A Victorian Christmas

Many of our current Christmas traditions are actually Victorian inventions such as the Christmas cracker and the Christmas card. 

In 1843, Henry Cole commissioned an artist to design a card for Christmas, it had a drawing and a message. At first they were very expensive, at 1 whole shilling, but once Queen Victoria encouraged her children to make their own cards, the idea caught on. Once the colour printing press was invented and more widely used, the price of cards began to drop. By the 1880's, the sending of cards became popular and in 1880, there were 11.5 million Christmas cards. The Royal Family can also be thanked for the Christmas Trees we have today.  


The medieval tradition of using evergreens in houses in the winter months continued into the Victorian era however the way this was done was adapted to become more sophisticated and elegant. Uniformity, elegance and order was the Victorian way and house wives were given guidance as to where to place these evergreens in magazines such as Family Magazine. Prince Albert was German in origin and one German tradition is to bring in a whole tree and decorate it, making it the centre piece of your decorations. The Upper Classes wanted to replicate the Royal Family and so began to bring in trees and eventually it filtered down to the Middle Classes. 


A Tudor Tradition that the Victorians adapted was the Mince Pie. Mince Pies were usually made with minced meat but mixes without meat began to gain popularity and so the Mince Pies we have today, are courtesy of the Victorians. We can also thank the Victorians for all the left over turkey you end up with until the middle of January as it was them who moved away from traditional meats such as Lamb and Beef and decided on Turkey as it was the perfect sized animal for a middle class family. Now, families are smaller and so we end up with lots and lots and lots of left over Turkey meat!

Why we love Cecil by Hannah Gunter

Of all the things historians argue about, Sir William Cecil shouldn’t be one of them because he was amazing. He started working for the Tudor family in the Reign of Edward and had to flee during the reign of Strict Catholic Mary I. When Elizabeth I came to the throne he returned as her loyal advisor and was brilliant!

 

He had no personal ambition for power, unlike other members of the Privy Council, and was unquestionably loyal to both Elizabeth and the crown. He was guided by years of experience in political matters and had the best interest of the country at his heart. He guided Elizabeth, who had not been educated with the intention of ruling, and helped her secure her succession and religious settlement.

 

He was all about forward planning like when he started planning for a possible Spanish invasion several years before the actual Spanish Armada occurred and did not let himself be drawn into the power struggle of less experienced council members. He worked with Walsingham to uncover the supposed plots and convinced parliament to execute Mary Queen of Scots after she was found guilty of treason, despite Elizabeth’s refusal. Cecil was a strong character and was not afraid of Elizabeth’s infamous temper so she knew she could rely on him to give impartial advice. He worked for Elizabeth right up until he died and even trained his son, Robert Cecil, to take over his job although he wasn’t as good as his father.

 

William Cecil was brilliant and he deserves a hug because he worked so hard. This is one thing all historians should agree on!

‘Also he looks like father Christmas’ Megan Hack December 2013

 

 

 

Why Elizabeth should have kept England a Catholic country by Shanice Woolley and Megan Hack

If Elizabeth had not enforced a new religious settlement declaring England as a protestant country her reign would have been without so much unrest. For instance she wouldn’t have had to worry about passing laws through the House of Lords where revisionists historians believe was the biggest Catholic threat as they would have been in support of Elizabeth. The North would have been easier to control without the establishment of a council and she would not have to worry about Spain and Scotland entering England posing a Catholic threat from the North.  The Northern rebellion of 1569 also would not have gained support from the Catholic nobles who later hid the Jesuits priests. Furthermore Elizabeth would have demonstrated her political authority better as Cecil would not have been so supportive of remaining Catholic as he himself was Protestant, consequently the debate between historians as to whether Cecil led Elizabeth would not have occurred.   Also the English Catholics would not have favoured Mary Queen of Scots to become Queen as they would already have a Catholic monarch who was legitimate  as a result the Catholic plots would not have surfaced and the Pope would not have ex-communicated Elizabeth.  Mary’s execution helped to trigger the Spanish Armada if Elizabeth had stayed Catholic we would not have gone to war with Spain because they are also Catholic, therefore we would have built on the alliance formed in Mary reign via Mary and Philip’s marriage.  An alliance with such a powerful country would mean that any Protestant revolt would be highly unlikely as they would not have the support from major countries as France, Italy, Spain, Scotland and Ireland were all Catholic. 

Another reason as to why Elizabeth should have remained Catholic is in order to help control her Privy Council, for instance she sent Robert Cecil to put down the rebellion in Ireland however he makes peace terms against her wishes, consequently she puts him under house arrest and gets rid of his sweet wines monopoly. This results in Essex rebelling, which would not have occurred if he had not gone in to Ireland to supress the Catholics; therefore if Elizabeth herself was Catholic she wouldn’t have sent him and none of the events would have occurred.

If she had remained Catholic she would have had two legitimate heirs who she would have recognised, Mary and her son James VI.

Young Historians Interpretations of Elizabeth

Being young Historians and through their studies of Queen Elizabeth I, year 13 have come to their own conclusions about the effectiveness, authority and the benefit that Elizabeth had to England.

With regards to religion many people have considered Elizabeth I to be the monarch who solved the problems that were caused by the previous Tudor monarchs but was her Religious Settlement all it was cracked up to be, this panacea that would restore religious peace to England. Some considered Elizabeth's religious settlement to be a way of hiding from making harsh decisions and showed how indecisivness at the start of a reign ultimately leads to harsher sanctions being placed later on in the same reign.

Again, with marriage and the succession, did Elizabeth actually just hide away from making a decision that might upset people in the country and abroad. Would she have been better off chosing either a husband or a successor early on in her reign, therefore leaving her time to mend the burned bridges of this marriage in time for any off-spring to enjoy a smooth accession to the throne.

Whatever opinion we have built up about Queen Elizabeth I, she is such a controversial and enigmatic figure that she gives young historians plenty of material to discuss and debate and help build their historical skills.

The BIG Questions

 

 

 

History is such a great subject because in so many cases there are no "right" answers.

Historians, teachers, students and people who just enjoy learning about History for fun can all come up with different opinions about key events and people in history.

Some of the BIG historical questions are things like "If it hadn't been for WW1, would WW2 have even come about?" and "Was Guy Fawkes really guilty?".

Your challenge is to come up with your own interpretation and answer some of the Big Questions related to your current curriculum.

I have listed some below, feel free to write a reply with your opinion.

Year 7

If there are no Motte and Bailey Castles left in existence, what evidence do we have that they were really that bad? If we don't have enough evidence, can we make a fair judgement?

Should we bother to study the History of other countries that we do not live in?

What is the benefit of studying anything that happened more than 50 years ago?

Should William the Conqueror actually be called "William the Good Timing" or "William the Lucky"?

Year 8

Has the Industrial Revolution done more harm than good?

Is being able to vote really that important?

When should we stop studying World War 1 and World War 2?

Should all people who can trace their ancestors back to the slave trade be compensation or pay damages?

Year 9

Do we actually ever learn from history?

Were children better off when schooling wasn't compulsory and they could earn money instead?

Should you learn about events that upset you?

Is it right to teach children about acts of evil?

Year 10

Should the state (government) be responsible for the health of the nation? Does the government interfere too much in individuals health?

Is it important that everyone spells words the same way?

Do we need to understand how our bodies work in order to be healthy?

What impact does religion have on society and is this always a good influence?

Year 11

Bodiam Castle - was Dallynrigge just trying to torture future historians?

Mary Queen of Scots - evil or just misunderstood?

Is studying Shakespeare a useful way to learn about the morals of Elizabethan England?

Was the Elizabethan Age really that Golden?

Have your say!

Chose which question you would like to answer and post your answer below with the question in the title.