How God Made the English

This is the story of the English and how God made them.

The United Kingdom was originally made up of four separate nations,

England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

The four only became united at different stages over the last 300 years.

We live in a time when those ancient national identities are being reasserted,

with a devolved Scottish parliament,

the Welsh and Northern Ireland National Assemblies,

and calls for greater independence.

But what about English identity?

Where does the idea of an English nation originally come from?

To understand the roots of the English as a people

we need to go back to the seventh century,

to the time when there were no English as such,

what is now England was then a land

of separate tribes and kingdoms run by Anglo-Saxon chiefs and kings.

It's here in what was the Anglo Saxon kingdom of Northumbria

that the idea of England really began,

with the work of a monk who was the greatest historian of his age in Europe.

At the end of the 7th century,

a seven-year-old boy was brought here by his parents.

This was a monastery.

And the boy they left here

was devoted to a life of prayer and learning.

His name was Bede and in the course of his life as a monk

he wrote books that, more than anything else,

shaped the soul of the English.

The monastery's biggest treasure was its library.

Well, the library's long gone, but I'm standing where it once stood.

And these paving stones mark out the lines of its walls.

Now, Bede hardly left the confines of this monastery for half a century

but all the time he was making journeys of the mind, right across the known world,

simply through the manuscripts in this room.

Bede was inspired to write about the church, the bible and the history of his people.

His masterpiece was a brilliant and engaging book called

The Ecclesiastical History Of The Gens Anglorum.

That's Latin for The English people.

It tells the story of how Roman Christianity arrived on these shores

and how the conversion of the people to Catholicism changed English society.

One of the earliest copies of it dates back to the 9th century,

and I'm excited about getting my hands on it.

Thank you.

Well, historians like me, even if we read Bede in Latin,

generally do it from a modern text

but this book is only 100 years younger than Bede himself.

Now Bede's story starts in Rome where Pope Gregory I,

on his own initiative, decided to send a mission

to this northern island.

He sent out a party of monks led by a monk called Augustine.

And in 597 they arrived in the kingdom of Kent.

From there, Roman Christianity spread through the land.

This was this was the very first time that a Pope had ever sent a mission anywhere.

And for Bede this sense of being singled out for special treatment, chosen, was hugely significant.

He paints a picture of the English as a people who adored the memory of Pope Gregory,

who were absolutely committed to this Roman Christianity and united by it.

For Bede, to be English is to be one people with one Christian God.

But what's intriguing about this history,

is that Bede was describing something which didn't actually exist.

The Christian mission from Rome was true.

But the people they came to convert were far from united.

The Anglo-Saxon world wasn't a single nation - England -

but a collection of Kingdoms,

Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria,

ruled by individual leaders and often at war with each other.

Until Bede wrote this history, there was no such thing as the English.

Even less, a people united by God.

So why was this unity so important to Bede?

A unity which didn't in fact exist.

Well, the answer lies in another of book of Bede's

and we have a copy here.

It's quite a surprising subject for a medieval best seller

because what it is, is a Biblical commentary,

a detailed description of only four chapters of the Bible.

But the chapters describe something very particular.

They describe a building, a temple, in fact,

which once stood in the heart of the city of Jerusalem 3,000 years ago.

"The house of the Lord which King Solomon built in Jerusalem."

In other words, the temple in Jerusalem, the centre of the identity of Israel.

For the Jews, the place where God lived.

And the description in the Bible is elaborate enough,

but Bede just dwells on it, he can't leave it alone.

It seems strange that a monk from Sunderland should be so obsessed

by a temple from a land thousands of miles away.

But for Bede it was a potent symbol,

and he saw in it meaning for his own land.

The temple was built following the unification

of once-warring tribes into one holy nation - ancient Israel.

And from this unity followed wealth and God's protection.

Now all that resonated with Bede.

And now he applied it to his own people, the Angli, the Gens Anglorum.

The Pope had chosen them above all others.

And if the warring tribes of the Angli could unite,

under this Catholic Christianity, they could be a new chosen nation.

That would make them a great people

and they would be a beacon for all Europe in their Christianity.

So Bede gave the Angli, the English,

the idea that they would be a Chosen People.

It was a vision full of promise.

But, of course, a vision is all it was, a theory.

It needed someone to take it out of the dusty library

and make it real.

And so it was, two centuries later, that a succession of Anglo-Saxon kings

took this Christian monk's idea

and used it to bring together one nation, the English.

So it was an idea that created England, a biblical idea.

But if the roots of English identity lie in a religious idea,

can the idea of English identity have any future?

All Jewish men have something in common.

The mark of every Jewish boy or man

is the fact that his foreskin has been removed at birth.

But what is the meaning of this act?

And how important is it

in creating Jewish identity?

I've been invited to attend a ceremony which is

one of the most important moments in a Jewish boy's life -

his initiation into the faith, his circumcision.

To understand the significance of Jewish circumcision,

we need to go back in time to the moment of the foundation of the Jews as a people.

The Jews believe that their history goes back 4,000 years.

The story of Jewish origins is contained in the Hebrew Bible,

also known as the Tanakh.

THEY SING

It's set at a time when the ancestors of the Jews,

the Israelites, were nomads, wandering in what is now the Middle East.

The Scriptures say that a man by the name of Abraham

was called by a voice in the wilderness.

It was the voice of God, calling Abraham to be the father of a great nation,

the founder of the Israelites.

According to the story,

God and Abraham entered into an agreement,

what the Hebrew Bible calls a covenant.

It's the foundation of the Jews as a people.

They promise to be faithful, and worship no other gods.

God would treat them favourable, as his chosen people

and give them a land to settle and call their own.

This historic agreement was marked with a very personal and solemn ritual.

The removal of the foreskin of every Jewish boy - circumcision.

The Jews believe that in this ceremony,

their identity as God's Chosen People is literally carved into the flesh.

The idea that the Jews are somehow specially favoured by God,

a chosen people, could sound like a conceited claim.

So, I quizzed the Rabbi about its meaning.

One thing people might say about the idea of the Chosen People

is that it's an arrogant idea. What's the comeback on that one?

It wasn't so much that the Jewish people were chosen,

to exclude anybody else.

It's not based on race or genetics,

because any person who would like to can join this mission.

And the concept of being chosen is more one of a person's obligation, so to speak, for service.

That seems to be the point, being a Chosen People involves duties, it involves service.

It's not actually luxuriating in the idea of being a Chosen People.

Exactly, it's completely and wholly about duties.

As an example, in Judaism, there's an obligation to give to charity,

it's not a luxury, you have to give ten percent of your earnings.

The object is to represent the concepts

that God hands down to the world.

THEY SING

4,000 years after Abraham, this famous agreement with God

still affects the life of every Jewish baby boy.

It's one of the oldest known rituals in the world still practised today.

But does such a ritual affect a person's identity?

What are the additional responsibilities and duties

that Jewish people believe God has placed upon them?

And what challenges to these are presented by contemporary British culture?

Who is British?

Can you tell from the faces you see in public?

It's not as easy as it looks.

It's often assumed that white people are British,

but large numbers of Eastern Europeans, Canadians, Australians now also live in Britain.

Black or Asian people, maybe first, second or third generation

Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi, who came to Britain 60 years ago

as citizens of the British Empire.

And then there's foreign nationals who come to Britain to live.

They're not British but they can become so.

Every year people from across the globe flock here to start a new life.

One of the things this country does really well

is to invent brand new rituals.

And one of the latest is a citizenship ceremony,

which is for those who want to settle here.

And I've come to Camden Town Hall just to see how it's done.

In 2004, the government introduced a compulsory citizenship ceremony

for anyone who'd been successful in applying for British nationality.

So, we're now ready to start seeing people in.

Could those becoming citizens please get together their photo ID

and their invitation letter.

Every week, about 4,000 immigrants from all over the world take part in these ceremonies.

That's just over 200,000 new citizens a year.

The numbers of people who actually enter the UK as immigrants is, of course, much larger.

But if their intentions are to stay and become British citizens,

they have to chalk up five years residence,

or three if they are married.

Ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the entrance of the Mayor of Camden.

The event is presided over by the Mayor.

And at the heart of the ceremony is an oath

or affirmation of allegiance to the Queen.

If you could all, please, repeat these words after me.

-I swear by Almighty God...

-I swear by Almighty God...

-..that on becoming a British citizen...

-..that on becoming a British citizen...

-..I will be faithful...

-..I will be faithful...

-..and bear true allegiance...

-..and bear true allegiance...

-..to Her Majesty...

-..to Her Majesty...

Queen Elizabeth II...

If you have a religion, you swear the oath on a holy book of your choice.

If you're not religious, you're given the option instead

to swear your allegiance solemnly, sincerely and truly.

If you could all, please, repeat these words after me.

-I do solemnly...

-I do solemnly...

-..sincerely and truly...

-..sincerely and truly...

But what exactly does allegiance to the Queen mean?

Well, there's a clue in the pledge given after the oath.

-..I will give my loyalty...

-..I will give my loyalty...

-..to the United Kingdom...

-..to the United Kingdom...

..and respect its rights and freedoms...

..and respect its rights and freedoms...

It's a commitment to uphold the United Kingdom's democratic values,

observe its laws

and fulfil one's duties and obligations as a British citizen.

..as a British citizen.

Ladies and gentlemen we will now have the playing of the national anthem,

so any gentlemen wearing hats, may I please ask you to remove them out of respect, thank you.

NATIONAL ANTHEM PLAYS

The ceremony isn't a test, you can't fail it,

but there's a great deal of debate as to whether it's a good idea.

NATIONAL ANTHEM PLAYS

Some Scots and some Welsh have objected to having to sing the national anthem.

Other critics say there shouldn't be a ceremony at all because it's just a gimmick.

Others think it should be more demanding and include a language test.

But supporters, like Prince Charles, think it's a good idea

because it's a way of celebrating and welcoming new citizens.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have now come to the end of the ceremony.

Thank you all very much for attending.

I would like to wish all every success for the future.

APPLAUSE

But what I find fascinating is why people decide to take British citizenship.

Tell me where you've come from.

I came from Philippines.

I came to work here in England as a staff nurse way back in 2004.

Right, and why England in particular, was there any good reason for England?

The freedom of speech in our country is a bit limited.

Erm, unlike in England, you can voice out your own opinions freely.

-I guess you might say you can be yourself here more than you might be in the Philippines?

-Definitely.

I belong to a minority Muslim community

it's in minority in Pakistan, and there's a lot of persecution against the community as such.

We're not considered Muslims, per se, by the state

which puts us in a very sort of awkward situation.

We're not very free to practice the religion.

And I think one of the things that I absolutely love about this country

is that I feel free to do whatever I want to do.

Through such ceremonies, Britain will continue to welcome new citizens.

But does going through a citizenship ceremony actually help people feel part of a culture?

For example, does it make you tolerant?

Does it make you British?

But then again, what exactly is it to be British?

England's reputation for tolerance is widely acknowledged.

But before the English get too pleased with themselves,

behind this modern day story of freedom and individual self expression,

there is a rather more discreditable tale.

The English once did persecution and intolerance

in a way which would make any modern dictator proud.

It's a shocking story of bloodshed and treachery.

In fact, the evidence from historical research is that

for most of the last 1,500 years, the English have been characterised

not by their tolerance but by their intolerance of other peoples.

It may be hard to believe,

but it was a rumour that started in England in the 12th century

that provided a precedent for Nazi Germany in its treatment of the Jews.

The street names in the ancient heart of the City of London

bear witness to a thriving Jewish population.

They arrived here in 1070,

when William the Conqueror brought them over from Normandy.

William had a very particular purpose for the Jews.

When they arrived, he gave them strict guidelines as to what they could or could not do.

They couldn't own their own land because they were not Christians

and the only trade they could practice was medicine.

But what they could do was lend money.

The reason for that is entirely religious.

Medieval England was a zealously Catholic nation,

fervently religious and devoted to the Pope.

But the Catholic church insisted that lending money at interest was a sin.

And since everyone in England was Catholic, that was a problem.

So it was a stroke of financial genius on the part of King William,

to import a set of non-Christians to do the money lending.

After all, what's it matter if Jews do the sinning.

It seemed a perfect solution to a difficult economic problem.

But just over 200 years later, all Jews were driven out of England

after years of alienation and abuse.

And their persecution was largely driven by religious differences.

Anti-Jewish feeling in England can be traced back to the story of an horrific murder.

On Easter Saturday 1144,

the dead body of a 12-year-old boy was found here.

He was gagged and half naked.

His name was William

and he'd been missing since the previous Tuesday.

Over the Easter weekend people came out here from the city

to gawp at the site of the killing and the rumours started.

Some members of the family said that he'd been murdered by Jews.

Well, that was horrific enough,

but then came the story came that he'd been crucified

in mockery of the death of Christ.

The boy's uncle, a priest, claimed that William's body was mutilated

with the marks of crucifixion.

The argument went that if the Jews could kill Jesus, as the Gospels claimed,

then they could easily kill a child in the same way.

It was the start of a potent Christian myth, known as The Blood Libel.

A false accusation that the Jews murdered Christian children

and used their blood in their own religious rituals.

William was made a Saint

and his body was brought here to Norwich Cathedral.

His shrine no longer exists.

But I've come here to meet the historian, Miri Rubin,

to discuss why the Jews were blamed for his murder.

Did the Jews really kill little William of Norwich?

No, and we have absolutely no evidence from the period

that's at all reliable to suggest so.

So why do the Jews get the blame for it?

Well, just like we know from our own times,

a child disappears, a child dies, it's absolutely appalling.

You look to blame people. Who would want to do this? Who might do it?

Families tend not to look at themselves or those closest to them

but rather to seek someone already thought to be evil or different or other.

And the Jews are the only religious minority in Norwich and, indeed, in England.

So they're, you know, the typical sort of outsider group,

a group of different people,

in whose houses one can imagine appalling things happening.

So what were the consequences for the Jews of England?

Well, that is so interesting. Very soon, indeed the second half of the 12th century

we have a number of what I would call copycat cases, really, where it was rumoured

that Jews might have been involved in the killings of little children, usually boys.

We know also that in 1255 in Lincoln

such an accusation unfolds fully whereby Jews of the city are accused,

they're arrested, they're interrogated, there's a trial,

they're taken to London and ultimately executed.

So over a century of the aftermath of Norwich, really,

this becomes a very powerful, well known, resonant narrative

about Jews and what they might do to Christians.

So, first Norwich, then England, then the world.

The English had set in motion a rumour which has had terrible echoes throughout human history.

That rumour fostered an atmosphere of hatred

that triggered pogroms and massacres of the Jews across Europe.

And not just in the medieval period.

In 21st century England, with its synagogues and flourishing Jewish communities,

it's painful to acknowledge the English invention of this most poisonous of lies.

The Jews were ruthlessly used and then abused by the English.

And this story of child murder gives a depressing insight into the murky past

of a country that now prides itself on its religious tolerance.

Is St George a true symbol of English identity?

Today more and more people are asking the question, who are the English?

One way of looking for an answer is in the traditional images of the nation.

But there's a problem with such images.

They can easily become stereotypes.

The trouble with stereotypes is that they blind you to reality.

It's time to take off the blinkers and find the real core of Englishness.

Take for example, England's patron saint, Saint George,

bound to be English, isn't he?

And a Christian to the core.

From football fans to some political parties,

St George and his flag have come to symbolise a particular sort of exclusive Englishness.

But, in my opinion, he stands for the very opposite,

inclusiveness!

And to see why, we have to travel many thousands of miles from these shores.

You might not expect me to go to Israel to start my search,

but according to local tradition, this town of al-Ludd,

which the Israelis now call Lod, was the home of the English saint.

The story of George is that he was a soldier in the Roman army,

but when the Emperor, Diocletian, began persecuting Christians, George objected.

He was imprisoned for his defiance and eventually killed.

This church is on the spot where he's said to be buried.

So it's in a Middle-Eastern crypt that you'll find the English saint.

And straightaway you see what we all remember about Saint George, the soldier-saint.

And that's what appealed to Kings of England from the 13th century.

Soon the royal spin doctors were making him the symbol of the nation.

They gave George a make-over. Out went the Roman armour

and instead he donned the chain-mail and tabard of an English crusader.

But that's not how he's remembered here.

He's very much a Middle-Eastern saint.

Well, Father, tell me a little about the place of Saint George in Lod.

Here, Saint George is widely venerated among the Christian community.

The members of our congregation dedicate their children

by dressing them up in costume

which is similar to Saint George's clothes.

They also name their children after Saint George

and that's why we've got a lot of grown-ups and kids today

that are called George or Julius.

Julius is also the parallel to Saint George.

What do you think about the idea that the English want Saint George to be English?

He's considered to be a local saint in many, many communities.

The same thing happens in Greece as well.

The Greeks think he is a Greek saint

or the Russians think that he's a Russian saint

and also the Palestinians think that he's a Palestinian saint.

Uh, I know that in England,

Saint George is considered to be from England, but, no, he isn't.

I mean, he might be venerated in the Western church, but he's not from England.

So, on any reckoning,

Saint George is ethnically Mediterranean or Middle-Eastern.

For the people in this town, he's an Arab.

But perhaps the most surprising thing of all

is that he's not just a hero for Christians here.

He's also admired by Muslims.

Maha is a Muslim.

Her family traditionally joined with their Christian neighbours

to celebrate Saint George.

They would light candles

and even pray to the Christian saint for help.

Christian and Muslim used to live in al-Ludd as one family.

My mother and my grandmother

took olive oil as a gift for church

and Saint George and ask him to help them.

So Saint George is a symbol of unity between different communities for you?

Yes, yes he is.

Now, this may surprise you, but some people, English people, think that Saint George is English.

Mm-hmm. This is surprising me.

Actually this is the first time that I heard that,

but I think it's very natural behaviour

because human beings, if they love a holy symbol,

they want it to belong to them.

But, unfortunately, I have to tell them that he's from al-Ludd.

THEY LAUGH

After hearing all the noisy argument about Saint George in England,

I find it refreshing that here he can be seen

as a symbol of friendship between Muslims and Christians.

Saint George isn't the property of any one people.

He's the patron saint of England, but he's the patron saint of Gozo in the Mediterranean,

the Republic of Georgia up in the Caucasus.

Saint George is a hero to all sorts of people.

His legend neatly sums up the muddle that is English identity.

Saint George is not who many people think he is.

And neither are the English.

So, what's the reality?

Who does history tell us the English really are?

Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd