I've been pondering the whole political refrain from both major parties, that the other side will "take us back to the seventies". This idea that Britain was in hoc to a bureaucratic union class. Living standards were awful and that everything felt a bit like Hoxhas Albania!

The last real stuff I read on post war britain was Dominic Sandbrook who comes from a sort of whiggish softly pro thatcher perspective. From what I can gather in Sandbrooks telling everything builds up to britain needing a reset in the 80s. Did it? It can't have been that awful?

Are there any books that refute the idea it was all doom gloom and bureaucratic alienation?

I'm going to check out That Option No Longer Exists by John Medhurst which is from a socialist perspective. And I believe Andy Becketts When the Lights Went Out is similar and will also check that out.

I mean maybe it was all just consistently bad- but I can't get a clear read on post war britain? Like how far is it the sick man of europe and this total outlier? Comparatively were the seventies in Britain that different to anywhere else?

Can anyone reccomend any books that maybe balance the period a bit better? I mean I've got family alive who have fond memories of different aspects if the seventies?

But reading sandbrook with a critical eye I feel it's all a bit the decade of crisis.

I discovered the idea about turning the British Empire into an Imperial Federation while the web. But what exactly did the proposal for an Imperial Federation entail? How would it work in theory? And why wasn't it implemented?

Hi, I am currently doing a research project on Hippie culture in the UK. But I want to make sure I really dig down into the specif impact this movement had on UK history. Although it originated from the US, it flourished differently across different countries.

Does anyone know what was fundamental aspects of Hippie culture in the UK? What impacts did it have on the country? How did it start over there?

Thank you so much fo the help!! (Also, I apologize for any mistakes, English is not my first language).

Hi, not sure if I’m in the right sub, I’m Australian and I was speaking to my father in law today who was born and raised in Brum, he was telling me of his grandmother who was in her 90’s in the late 1960’s. He said she had the alphabet tattooed up her forearm. I was just wondering if anyone knows what this would signify and what kind of woman had visible tattoos that long ago? Cheers.

I read that after the collapse of Roman Britain, an industry arose amongst Britons from scavenging the Roman ruins for artefacts and treasures.

Do we have a lot of information about how this worked and the treasures that people found most valuable at the time? Where did scavengers sell their treasures, for example?

If anyone could please recommend articles or books on the topic, I would be grateful.

I found it hard to Google properly, as I mostly get information about Roman hoards we've found in modern times.

I'm doing biographical research, primarily between 1880 and 1950, and was hoping there might be a online archive of digitized newspapers from the UK from this time period. Does anyone know about a site like that? Thanks in advance!

A philosophical question, no right or wrong answer.

But often perceived poor Kings or queens that made errors, often help bring in indirect legislation to improve the UK.

For example King John indirectly brought in Magna Carta, or Charles the first monarchs less powerful (good thing?)

What is you guys thoughts?

In 2028 England will be able to celebrate the 100th anniversary of all citizens aged 21 or over having the right to vote thanks to the efforts of the suffragettes and many others before them (and in 2069 we will be able to celebrate 100 years of all citizens aged 18 or over having the right to vote). We use the word democracy to refer to systems where at least in theory the ‘demos’ (the people) have the right to vote but in England in 1927 less than half of adults had the right to vote and two hundred years earlier that percentage was far less. Can anyone offer a timeline with sources showing the percentage of the population of England who had the right to vote through history?

Over the past few years, I have asked this at least twice on r/History and r/AmericanHistory and received Upvotes for the post but no one has attempted to answer the question.

Watching a Smithsonian TV show on the American Revolution. They stated as fact that if George Washington had been captured at the Battle of Brandywine he "probably" would have been hung.

Secondarily, when the British capture Philadelphia as a result of the loss at Brandywine, Congress has escaped. Would the British have actually hung Congress (including to drop some names familiar to Americans) John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, etc. if they had caught them in September 1777?

Note I know Charles Lee, a General, was captured in 1776 but he had been a Lt Col. in British Army just 4 years before with long British service and was writing his colleagues, including Howe, to a certain extent making fun of the colonials. He seems a different category.

Good evening everyone,

I'm currently trying to review the political history of the UK, and I'm having a little trouble understanding exactly why Simon de Montfort, a nobleman followed by barons, vouched for making commoners enter the Parliament. I've been looking for answers online, but it's kind of hard to understand what were his real motives.

So far, my most promising hypothesis is that offering to make a place for knights and the rising middle class of merchants in the country political institutions guaranteeded him their military support and loyalty against the king's army, which made a huge difference and allowed De Montfort and the barons to win at Lewes.

Am I any close to his motives? Or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance!

The Prince's Oak, Prince's Oak, Shropshire. By the side of a fairly busy B-Road (B4393) sits a tree and a plaque. It reads, 'Near this tree His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales was introduced to his Principality by Sir Richard Puleston, BART, on the 9th day of September 1806'. Which is fine, I'd expect the Prince of Wales to be introduced to Wales at some point, but 1806 makes him, the future Regent George IV, 44 years old - this seems a tad old to be being 'introduced'...reintroduced, visited, made a visit to...all of that seems reasonable, but 'introduced' sounds like a first time acquaintance with. Making the puzzle more puzzling is the reference to Sir Richard Puleston,BART....the Puleston Baronetcy was not created until 1813 so he would not have been Baronet in 1806 - so there seems to be at least one error there. Anyone know....was this an 'introduction' in the traditional sense of the word or a rather lax use of the term?

Hi,

Not quite sure where to ask this so I'm hoping someone here can help? We're doing some family history and have found a telegram from my grandfather to my grandmother wishing her a happy birthday whilst he was deployed. It has a date and an "office of origin" but gives a code rather than naming the office. Is there a list of offices and codes we can use to work out where it was sent, or is there any other way of finding out?

Many thanks in advance.

The map has spellings like "Lyncolne" for Lincoln and "Lecester" for Leicester and (as a non-native) I am wondering if these spellings are accurate for the time period. Wikipedia seems to not mention these names on either city's page. (I am particularly interested in the cities Lincoln, Leicester, and Peterborough, and any cities/towns in-between/around them, as that area holds great importance to me)