Writing Forum

Oooooh, where do I start with this? I can't begin to explain how long and complicated British history is! I'll try and give you a teeny potted history to cover your points, but as I am but an amateur historian and this post is going to be too long as it is, I would suggest you read up on late English medieval history to get a proper idea of the type of world J RR Martin was dealing with.

J R R Martin based a Song of Ice and Fire on the period known familiarly as the Wars of the Roses (1455 to 1485). This, in effect, was the second English civil war (the 1st being between Stephen and Matilda c 1135 and 1154) in which two great dynastic houses - House of Lancaster (Red Rose) and the House of York (White Rose) fought for the crown of England which eventually led to the Tudor Dynasty. By this time, feudalism was steadily on the wane in England due to the after-effects of a huge outbreak of the Black-Death in 1348-49 which devasted the population, giving the serfs the opportunity to exploit the labour shortage. The nobility and the Church did, in the end, crack down on the serfs after the Peasants Revolt in 1381. But as with all things, changes had occurred in the minds and states of both rulers and ruled, and then coupled with the start of the enclosures of common land during the Tudor Period, which inevitably to the end of serfdom completely in England and Wales and then in Scotland. Also, the Protestant Reformation and the European Renaissance changed the nature of the relationship between the ruling and the ruled in Britain as a whole. Which led to the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the puritanical Commonwealth led by Oliver Cromwell (who in fact was described as a king in all but name) and the restoration of the monarchy (as a constitutional monarchy as opposed to absolute) in 1660 and the Enlightenment.

To properly understand the English medieval mind is a difficult thing. However, if you delve into the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, you can get a great snapshot into the medieval mind. English people really haven't changed a great deal. As a nation (like most of Northern and Western Europe) we are mostly now non-religious, but you can see amongst Chaucer's the pilgrims, there was even then, a real mix of the pious and pragmatic; the credulous and the skeptical.

As for Tolkien, he was a product of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. I think he was, at least, an agnostic if not an outright atheist and his experiences of both the 1st and 2nd World wars inevitably found their way into his Middle Earth stories, not as deliberate allegories, (he insisted his stories were not allegories) but they are there.

Again, I think you'd need to understand the Britain of the 19th and early 20th centuries and the nature of our Empire and psyche of that time to fully understand the relationship between Frodo and Sam and the character of Aragorn. The virtues of loyalty and duty to your country, people and heritage was drilled into the minds of the young all through this period.

'Know your place' was very much a mantra of Victorian Britain. I think this was due to the rise and mass of the middle-class (which bloomed due to trade during the 18th century). It was the Victorians who introduced servant's uniforms and wanted to maintain a class distinction, even while they were engaged in reforming the lives of the poor and down-trodden. But even below-stairs, the servants also enforced the strictest hierarchy. This was helped, in part, by the clergy who preached 'be content with your god-given lot' sermons, and the psychology of snobbery - the delusion of power - the lower down the pecking order you perceive yourself to be, the more you are going to look down on and 'lord it' over those 'beneath' you.




There is a thing, a pattern I've noticed which seems to prevail in those who seek out the authoritarian extremes, be they GOP or D, is the tendency of these elites to be and attract narcissists. Most ideologies are led by those who are convinced they have superior intellect, morality and general righteousness. They imagine they have all the answers to society's woe's, ills, problems and if everyone thinks and does what they are told, then the world will be a better place. The masses must become righteous members of a homogenous collective. And it is the authoritarian's moral and intellectual duty to dictate the to the stupid masses how they should think and behave, and those who are mentally diseased - the heretics and disidents - need to be eliminated so the disease can't spread and topple the righteous regime.

"It is curious to me that in the feudal system a serf was bound to his land. In history and empire builder games the people are a resource." The people of any nation/land/realm etc always have been seen as a resource by their rulers and they still are. The nation's people produce the food, the goods for trade and they do the dying in the wars. But along the way, if people are well fed, clothed, entertained and generally content, they won't rebel. If something seriously threatens or takes away their comfort and stability, or of they are over-exploited they will rebel.

With regards to the English and their rulers (the rest of Europe would need to be dealt with on a place by place basis) - Charles I wasn't the first king to lose his throne (and his life) due to his poor stewardship of the nation. In this country - our rulers have only every really ruled by consent. I will concede that the kings (or in a couple of cases, queens) were absolute rulers, but they didn't ever rule alone. They had a whole host of advisers - mostly noblemen and bishops, but they too had a lot of constituent power from the people who lived on their lands and worked for them. Those monarchs who were the most successful were those who the people perceived looked after their interests and protected them from foreign invasion. If they were perceived to be weak then they were got rid of.

Our current monarch is 'constitutional', which means that the Queen is the head of state, but unlike an elected president, she has no power to make or abolish laws. The Queen formally 'appoints' the Prime Minister after he or she had been elected by the electorate, by dint of being the head of his or her political party, to that position.

People haven't materially changed one bit, they still want their interests looked after and the promise of protection from those who lead. I'm English and can only speak from my perspective as one single British citizen, but as a nation, I think we are generally a pragmatic lot. We've long been liberal in our attitude, easy going and tolerant of the strange and foreign and suspicious of authority. We've grown up with the chastisement of our parents when we've done wrong - "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" We've grown up hearing the remark - "Each to their own." and "Well... they're not doing anyone any harm." This liberal attitude (even if it is, at times, slightly disapproving) is ingrained in our psyche whether you are a Conservative supporter or a Labourite. We are polite and tolerant, but only up to the point where our patience and tolerance have been pushed too far. Then we make our displeasure know pretty forcefully.

I think the idea that there should be no such thing as countries with borders is nice but realistically impractical. This is because each country has its own identity and culture and sadly not all cultures are equal.

I don't know how much you get to hear about what goes on outside the USA, but I can tell you that certain members of the European Union's 'progressive' policies of letting in all and any refugees and migrants without any checks to their genuineness or ability to be useful, productive, law-abiding members of said country, is backfiring big-time.

So, with this in mind, I would say in response to your last sentence - "If the idea that a country should have a border or that it should owe its first allegiance to its citizens is too extreme I wonder." - I would say that a country's leadership should owe its first allegiance to its citizens and borders are necessary and should be enforced to ensure the people are kept safe.

I think the most pertinent question which needs asking right now is, who are the traitors who want to open the gates to our hard-earned modern civilization and allow the barbarians in to destroy it?