MEMORY AND MYTHS have various social functions of which we have constantly caught glimpses throughout this study. In this chapter, after a brief general discussion, I will concentrate on the question of identity, and investigate the group identity of the British in relation to memory of the Conquest. In doing so, I will engage with recent debates on the construction of Britishness.

One of the functions of the inscription of memory which we have observed, for example in the use of the Norman yoke myth, is to express a particular point of view, politics, or ideology. Memory is thus used to justify present beliefs and actions; it can even be envisaged as a form of manipulation of the past in some cases, and therefore lends itself to contestation from opposing parties. We have also seen that memory carries an emotional force: memorial manifestations can serve to express and alleviate emotions, or solve affective conflicts, as discussed in the previous chapter with regard to the myths of the British and French Normans. Summerfield considers that cultural memory carries views of past crises and tests, and paradigms of struggle, heroism and wisdom. It can thus offer modes of coping, adaptation and problem solving on a collective basis. An example given by Summerfield is how a group of prisoners in a secret military prison, Tazmamart, in Morocco were helped to survive during 18 years by undertaking recitations from the Koran.