Charles Dickens' "A Child's History of England" nitpick

You can read the whole thing online here. Dickens clearly has no great respect for the monarchy. He spends three volumes telling us what worthless persons were most of the sovereigns of England/Britain. He brings the story up to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which he clearly approves – and then he glosses over the history from 1688 to 1853 in just a few paragraphs:

:confused: WTF?!

And there is no mention of the significance of the Glorious Revolution: That it produced a political system where it really does not matter that much whether the sovereign is a good or bad person, because Parliament makes the public-policy decisions. And certainly no mention of the evolution of parliamentary government in that period, the reforms in parliamentary representation, the fights to extend the voting franchise, the utilitarian reforms of government, the Chartist movement, the protests against the Corn Laws, the abolition of slavery, all the things that tore Britain apart. No mention of the Napoleonic Wars, either, nor of the acquisition and expansion of Britain’s Empire after it lost America. I mean, if American children can learn the basics about the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention and all that through elementary-school filmstrips, which I did, why does Dickens think that “The events which succeeded the famous Revolution of one thousand six hundred and eighty-eight would neither be easily related nor easily understood in such a book as this.”?!

Was he just, like, afraid of ruffling any feathers by discussing political matters still contentious in his day? That doesn’t sound like Dickens at all.

No mention of the Irish potato famine, either.

And yet he troubles to say:

:rolleyes: For 800 years Ireland was not allowed to get on by itself, Mr. Dickens. And changing it from a subject-kingdom of England to a full member of the Union didn’t seem to help none – probably because, like Scotland, it really remained a subject-kingdom of England, mostly owned by English absentee landlords, with the native population mostly reduced to their tenant-farmers.

Does anyone have any theories as to why Dickens wrote it that way?

Well, the real story is depressing.

It’s a tale that’s too shitty.

You don’t want the kids to suffer from Curiosity Shock?

He was a crank with a contract to fulfill, reached the contracted word count, and finished it with a “God save the queen” because he figured his editor would only notice that? He was tossing off some crap for the kiddies? He intended it ironically? I don’t know. You tell me what his motivations were.

He was pretty much a public nuisance himself. Yet however valueless he was or his opinions were, although a great writer — in the sense he justly became a classic for his arch, orotund style — he was entitled to those opinions. Which, after all, were the common currency of Whig propaganda which endures to this very day: despite his being no more a Whig than Thackeray, but a semi-radical Victorian liberal of anti-revolutionary tendencies. Practically a modern Tory. With the exception that he would have issues with Thatcherite Gradgrindism.
He left out ‘recent history’ ( remember he was only 12 years in from the 18th century himself ) for the same reason that modern history books end around 1945. 1688 was regarded as the end of history, and with the triumph of parliament the endgame was merely squabbling over the spoils, with different classes and groups advancing and falling back, without any further struggle needed. Obviously, he thought of the Working Class as conceptually noble, but in practice to be tamed and led by their traditional betters, now elected, which makes all the difference.

And most of the absentee landlords were Irish themselves; just as the Scottish land-owners oppressed their ain folk ( with a freer hand once their class was triumphant and the arbitrary rule of kings gone ), and the English gentry oppressed their own tenants; and every other damn group has been more exploited by their fellow countryman than any outsider. ‘A man’s enemies will be those of his own household’.

Nineteenth-Century Middle-Class English Author has World-View of Nineteenth-Century Middle-Class Englishman, Shock!

Please expand on that. What is this “Whig propaganda”?

You’ve heard of Holochaust deniers? He was a Potato Famine denier.

“Mick thought himself too good for spuds, is all.”

Blinks.

Whig propaganda is the rationale of the Whigs for fighting against Divine Right and any power accruing to the Crown, eliminating that, and replacing that with themselves. Their vehicle being parliamentary supremacy — which is just as much based on an arbitrary and irrational ‘divine right of parliament’, since any ‘power’ is in essence irrational and based on force. [ see John Neville Figgis book on**Divine Right**. ].

They objected to such things as standing armies, high taxes, and religious intolerance. Once in power they instituted standing armies ( through a legal fiction of an annual Army Act whereby the armed forces were legalized for another year ); higher taxes; and religious intolerance, particularly in Ireland. These things were now proper since it was now them doing it.

Whiggery was the default mode of thinking throughout the 18th century, and thence until they split into new liberals and new tories in the 19th ( the last official named Whig lords went into the Conservative party or the Liberal Unionists in protest at Gladstone’s madcap scheme for Home Rule for Ireland ); but they made modern Britain, and modern America too, through their legacy of Liberty for All ! But more liberty for the most deserving, as measured by wealth and nepotism. "…Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.” was their most cherished belief.
As I have said: there were an awful lot of different types of Whigs, but the ones who overthrew James II & VII were the great nobles, and whilst they had a good run the movement although heavily biased to the rights of land-owning aristocrats from the great families started to become the province of the upper-class propertied gentry and so on; the Pitts and Grenvilles of this world ( who naturally were related: Whiggery was always primarily a family affair ), until some like Fox started supporting the French Revolution whilst others like Pitt the Younger ( who was elected as an independent whig ) opposed it, more as a matter of business than from any ideological opposition. The new tories, no connection to those of Bolingbroke’s time, didn’t start calling themselves that until after Pitt snuffed it. And in a few decades liberals and conservatives took over: both heirs to the whig constitutional tradition.

Basically, if you believe in Freedom ! and obeying your elected government selected by the proper people for the interests of all proper people, Thank a Whig.

Is that an actual Dickens quote?

:confused: I can’t see how any of that would have made Dickens, if a Whig, and writing his ACHOE, gloss over the whole period when the Whigs came into their glory the way he did, nor fail to excoriate the Hanovers the way he had all of their predecessors, nor fail to give Victoria the same treatment.

The point is he was not a Whig: he was a semi-radical liberal, one of the successors once the Whigs had faded, as all parties and cultures fade. Despite admiring what they had achieved, and left as The British Constitution, they were old hat; not to mention esconced into the aristocracy ( which he like Thackeray most emphatically was not. Thackeray: “*I am not a Whig, but, oh, how I should like to be one *!” ), however they were whigs in the sense that Whig thinking was part of the common currency of thought, in the same way that faded marxist-leninism permeated the Soviet Union in the last few decades of it’s moribund life: you weren’t likely to get far if you suggested the ideology was moronic, but that didn’t mean you had to really, really believe it. Any more than the current GOP takes the Sermon on the Mount seriously; it’s enough that they say they do.
To continue his idiotic History through the eighteenth century would have meant criticizing the flaws in the glorious settlement, and by opening recent ( recent to him, remember ) quarrels and partizan hatreds exposed him to controversy unsuited to a child’s book. Much safer to flay Henry VIII.
The Victorian belief system included a sturdy denunciation of Kings and regal power — especially those foreigners alive then ( Gladstone kinda made stuff up on the fly about potentates he disliked, ad extempore ) — but reserved a fake reverence for the Queen who was placed there at the British State’s Will. Providing she behaved herself.

See also: Herbert Butterfield’s professorial conception of The Whig Interpretation of History, a slight and rambling work which nonetheless established the conventional presentist view of history as a load of bollocks.

So, how does that make Dickens a “public nuisance” whose opinions were “valueless”?

But, they don’t.

He was fairly noisy.

Actually, apart from American Notes and Sketches by Boz, both being nearer his early journalism, I find his writing style annoying, with a strong vein of self-congratulation. As a radical, he exposed the horrors of life and exploitation; but as an establishment man he opposed trade unions.

There are dozens of other Victorian writers, including some Americans, who are better to read.

Well, valueless to me, as all of us including myself have valueless opinions to others. As a divine rightist, I can scarcely be expected to approve. Still, his sensationalism, verging on melodrama, and boundless sentimentality, amused the world, but did not improve the public taste.

Good luck finding a children’s history book that discusses hanging chads and Diebold’s discrepancies.

:golf clap:

Regards,
Shodan

I must concur with my distinguished colleague. The art of making Dickensian puns has lately fallen upon hard times, but I have great expectations that cleverer pens than mine will revive it.

I didn’t expect that, but I don’t mind, I love a twist!