BloodfeudThere's a Waltheof Gardens in Tottenham, but sadly no Ughtred Avenue
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 10:51:01 GMT
I would not have nearly as much fun playing the Hastings scenario on Age of Empires II.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by polupolu on Jan 25, 2019 11:10:42 GMT
I think Adam in Stroud has the key difference. The hundred year war(s) between France and the Angevin Empire (of which England was a part) would not have happened. The manpower, money, and energy expended by this struggle (on both sides) was phenomenal. Imagine those resources used for increased prosperity instead. It is tempting to add the Chaos of the struggle between Stephen and Matilda to that - but there is no reason to think that similar struggles might have happened anyway. I would guess the other important aspect would be that the Normans imported Feudalism. That may well have happened anyway, but would presumably have been more gradual and less extreme - the Scandinavian/Saxon model would have presumably slanted it away from serfdom and towards the concept of freemen
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 11:47:19 GMT
I think Adam in Stroud has the key difference. The hundred year war(s) between France and the Angevin Empire (of which England was a part) would not have happened. The manpower, money, and energy expended by this struggle (on both sides) was phenomenal. Imagine those resources used for increased prosperity instead. It is tempting to add the Chaos of the struggle between Stephen and Matilda to that - but there is no reason to think that similar struggles might have happened anyway. I would guess the other important aspect would be that the Normans imported Feudalism. That may well have happened anyway, but would presumably have been more gradual and less extreme - the Scandinavian/Saxon model would have presumably slanted it away from serfdom and towards the concept of freemen The English had their own version of feudalism, in which the great majority of people were functionally unfree (actual slavery also existed, though the proportion of the population who were slaves is difficult to quantify). The thegn class comprised about 5-6,000 families who owned pretty much everything. Archaeology suggests that English society started out with few extremes of wealth, but the emergence of kings from the sixth century accelerated a process of social differentiation in which a subgroup of free peasant families gradually became nobles. The country had become largely manorialised by the mid-Saxon period, and most villages date from that period, when the lords founded new nucleated settlements to better control their tenants (late Roman and post-Roman settlement was extremely dispersed and archaeologically quite difficult to find). Although the C5 English incomers were far more numerous than the Normans were, there were some similarities, in that the free portion of the population was disproportionately descended from them. The C18 Romantic view of free Saxons crushed by feudal Normans isn't really accurate.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,309
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 25, 2019 11:59:51 GMT
Yes, Hastings was a seat that the Liberals won in 1900, but lost in the landslide of 1906. Go figure Must have been a fairly small category, that - how many others?
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 25, 2019 12:02:56 GMT
Yes, Hastings was a seat that the Liberals won in 1900, but lost in the landslide of 1906. Go figure Must have been a fairly small category, that - how many others?
I will have a quick flick through the relevant Liberal year book this avo and see if there are any others.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 25, 2019 12:03:39 GMT
Yes, Hastings was a seat that the Liberals won in 1900, but lost in the landslide of 1906. Go figure Must have been a fairly small category, that - how many others? The infamous North West Lanarkshire.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2019 12:06:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 25, 2019 12:11:44 GMT
I don't know what the other two are - scanning my maps of those two elections and I can't see any beyond the three already mentioned, but could have been one of a two-seater or even a University seat
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 25, 2019 12:13:52 GMT
I think byelection regains may be included among the five.
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Jan 25, 2019 12:25:45 GMT
Govan was another Unionist gain
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 12:40:31 GMT
Overturning by-election results shouldn't count. Christchurch being a Tory gain in 1997 for example.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by polupolu on Jan 25, 2019 13:36:21 GMT
I think Adam in Stroud has the key difference. The hundred year war(s) between France and the Angevin Empire (of which England was a part) would not have happened. The manpower, money, and energy expended by this struggle (on both sides) was phenomenal. Imagine those resources used for increased prosperity instead. It is tempting to add the Chaos of the struggle between Stephen and Matilda to that - but there is no reason to think that similar struggles might have happened anyway. I would guess the other important aspect would be that the Normans imported Feudalism. That may well have happened anyway, but would presumably have been more gradual and less extreme - the Scandinavian/Saxon model would have presumably slanted it away from serfdom and towards the concept of freemen The English had their own version of feudalism, in which the great majority of people were functionally unfree (actual slavery also existed, though the proportion of the population who were slaves is difficult to quantify). The thegn class comprised about 5-6,000 families who owned pretty much everything. Archaeology suggests that English society started out with few extremes of wealth, but the emergence of kings from the sixth century accelerated a process of social differentiation in which a subgroup of free peasant families gradually became nobles. The country had become largely manorialised by the mid-Saxon period, and most villages date from that period, when the lords founded new nucleated settlements to better control their tenants (late Roman and post-Roman settlement was extremely dispersed and archaeologically quite difficult to find). Although the C5 English incomers were far more numerous than the Normans were, there were some similarities, in that the free portion of the population was disproportionately descended from them. The C18 Romantic view of free Saxons crushed by feudal Normans isn't really accurate. Interesting. I wasn't aware of the extent to which English society had changed by then. However, I can't help feeling that introducing an aristocracy that was culturally and linguistically different to its serfs would significantly affect the dynamics of the system (no matter how much intermarriage there may have been).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 13:50:52 GMT
The English had their own version of feudalism, in which the great majority of people were functionally unfree (actual slavery also existed, though the proportion of the population who were slaves is difficult to quantify). The thegn class comprised about 5-6,000 families who owned pretty much everything. Archaeology suggests that English society started out with few extremes of wealth, but the emergence of kings from the sixth century accelerated a process of social differentiation in which a subgroup of free peasant families gradually became nobles. The country had become largely manorialised by the mid-Saxon period, and most villages date from that period, when the lords founded new nucleated settlements to better control their tenants (late Roman and post-Roman settlement was extremely dispersed and archaeologically quite difficult to find). Although the C5 English incomers were far more numerous than the Normans were, there were some similarities, in that the free portion of the population was disproportionately descended from them. The C18 Romantic view of free Saxons crushed by feudal Normans isn't really accurate. Interesting. I wasn't aware of the extent to which English society had changed by then. However, I can't help feeling that introducing an aristocracy that was culturally and linguistically different to its serfs would significantly affect the dynamics of the system (no matter how much intermarriage there may have been). That is true, but I was making the point that the English had earlier done the same thing. The majority of the present inhabitants' genetic inheritance comes from people who were here before the coming of the English. However, through the political, economic and cultural dominance they achieved, the English succeeded in acculturating the larger native population in a way the Normans never did.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 25, 2019 14:04:16 GMT
Harald Hardrada is often the forgotten figure of 1066. When I was 10 we were asked by our trainee teacher at school to create a crossword including words and names associated with England in the year 1066. She asked me why I had included Harold twice, not noticing the slight difference in spelling between Harold and Harald. She didn't seem to understand when I explained it. What a precocious little 10 year old. I feel for that poor teacher. I have always regretted that I did not argue back when our history teacher told us (age 9) that Mary Tudor "was known as" Mary Queen of Scots. The same teacher crossed out "1533" and corrected it to "1558" when I wrote in my exercise book that Queen Elizabeth I was born in 1533.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 25, 2019 14:26:31 GMT
What a precocious little 10 year old. I feel for that poor teacher. I have always regretted that I did not argue back when our history teacher told us (age 9) that Mary Tudor "was known as" Mary Queen of Scots. The same teacher crossed out "1533" and corrected it to "1558" when I wrote in my exercise book that Queen Elizabeth I was born in 1533. Well I did say "poor teacher". Having been a teacher in my youth I have some sympathy with the teacher struggling to keep up with students who think they know the subject better than you, and its so galling when you find they really do. I also remember an obnoxious lad at about 10-11 tormenting teachers by thinking I knew it all, when the reality was I didn't really, i'd just boned up on a few facts out of context, I now realise.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 25, 2019 15:51:03 GMT
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is religion. In 1065 there were still some traces of Celtic Christianity in England, which had vanished within a couple of decades of the conquest. It's possible that English Christianity would have remained a bit more distinct from continental Catholicism for a while. Though it's anyone's guess how the changes would have impacted England's reaction to the Reformation.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 26, 2019 0:38:23 GMT
Govan was another Unionist gain It was a Liberal Unionist gain from Liberal, probably strongly influenced by the candidacy of J Hill of the LRC, who came from nowhere to get 4242 votes, only about 800 votes behind the defeated Liberal H.S. Murray (who was not the sitting member).
In 1895 when the ILP had stood a candidate (A Haddow) he got only 429 votes.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 26, 2019 0:45:17 GMT
I think byelection regains may be included among the five. Could well be - I've found two so far both in Scotland.
Ayr District, where the death of the Tory Mr Orr-Ewing lead to a by election in January 1904 when the Liberal J Dobbie beat the Unionist G Younger. Younger took the seat back in 1906, with a majority of 261.
In St Andrews District things went like this: The Liberal Unionist H.T Anstruther was made a director of the Suez canal, causing a by election which was lost by Major Anstruther-Thompson (listed as a Tory rather than a Liberal Unionist) to the Libaral Capt Ellice. In 1906 Major Anstruther-Grey took the seat back from Ellice as a Liberal Unionist, not a Tory.
|
|