This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Since the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1707, your statement is a bit odd. As I recall -- and it is about twenty years since I last read it -- it was mostly a spoof on British history until the formation of England, followed by English history. History of the other countries of the UK was scarcely touched upon. -- Derek Ross

Fair point. I was just restoring the previous wording. It's anglocentric, in that Wales and Scotland are not memorable ;) The Scots ("originally Irish, but now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; ... " etc) get a few mentions, as well as Welsh kings. Best thing to say it's a history of Britain I suppose. We should mention the test papers too... -- Tarquin

my copy says "first published 1930 by Methuen" -- which would imply that it was serialized in Punch earlier than the 1930s. -- Tarquin

ODNB (s.v. Sellar, Walter Carruthers ) says "on 10 September 1930 Punch began to publish extracts from their most famous book, 1066 and All That, the last of them appearing on the day before it was published", which clarifies your doubts. MacAuslan (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

didn't it mention the Second World War? -Adrian Hobbs

No. Even if Sellars and Yeatman had been clairvoyant, when America becomes Top Nation (end of WWI) history comes to a . - Bth

I've added a mention of '1984 And All That'. --Townmouse 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context of the paragraph that starts with "in English schools"? It seems just stuck in there at random, moreso because it's in a box. Is it a quote from something, or is there some other reason for it being boxed and having serious grammatical errors? I would gladly turn it into a normal paragraph, but I want to be sure that the boxing isn't intentional... --LostLeviathan 22:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Amazon.com lists this book's authors as W. C. Sellar, R. J. Reatman, and Frank Muir as a contributor. Link However, other sources I've found list it as Yeatman. This recently came up in a crossword clue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows which is correct. --Psyk0 10:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The copy of 1066 and All That that I have before me proudly states that the authors are Walter Caruthers Sellar and Robert Julian Yeatman. Grstain 11:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, fair enough. Guess I'll contact Amazon then! Thanks for clearing that up. --Psyk0 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The cartoons are memorable. Are they out of copyright? --Townmouse 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

This article's Fukuyama reference, while apt, has the potential for confusion due to its phrasing, which I feel implies (states?) Fukuama argues the USA will attain domenence, and history will end.

As the End of History Wikipedia article states, Fukuyama did not argue that American democratic ideals would cover the world, but rather: liberal-democratic ideals, combined with liberal economic policies, have been/are the only robust ideology, and in the long-term the sole surviving ideology. Also, he seems to believe the ideals from the French Revolution are the epitomee of human philosophical development, but his comments led me to suspect that he feels the current application of these ideals is not, well, ideal.

Further, while Sellar and Yeatman were before Fukuyama, they did not forsee or predict Fukuyama's work (though the similarity is amusing)

Currently: As such, Sellar and Yeatman anticipated Francis Fukuyama by six decades.

Perhaps:

Interestingly [or similarly non-commital adjective], this conclusion resembles some interpretations of Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History", published six decades later.

Anyway, thanks for listening to my little spiel,

Max Way (Renaissance College student, currently analyzing Fukuyama) Max Way 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Fukuyama reference worked in earlier versions of the article, but no longer does, for reasons that have already been made. As such, I have boldly removed it. If people feel strongly enough, they can boldly revert this - Grstain 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nameunknown - my comment on TSSAAT on the 'End of History' page is still there as a footnote, with a little editing by the maintainer to show that he doesn't agree (but at least sees the funny side). 'The End' was also possibly parodied in one of the Star Trek movies (Star Trek IV : when Kirk states “Some people think the future means the end of history...")

Should we mention Non Campus Mentis? It's the non-fiction version (so to speak), and mentioned 1066 as a predecesor. -67.180.56.14 06:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re this extract from the article:

the book's preface (which is compulsory) mentions that originally four dates were planned, but last-minute research revealed that two of them were not memorable. The two dates that are self-referenced in the book are 1066, the Battle of Hastings and the Norman invasion of Britain, and 55 BC, the first Roman invasion of Britain under Julius Caesar. However, when the date of the Roman invasion is given, it is immediately followed by mention of the fact that Caesar was "compelled to invade again the following year (54 BC, not 56, owing to the peculiar Roman method of counting)", thereby adding the extra two dates that clearly are not memorable.

Positing that 54 and 56 BC are the two unmemorable dates mentioned in the intro seems to be an illogical bit of original research by the editor. My guess, for what its worth is that the two rejected dates are 43 AD - the date of next invasion of Britain by the Romans and 1666 - the date of the Great Fire of London. Colin4C (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed the two "not memorable" dates were simply a humorous device which never had any actual reference. In the absence of actual evidence, it's amusing but pointless to speculate. Vilĉjo (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. But I know there's an original buck-boarded copy of this article left somewhere. Along with Jhams and Jhelhies. 68Kustom (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Aegrot, Oxon.)[reply]

Too much (i.e. "some") of this article is written as if it was part of the book (mentions of Broody Mary and Venemous Bead, etc.). The article needs to be written in an encyclopedic style. I'd like to simply remove all the fictional or humorous bits, but because the article is interspersed with in-jokes from the book and other unnecessary fluff, I would likely remove the good with the bad. I'm actually prepared to do that, and will do it if someone knowledgeable about the topic doesn't trim this into shape; I'd rather have a stub than this mess. Matt Deres (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article. Your personal preference to reduce it to a stub contradicts wikipedia policy. Colin4C (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt was just trying to make a criticism... I can see where he is coming from; the article does quote the book a lot to explain the concepts. However, I think this is a pretty effective and encyclopedia way to cover it. If quotes must be removed, the ideas they demonstrate should remain. Michael 134.84.96.142 (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a risk of articles like this being written by fans so enamoured of the subject that they include in-jokes incomprehensible to a general readership. I removed the parenthetical "(which is compulsory)", referring to the preface, as it seemed to me a clear instance of this problem. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be as economic with words as possible in the article. I don't think that it is necessary to give long involved explanations of what jokes or puns mean. I assume that most people in the world know what a joke or a pun is - from an early age - without the neccesity of some clever clogs coming along and explaining it to them. Hopefully the article gives a fair and accurate description of the book's (humorous) contents. Accurately describing the contents of this book of necessity brings out its inherent absurdist nature. Let the reader judge. Colin4C (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just found this article and I don't think it is too bad. Could still use a bit of improving, but it is far from urgent. Cheers Greglo (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read that this phrase (a rendering of "vini, vidi, vici") was a dig at the contemporary manner of speaking Latin in England/the UK, and contributed to a change in usage. Is this correct? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - with the amendment "veni, vidi, vici". The traditional British pronunciation of Latin current in the 20th century realized 'v' as 'w', (long) 'i' as 'ee' and 'c' as hard ('k'). The phrase is translated as 'I came, I saw, I conquered'; according to Plutarch it was written in a letter by Julius Caesar, according to Suetonius displayed in his Triumph after the Pontic campaign (47 BCE), and widely taught in Latin lessons. MacAuslan (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a typo in the article? 222.152.75.119 (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Bloody Mary" is refered to as "Broody Mary" in 1066 and All That. Humour, you see...Colin4C (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has neverthelesss changed it to 'Bloody Mary', and linked to the article on that Monarch (Mary I)! For anyone knowing a little about Tudor history, 'Broody Mary' is not just a weak pun but a good if rather tasteless joke: Mary died without an heir after a prolonged false pregnancy.109.158.45.254 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the link accompanying the name Malcolm Knox, author of a 1066-style book on Australia. The link was to another Malcolm Knox altogether. But I don't know anything about the right one, so anyone who knows could perhaps fill the gap...? 121.214.33.51 (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would (something like) this be interesting/useful, on precursors in the genre of mock & mixed-up history?: The History of England ... by a partial, prejudiced and ignorant historian was written by Jane Austen at the age of 15 in 1791. Her sister Cassandra illustrated it. The first joke (after the title) is: 'NB: there will be very few dates in this history.' Just a thought ... Hackneymartian (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the paragraph describing Richard Armour's book, I changed the reference to a biological egg, to refer instead to the "Columbus Egg Trick", which apparently is the point of the joke. PoisonCat1 (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Philomena Cunk has read 1066aAT, but the spirit and style are similar (albeit a much brighter blue and even less PC). (BC, 27/12/19) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.11.233 (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The overview section seems to have a bit of POV issues, which is a bother, since this book seems to be influential in the culture of the era. I removed the most obvious NPOV statement (Revision ID 1127650193), but there still seems to be more work done. Explodicator7331 (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change. As is written at the beginning of that section, the book is a parody, and it deliberately does precisely what the sentence you removed says. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki review sounds like an overwritten A level mock. 2A01:4C8:1422:65FC:1:2:FD1F:B76E (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like all Wikipedia articles, many editors have contributed to this one, as you can see if you click on the View history link at the top of the article. I don't understand your criticism, but you are free to make improvements to the article yourself, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]