Творческая работа на тему "История Британской монархии" с презентацией

Творческая  работа на тему «История британской монархии»                               Анны Ковалевой, ученицы 10 класса                                                                                            МБОУ Екатериновской сош, М-Курганского района, Ростовской области

The History of the British Monarchy

I always wanted to know about the history of the British monarchy.  I wanted to know how they could preserve monarchy state till nowadays. I had read articles devoted to the British monarchy. It was very interesting to read about some facts of British kings and queens’ lives, about their struggle for throne and power.  Reading the materials about the British monarchy I found some interesting fact. When Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953 the enthusiastic Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, claimed that she was "God-called”. The idea that monarchs had supernatural legitimacy has a very long history. Monarchs needed all the help they could get to maintain their position in a turbulent world. In spite of the idea that they were chosen and were protected by God, many English monarchs had been deposed by opponents. King John was virtually hounded to his death by the nobility, Edward II was murdered, as was Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward V. Richard III was killed in the battle by his domestic enemies. For the most monarchs life was one long struggle against those who wished to replace them. Previously in history leaders tried to defend their position not by suggesting they had been appointed by God, but by actually claiming to be gods. Roman emperors, for example, were supposedly divine figures placed on the Earth. According to some writers this idea of leaders as gods or supported by gods, may have come from the last ice age 20,000 years ago. The idea that a monarch was appointed by God endured for many centuries. William the Conqueror arrived in England in October, 1066, with religious relics hanging around his neck, feeling that only God could grant him a new kingdom. William the Conqueror was crowned the King of England on Christmas Day in 1066 at Westminster Abbey. As he was the illegitimate son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, and Herleve, a girl from Falaise, William faced constant danger. Life in Normandy until 1060 had been a constant battle for survival. After defeating King Harold near Hastings in 1066 his life was no easier. There were rebellions in both England and Normandy. Having defeated Harold ,William the Conqueror set about controlling his new kingdom financially and militarily. William introduced a feudal system from Normandy whereby nobles held their lands in return for military services offered to the duke. Hoping in this way to control England's nobility, he also worked on various methods to control England's population in general. Mobile cavalry troops patrolled the countryside. In urban areas the main tools of control were castles. Castles were fundamental to the Norman conquest, and were both a symbol and means of oppression. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles' epitaph for William the Conqueror opens with the words: "He built castles and oppressed the poor men hard." Besides these internal threats William the Conqueror had to battle with Scandinavia and France. The symbolism of William's Christmas Day coronation was carefully planned, to call upon religious authority to bolster William's earthly power. The coronation service itself emphasized religious elements which had been introduced by Edgar the Peaceable in 973. By 1085 it seemed that many crises that William had faced in his life were culminating in the threat of a huge invasion from Denmark. Taxation was required to fund the army. This led to one of the most remarkable achievements of the Norman period, the Domesday Book. This was a vast survey of property and land holding, used to calculate tax. The book, in a practical sense was out of date even before it was finished. Book is now kept at the National Archives.                                                                                                          There were some monarchs who didn't seem to take the religious basis of their power too seriously, the Conqueror's son William II, for example. But for the most part religion was the main stay of royal power. There were sometimes disputes between monarch and Church, the tension between Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Beckett in 1170 was, perhaps, the most famous example. But generally speaking, Church and monarch worked together, buttressing the power of each other. This really began to change in the troubled events of the seventeenth century. Following the English Civil War, Charles I, an enthusiastic defender of the divine rights of kings, was deposed, and then executed by Parliament in January, 1649.  The Stuart monarchs: James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, Mary, who ruled with her husband William III, and Queen Anne marked the effective end of government by monarchy in England. The great change to modern parliamentary government took place in this period. It would be very interesting to know why this happened. Many historians wrote about the causes of the Civil War between Parliament and Charles I, and the reasons why Parliament developed. In spite of all facts there are some historians who claim that we really don’t know what’s happened. Barry Coward, for example, wrote that the main reasons for a weakening of monarchy during the Stuart period are the ruling of multiple kingdoms, the state's financial weakness and divisions in the Church. These arguments are not as respected as they once were. England has a long history of multiple kingdoms, and was created out of disparate kingdoms. Similarly the state had often been in a position of financial distress. To be short of money is government’s normal situation. As we know from history the Church and the monarchs always disputed. All of these things were not new, so why the development of parliamentary power happened in this period?                                                                                                                        In the early twentieth century J.E. Neale and Wallace Notestein told a seemingly sensible story. The turning point was seen during Henry VIII's reign in the 1530s Reformation Parliament. Henry's decision to carry out the Dissolution of the Monasteries and the break with Rome by using parliamentary statutes is supposed to have whetted MPs appetite for wider power and influence. Neale went on to describe procedural innovations in the reign of Elizabeth I - the introduction of rules to allow orderly debates, the practice of sending bills to committees, for example. Neale saw Parliament's adolescent period completed by 1597, just as the Stuart period began with the rule of James I. Then Notestein continued paying our attention to the fact in the seventeenth century, when the House of Commons strived to liberate itself from the Royal Government.                                                                                                             MPs were not protected by privileges of free speech or freedom from arrest. After many of the parliaments of Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I the Crown had no compunction in arresting and imprisoning those MPs with whom it was displeased" (The Stuart Age P102). It should also be remembered that in 1648, after the deposition of Charles I by Parliament, Colonel Pride led a purge of Parliament, leaving only those MPs, whom the revolutionary army considered acceptable. In no sense there was some inevitable progress towards parliamentary power.                     Nevertheless Parliament came to predominate in government over monarchy, setting a trend for many other countries.   In 1688 Parliament clumsily deposed James II, and replaced him with William and Mary. Following this watershed event England's financial situation changed. Before the Glorious Revolution the debt ran up in managing national affairs was a monarch's debt. This debt caused many conflicts between monarch and Parliament, since it was Parliament who provided tax revenue, and it was Parliament who used this revenue as a lever to gain control over a monarch. Disputes over tax revenue led to bitter divisions, and were a fundamental cause of the English Civil War. After 1688 British monarchs were obliged to work within the constitution set out by Parliament. Now debt ran up by the country became the "national debt".  This was a debt that belonged in a sense to everyone, rather than the monarch alone. Debt became an accepted fact of life. This in turn meant that usury, the practice of lending money at interest, was rapidly losing its sinful connotations, and this new attitude was a major factor in Britain's rise to superpower status in the eighteenth century. Britain's system of spending on credit allowed it to defeat its principal rival, France.                                                                                                            Slowly the royal power began to decline. Following the French Revolution in the 1790s, monarchy generally began to weaken seriously. It’s happened in the 19th   century, and by the reign of George V from May, 1910 to January, 1936 five emperors, eight kings and eighteen minor dynasties disappeared in Europe.                                                                                                                                    But the British monarchy endured. It is interesting to speculate why this was so.   Suggestions have been made about the fact that Britain had escaped invasion since 1066. The royal family continues to link power and religion, a link which has been a source of institutional strength for millennia.                                                                                  In the 21st century people don’t believe the idea of a monarch appointed by God. What are the reasons that Britain retains its monarchy?                                                Royalty has always played a major role in setting fashion trends. Trends in clothing, motoring, garden design, food, hotels, jewelry and Christmas customs have been set by the royal family. In the end the royal family's role might be a contradictory one. They represent stability through a time of unprecedented social and industrial change, and yet they have contributed fundamentally to that change by being figureheads of aspiration which drove industrialisation in the first place. Edward VII who ruled in the early twentieth century and his wife Alexandra, set many fashion trends through their famous country house weekends. The king was booked up years in advance by cities, town authorities, and by industrial concerns, who knew that the king’s visit would make them a great deal of money. The monarchy, quite frankly made enough money for enough people to make it worthwhile. The same is true today. As Penny Junor points out in her book The Firm, tourism is the sixth most important industry in Britain, and royalty is one of the main attractions. The top five royal attractions, Tower of London, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court, Buckingham Palace and Holyrood Palace are visited by four million people every year. Penny Junor also points out that the Crown Estates, the royal family's vast land holdings, make roughly £150 million a year, which goes to the exchequer. Around £37 million is then given back to the royal family in the Civil List (figures for 2005). In 2011 the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton generated very traditional profits. The Centre for Retail Research reported a boost in trade of £515.5 million for retailers, with souvenirs accounting for £222 million. It does not take complex calculations to see that the monarchy is a profitable concern for Britain generally (see You'd be a mug to sneer at royal wedding souvenirs, in BBC History Magazine April 2011) During Elizabeth II's reign it might seem as though royal illusion was ruthlessly stripped away by the media. It was the marriage and divorce of her eldest son Charles that caused the greatest crisis of her reign. But the monarchy as a semi-religious authority survived in spite of it. A poll run by insurers Hiscox in April 2009, of 2000 people, put the Queen at the top of a list of celebrities and politicians ranked in terms of personal trustworthiness. This was published in The Sun newspaper, which has been the scourge of the royal family long ago.                       The queen's position has survived the endless scandals amongst her family, and even endured the crisis following the Paris road accident which killed Diana in 1997. While the monarchy makes money, and while it continues to tap into a sense of unity which is missing in modern forms of government, it is probable that Britain will retain its monarchy.                                                                                                       The British royal family is a unique survivor of the past. This survival has been explained in many ways. Norman Davies in The Isles refers to the familiar point that Britain has escaped recent revolution and foreign invasion. William Bagehot describes the monarchy more positively as giving stability, interest and mystique to government. In fact the real reason for the monarchy's survival could be involved with the usual bottom line, money.                                                                                  If you visit London in June you can see living history, as the Queen attends the Trooping of the Colour on Horse Guards Parade just off the Mall. Start queuing from 6 a.m to get a good view. I also suggest a walk to St James's Palace. This palace built by Henry VIII is the place where the Accession Council meets on the death of a monarch, and where a new monarch is announced. The modern royal family's role is simply to be there, in an almost Biblical manner, generation after generation.

Литература:

1. http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Clifford’s-Tower.htm                                                                                                                       2.en.wikipedia.org/List of British monarchs                                                                                                               3. britania.com./history/h6f.html                                                                                                                                             4.infobritain.co.uk/History-of-British-Monarchy.htm                                                                                           5.  infobritain.co.uk/Tower-of-London.htm                                                                                                                    6. projectbritain.com>royal/                                                                                                                         7.nationmaster,com>encyclopedia…of-British-monarchs                                                                       8. images.yandex.ru>monarchs of britain                                                 etc.