History

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In today's Guardian, Ronan Bennett looks forward to The Devil's Whore, Channel 4's forthcoming drama by Our Friends in the North creator Peter Flannery. The series promises a new portrayal of the upheavals of the English Civil War, with characters including the Leveller leaders, Thomas Rainsborough, John Lilburne and Edward Sexby.

As Bennett notes, the radical narrative which sees the Levellers as key figures in an English revolution has become unfashionable among professional historians in recent years.

so-called "revisionist" historians have argued that the civil wars were "an accident", a temporary falling-out among the country's natural rulers. They say a misleading emphasis has been placed on the kind of ideological conflict represented in The Devil's Whore, and they will likely find in Flannery's preoccupations too many echoes of the late historians Christopher Hill and Brian Manning, whom they have criticised for a skewed reading of the period.

Of course, it is more comforting for political centrists to interpret the tumults of the period as an aberration. That way, England's "genius for compromise" is given the authoritative endorsement of tradition, and the role of organised and militant radicalism - from the Levellers to the suffragettes and early trade unionists - can be quietly put to one side. 

Tom Griffin (London, OK): As the 90th anniversary of the 1918 armistice approaches, historian  Dan Todman considers the meaining of the First World War for Britain today in an OpenDemocracy essay:

The remembering of major national events is bound to change over time. What makes the current British memorialising of the 1914-18 war fascinating is the way it combines fairly fixed concerns and narratives with novel voices and forms of inquiry. That makes it too an interesting case of how societies in the process of exploring their past can resist as well as embrace a deeper encounter with it. 

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): When the prime minister came out in the Telegraph to say he liked the idea of a museum of British history I thought it was ridiculous and no deep and wider reader like him could get it so wrong. Jon wrote a witty response to the absurd idea and the 'black humour' of the British and Vron Ware posted on the international rather than national meaning of British history. But it seems that Gordon does not read OurKingdom and Tristram Hunt reports in today's Guardian that he has found £100 million to create a 'National Museum of British History' in London. An absurd misnomer as the first word is a mistake. Hunt modestly describes the idea as "deranged". He suggests that a much better approach is being adopted by the British Library and the National Archives in their forthcoming 'Taking Liberties' exhibition of milestone documents on the British constitution - though I have a bet that its curators will not have the nerve to include Charter 88 despite its 20th anniversary casting it suitably into the past.

Britain must be in trouble! In the spirit of the blitz a lot of serious people, including more than a few of the once great and still good (or at least ermined), gathered deep in the Cabinet War Rooms below Whitehall, risking their health from the underground ventilation, packed in rows of inexpensive folding chairs. They were there to discuss the need to inform policy decisions with some history. Damn, we must think before we act!