I will begin this paper, and open a conference that seems designed to provoke, as provocatively as I can. This Realm of England is now the most enduring polity in recorded history. Significantly disturbed by a mere two decades of ultimately largely abortive revolutionary change from 1640 to 1660, and as little affected in essence by the additions or subtractions of 1284, 1536, 1603, 1707, 1801, 1922 and 1998, its longevity as such is unmatched even by that of China or Japan. Rather than further defend that proposition, however, I shall devote my time to a no less teasing question: not whether but how? Our debate, I take it, is about the way that power was exercised in a series of societies through time and space, and the extent to which this reflected any sort of ‘national’ will. Regrettably, therefore, my paper must begin by reviewing definitions – or perhaps I should say, understandings – of ‘power’ in historical study, and I shall in effect leave ‘nation’ to the others. I only hope that I, and indeed those others, will prove able to contribute a bit more than semantic discussion to this debate.

Power is the staple of modern historical discourse – whether within family, village, religious community, or polity itself. It falls naturally from our lips as a datum. Yet, when asked quite what they mean by power, historians can look shifty.