It co existed with English andMarcher law; it was pock marked with local customs and variations; in its substance and procedure it was being heavily influenced by English law and practice; andthere is no reason to believe that there was an articulated pattern of jurisdiction or even a recognized curriculum of legal learning which prevailed throughout nativeWales.

hen the tide of fortune turned, especially after 1277, the appeal toWelsh law came into its own as a way to counter English interpretations of the obligations of feudal relationship.

Notions ofthe status (status) of the principality, of the prince and of Wales itself were valuable ingredients in developing an ideology of the separateness of Wales which might beused to challenge English notions of feudal dependence

he kings of England had also on occasion realised the political advantages of proclaiming themselves as champions of Welsh law intheir attempts to exploit the fissures within the dynasty of Gwynedd and to impose the Welsh custom of partibility for their own advantage.

n a shared belief in a particularversion of historical mythology and prophecy, i

L Wales Annexed to Crown of ENGLAND

he impact of the final Edwardian conquestof Wales 1277–83 was, it is true, greatly reduced by the fact that much ofeastern and southern Wales had already been conquered in a piecemealfashion over two centuries; the inhabitants of those districts had thereby hadample opportunity to come to terms with Anglo-Norman rule over manygenerations

Thebones of Arthur were supposedly “discovered” in a grave at the monastery of Glaston-bury about 1190, as reported by Gerald of Wales (in two of his works, De PrincipisInstructione, “On the Instruction of Princes,” c. 1193, and Speculum Ecclesiae, “Mirrorof the Church,” c. 1217), who claimed to have been present at the exhumation.Though the discovery may well have been part of a ploy by the Glastonbury monksto attract financial support, it had the additional effect of proving not only that Arthurhad been a “real” person but that, far from planning a return from the Isle of Avalon,he was indisputably dead. Since the figure of Arthur had long been regarded byNorman conservatives as a politically dangerous messianic symbol who incited theremaining British peoples (mainly in Wales and Cornwall) to rebellion, the discoveryof his bones was a convenient sign which discredited Geoffrey’s hints of a Britishreturn to power and enabled the Norman monarchy to appropriate Arthur as an earlyancestor of their own royal line

Just as he is aboutto return to Britain from his exile in Brittany, an angelic vision warns him thatGod did not wish the Britons to rule in Britain any longer, not until Merlin’sprophecy of a triumphant return of the heirs of the British kings was fulfilled (HRBbook 12).

Even the character of Gawain,Arthur’s nephew, and the removal of the wounded Arthur to Avalon, both staplefeatures of later Arthurian stories, appear first in Geoffrey’s account.

dward Iliked to think of himself as Arthur reborn and he and Eleanor presided over a grand reopening of theGlastonbury tomb just after Easter in 1278, by which he orchestrated the connection (Loomis 1953

Arthur had, of course, to be laid to rest, and so disabled as a symbol of Welsh resistance to Anglo-Norman domination, and this was achieved spectacularly at Glastonbury, where his remains(alongside those of Guinevere) were ‘discovered’ in 1191 ( ).

Many, most obviously Edward I, made extensive use of his reign asa source of political precedent and propaganda to be reformulated for present purposes of politicalstatus and aggrandizement.

From Henry II onwards until at least Henry VIII,L’Estoire des EngleisEnglish kings, their courtiers and their apologists took the existence of Geoffrey’s Arthur as a matterof fact which was beyond doubt

It has reasonably been suggested that this political and dynastic utility was always Geoffrey’sintention (e.g. Tatlock 1950: 426), given that he was competing with other writers of history for élitepatronage

In particular, it provided the new Anglo-Norman kings with a predecessor of heroicsize, a great pan-British king in a long line of monarchs capable of countering contemporary pressuresfor decentralization, as had occurred in France, and reinforcing claims of political superiority over theCeltic lands

However, Anglo-Saxon history was ill-suited to legitimizing the new Norman regime in Britain

The result was arguably a reinforcement of belief in a folk Arthuras a protective force, as met with by the canons of Laon in Cornwall and Devon early in the twelfthcentury, who was considered by members of the local community to be still living. William ofNewburgh, almost a century later, similarly noted ( I, 9): ‘the Britons ...The History of English Affairsare considered to be so barbaric that they are said to be still awaiting the future coming of Ar

As the was later to note, no burial place was known for Arthur –Stanzas of the Gravesunsurprising, of course, if his origins lay in the fusion of folklore and political utility

Arthur’s depiction as the beloved of Christ and the Virgin Mother, and as a Christ-helper,encouraged his reign to be envisaged as a peculiarly golden age, characterized not only by gloriousvictory and extensive rule but also by high moral standing

there developed the idea of Arthur’s conquests on the continent, which are firstmet with in passing in the pre-Galfridian Breton and .Life of St. Goueznovius Culhwch ac Olwen

The ’s claim that ArthurHistoriainvariably led the kings of the Britons in battle was naturally read by later audiences as indicative of agreat king ruling over other kings. Arthur necessarily emerged, therefore, as an ‘overking’ and as anemperor – and the r

Adam of Damerham King Arthur and Glastonbury (18th April)

By the late thirteenth century, Glastonbury -- some twelve miles from Cadbury -- was already a place with strong Arthurian connections. Identified by Geoffrey of Monmouth as the site of the legendary Avalon, resting-place of Joseph of Arimathea who took possession of the Holy Grail after the Crucifixion, it had already attracted the attention of Henry II and Richard I.(2) However, it was Edward I whose interest in the Glastonbury legend was particularly strong. He owned a prose Tristan, conducted Arthurian-inspired tournaments, linked his Welsh and Scottish campaigns to the legend, and created festivals which he called `Round Tables' in emulation of his mythical role-model.(3) His most conspicuous act in this regard was to order that the alleged tomb of Arthur and Guinevere, `discovered' at Glastonbury in the twelfth century, be opened and that the remains be removed from their resting-place in the lady chapel and then re-interred in the main church

resident Wilson’sFourteen Points as the basis of a new democratic post-war order,

Historiography of Weimar Germany:

The village was extremely poor, and it was said that by 1933 one half of its inhabitants voted Nazi and the other half Communist

At the same time, however, formed in the turbulent years of defeat, revolution, civil war, and inflation, we had little belief in the duration of stability. The one certainty we had was that nothing was certain. Since none of the political movements that had started with the end of the war had fully reached its goal, we wondered whether unrest and turmoil was really abating or only reassembling for a new attack.

Hans Ostwald, "A Moral History of the Inflation" (1931)

On Monday or Tuesday, the Ministers of the Interior of the states are coming to a meeting about the SA. I have no doubt that we will master it – one way or the other. I think we have already drawn its poisonous fangs. One can made good tactical use of the endless declarations of legality made by the SA leaders, which they have handed to me in thick volumes. The SA is thereby undermining its credibility. But there are still difficult weeks of political maneuvering until the various Landtag elections are over. Then, one will have to start working towards making the Nazis acceptable as participants in a government because the movement, which will certainly grow, can no longer be suppressed by force. Of course the Nazis must not be allowed to form a government of their own anywhere, let alone in the Reich. But in the states an attempt will have to be made here and there to harness them in a coalition and to cure them of their utopias by constructive government work. I can see no better way, for the idea of trying to destroy the Party through an anti-Nazi law on the lines of the old anti-Socialist law I would regard as a very unfortunate undertaking. With the SA of course it is different. They must be eliminated in any event, and ideally the so-called Iron Front as well. [ . . . ] Source of English translation: Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham, eds., Nazism 1919-1945, Vol. 1,The Rise to Power 1919-1934. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1998, pp. 98-99

To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population

Point 25 proposed an authoritarian form of government in its place. Adolf Hitler and the Nazis never wavered from their intention of establishing an authoritarian government under a strong leader. In 1932, as the Nazis campaigned in elections, Hitler asserted, “I consider the future of our nation [Volk] to be seriously threatened if the current democratic parliamentarianism is not replaced by a strong leadership authority

As the Nazis tried to win voters, they focused on different parts of the platform. They emphasized different aspects of their ideology based on whose support they were trying to gain at a given moment

In August 1925, Hitler wrote, “This program is unchangeable. It only finds its completion through its fulfillment.”

Arthur

Wales and King Arthur

Whether the Industrial Revolution gave most Britons absolutely or relatively more and better food, clothes and housing is naturally of interest to every historican. But he will miss much of its point if he forgets that it is not merely a process of addition and subtraction, but a fundamental social change. It transformed the lives of men beyond recognition. Or, to be more exact, in its initial stages it destroyed their old ways of living and left them free to discover or make themselves new ones, if they could and knew ho

The British Industrial Revolution experienced mass migration from the country to the town, the evaluation of which is every bit as complicated as the evaluation of the, in some respects similar, migrations of the present day.22 The majority of migrants do not regret the decision to move. Not all have burnt their boats, but return to the country is fairly rare.23 Yet tastes are altered by the city, and the possibility of return to the old life‐style can be forfeited

ecognize and respect a different view argued vigorously by Amartya Sen (see Sen et al.,  1987) according to which, to put it simply, the standard of living should embrace all aspects of the quality of life. Not only has this view great appeal but it also enjoys the advantage that it evades awkward delineation problems.