"British" history starts here in the 5th century. No mention of the original Celts or Picts. Or the Romans. It's only when the Germanic Anglo Saxons invade the island does the story start, and suddenly these foreigners are called "Brits". Then we have to pity them as they are themselves invaded and attacked by the Vikings, who "kill, pillage and rape" and generate unwelcome "violence". Well, hang on a minute, the Anglo-Saxons were just as guilty as inflicting these horrors as well as mass ethnic cleansing towards the original British inhabitants. But that is ignored. Then much credit is given to "Great" Alfred, who initiated "fair and just" laws. Strangely, whilst condoning slavery of the original Celts. No mention that the words "Briton" and "slave" were interchangeable in Anglo-Saxon times. No mention that when a British slave died, his OWNER got paid one pound for his grievance.
Then we hear that William was going to be a polite invader, "unlike those Vikings or Normans". No mention whatsoever of the brutalities of the Anglo-Saxons . Then when the Scots are first mentioned, around the year 1690, despite taking over the English throne in 1602, we see an old black and white picture of someone in a kilt tossing a caber. And with subsequent images of Scotland are represented by further crackly black and white footage of the highland games in the early 20th century, I just had to give up on this blatantly blinkered and selective account of "British" history.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
