Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837

This book was published 25 years ago but its assessment of what constitutes the identity of the British is very relevant, even more than when it was written, to the torturous convolutions regarding Scottish independence and Brexit we are currently enduring.My take from this book is that what we now think of as British identity was essentially knitted together during the period this book covers, from the Union with Scotland in 1707 to the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837, but most particularly in the years following the loss of the American colonies in 1776.Shortly prior to this Britain had undergone the most successful war of its history, the Seven Years War, in which it fought off rival suitors for the colonisation of North America, India and much of the West Indies.The net result was firstly a massive war debt, which was recouped partly by taxing a jubilant and more united British workforce, now that the defeat of the Jacobites at Culloden meant that the Scots were no longer to be feared, a workforce which could be and was put to work in the colonies, especially India, a sphere the Scots especially took to like ducks to water.And after the loss of America, stunned by their defeat, the Brits hardened their attitudes, all the more so when the French Revolution and Napoleon threatened our borders.Our civil service and tax systems grew exponentially to cope with the Empire and the war, and despite popular anger at the repression Pitt introduced to avoid giving encouragement to the evangelical French, there was also massive popular support for the war. Rule Britannia.Britain was exhausted after the war, but we had somehow come of age, and twenty years after the Treaty of Vienna we had our wind back and produced a series of groundbreaking reforms – the Reform Act, the emancipation of Catholics and the end of the slave trade, reforms which were the result of massive popular pressure from all parts of the country.Modern Britain was born.Colley’s achievement, by dint of exhaustive research of a type not perhaps previously attempted, is a history of the psychology of the British people at a time when Britain became more than the sum of its parts: England, Scotland and Wales; this achieved by genuine integration particularly between England and Scotland. She has clearly consulted in a systematic way vast quantities of popular writings, publicity, newspapers and so on, but instead of boring us with endless quotations offers a considered assessment of currents of developing public feeling and opinion. She has also assembled a magnificent series of illustrations which unusually all appear relevant to the text.Now this identity, parts of which have looked lame increasingly over the last fifty years is on the rack, or can it be distilled into something independent of the Protestantism, entrepreneurism and warlike spirit which produced it?

It was the study book for our history reading group and stimulated a good deal of discussion. It was described as a standard resource for the topic of how British identity was forged in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The choice of contemporary illustrations provided valuable insights into how the notion of Britishness evolved and also the political and racial tensions between the English and the Scots particularly. Three factors were particularly highlighted the role of religion, the economy and the emergence of empire which provided outlets for those shut out of the English political establishmentPerhaps a little more exploration of the situation in Ireland mighr have been helpful but the complexities of the issues involved would probably necks sated a second volume. Unlike many,histories it deals with issues of identity which are relevant to our times.

Loving the book. Waited a bit longer than expected but a brilliant read. This book is a perfect companion to Brexit

Seems heavy to readDM

This is an interesting study of the development of British national identity in the 18th to 19th Centuries. Traditionally, there have been two takes on this subject. Until 1960s, it was assumed that this was a process of consent, with class, regional and ethnic conflict written out of the picture. In crude terms, we might call this the Whig School of historical thought. Since the 1960s the cosy, complacent ‘establishment’ view of the construction of national identity has come under incessant attack, and not without good reason, and with considerable success.Both approaches have been become stale and it is to this book’s credit that it has a novel take. Surveying the 18th and early 19th Centuries, Colley concedes that British identity was indeed ‘constructed’ or invented but it’s fallacious to assume that the process was entirely top-down. The lower classes and the Celtic fringe did not just sit there and have an identity imposed on them but often negotiated its terms. The ruling class could appeal to shared interests and had the flexibility to make concessions.As far as shared interests were concerned, the ruling class’ invoking the fear of Jacobins to was not one of mere cynical calculation, a ploy to cement identity by concocting a fictional foreign threat to unite against. Many members of the lower orders had plenty of reason to fear the violent and disruptive consequences of a Jacobite restoration, especially one sponsored by the French, who made no secret of their hegemonic ambitions. Hence the ruling class could afford to take a calculated risk and arm many of the lower classes during the Napoleonic Wars, a gamble it would not have undertaken had it not been confident of lower class loyalty.The construction of British identity then was largely achieved by uniting against an outsider and timely concessions to assuage resentments – an adroit mixture particularly well applied to Scotland. The chapter on Scotland – and that nation’s enthusiastic participation in the imperial project - is especially good. Read this book to learn why it makes no historical sense to call the British Empire an ‘English Empire’, or why it was totally apposite to have a Scot play that supposedly quintessential ‘Englishman’, James Bond.What we learn from this book are that the English ruling class could not rule by coercion alone and could not count on unconditional obedience from the lower orders. In this respect, it takes forward much of what we learned in the 1960s about the fissures of class, region and ethnicity, which were real ones, but without falling into the trap of constructing counter myths (such as the Scottish nationalist narrative of victimhood). The range of evidence used to support the thesis is very broad – not just official documents (‘ruling class history’) - but from visual and popular media which at least gives us some clue as to what ordinary people felt (given that literacy in Britain in historical terms was very high). But it realizes that both establishment and anti-establishment historians have assumed far too much as to what ordinary people thought and felt during the decades covered in this book. There is still considerable uncertainty but we know enough now to reject simplistic narrativeThe book does not deal with Ireland so well and fails to offer a convincing explanation as to how as Ireland was left so comprehensively out of the construction of British identity. This is its one prominent failing. And I am not sure if I agree with Colley’s thesis that the decline of a British identity is down to a decline of a real threat from the continent that cemented such an identity. But it is certainly striking that democratic progress in the United Kingdom has been strongly correlated with war and one can discern a stalling in democratic advance during the long years of peace on the Continent after 1815, and its resumption in the first half of the 20th Century.Overall then the book is well worth reading for a refreshing approach it takes to studying the construction of British national identity.

If you are studying or simply have an interest in Britain in the 18th Century then this is an indespensible book. Whilst I don't entirely agree with her analysis (as suggesting that Protestantism was both necessary and sufficient for 'Britishness' is quite empirically flawed and I'd lean more towards an explanation based on common experience) this book still addresses all of the important issues and areas of the period. It is also well set out and suprisingly easy to read. I studied this period at university, and I must have used this book for every essay I wrote.

Well protected in a transparent plastic bag. Although the book is rated "very good", but it is really "like new".

Superb analysis and synthesis of various sociopolitical trends/movements within the British society during an important period. Most of her conclusions are insightful and rational. However, I would totally disagree with her suggesting American War of Independence for Britain being equivalent to Vietnam war for USA. The former was like an adult son asserting his independence from his parents, while the latter was result of communism-paranoia with some overtones of colonization of a 3rd world country. One was almost like a civil war, while the other was as foreign a war as you can get.

Britons is solidly researched, well-written and its arguments are strongly presented. Despite that, for me it was a bit of a disappointment. I'm an American who started out with a barely rudimentary knowledge of British history, and over the last couple of years I've been working my way through a series of books on various periods starting from pre-Roman Britain, and this was the next in the sequence after one on the Stuarts. So I was hoping for a comprehensive survey of an extremely eventful period which saw several major wars, great imperial expansion, significant political evolution, and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. But Britons tells me very little about these events themselves, focusing only on their direct and indirect social impact. For example, the chapter covering the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic period -- in my view the weakest in the book -- includes next to nothing about the decision-making that led to war with France, or the war itself, instead going into mind-numbing detail relating statistics on the willingness of British men to serve in the military. I suppose I can't fault the author for failing to do something she wasn't attempting to do -- obviously her intent was to write a socio-cultural history, specifically about how an actual "British" national identity evolved. And for a UK citizen or anyone else who already has a reasonably good basic knowledge of the period, Britons might be a worthwhile supplement to that knowledge. But for anyone like myself who is hoping for a broader view of 18th and early 19th century Britain, be aware that this is not the book you are looking for -- and I now need to find another book (or books) to give me that more complete picture.

A well written work covering the time between the official Acts of Union and the beginning of the Victorian Era in British History.Though this is later than what I normally study (Early Modern British/Scottish History), it was still very informative, and gave a nice segway into Victorian History, which I also study.

Had to read this book for one of my college history courses. Turned out to be a good read regardless of the assignments.