# How is "Deep England" pseudohistory and not nostalgia?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-deep-england-pseudohistory-and-not-nostalgia/292221>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [February 28, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-deep-england-pseudohistory-and-not-nostalgia/292221 "2005-02-28T01:22:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-deep-england-pseudohistory-and-not-nostalgia/292221/1 "2005-02-28T01:22:23Z")

</div>

I was looking for info on the Merovingian Kings, and decided to look up [Pseudo history](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory) on wiki. I found an entry for Deep England, and every detail sound like nostalgia to me, not [Pseudohistory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory) . What am I understanding wrong?

Here, for ease of access, I will past the whole, short article.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep\_England](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_England)

Hmm. No wait, I won’t. Too long. Anyway…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-deep-england-pseudohistory-and-not-nostalgia/292221/2 "2005-02-28T02:33:52Z")

</div>

Ever hear a conservative activist wax eloquent about how much society has declined since the 1950s? It hasn’t. I was living then, and though a slightly naive child, a pretty good observer of what was wrong with things – and there was plenty. The “idyllic 1950s” is a modern myth, to be contrasted against an alleged decline today. “Deep England” is much the same thing – an idyllic past for England. As the Wikipedia article points out, Tolkien’s Shire was a gentle caricature of what “Deep England” was supposedly like. But the evidence of the time speaks quite otherwise, as may be learned from any history that gets into social trends in addition to wars and politics.

It’s not Pseudohistory in the way that Geoffrey of Monmouth or “And did those feet in ancient time” are, but it’s an idyllic, slanted depiction done out of nostalgia, and hence a misrepresentation of the truth.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-deep-england-pseudohistory-and-not-nostalgia/292221/3 "2005-02-28T11:52:14Z")

</div>

Ah! I didn’t realize. Thank you very much.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-is-deep-england-pseudohistory-and-not-nostalgia/292221/4 "2005-02-28T13:19:48Z")

</div>

> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> It’s not Pseudohistory in the way that Geoffrey of Monmouth or “And did those feet in ancient time” are, but it’s an idyllic, slanted depiction done out of nostalgia, and hence a misrepresentation of the truth.

What’s the difference?