 Yw'r ystyried sy'n fany i gychwyn gyda'r rhagol o'r cymdeithas cymdeithas,barth gwych yn goffio. Rydym eich eistedd bydd C gameron hefyd gofod a ddyn nhw'n gwneud bod ni'n gwybod ymg replyu. Ieithwch yn gofod o'r cwreidur i gyffredin gyda'r Cwreidur Magna Carta ac yw'r newid gan beth hynny'n cyhoedd yr ysgrifol. a'r triedd Llywodraeth ym Mhwng, a sefyll awkward ar gyhoedd. Tad y dweud y byddai hefyd yn dweud ar bobl o gyf meth, o'r 1216 mewn gwahanot yn y rhan o'r newid yn ei gyfnod ar hyn. I wedyn nhw'n pethau ar y teimlo i am f yükwestio ac eu edeb wahanol rymlwg ymdwys i ddweud yma. Y gallwn y gallwn cyfnod yma, bydd y gallwn eich leol yn y profiad o bawb. Mae gwybod y cerddor i gael y gwaith yma yn y ddechrau bod yn ei gwybod, gan y cyfrifodol yma yn y cyfrifodol. Mae'r ysgwrn oedd yn ddweud yma, gyda'r cyfrifodol yma yn y ddiwedd, a'r ymddangos cyfrifodol yn y ddweud, But certainly not poor in comparison, and there's a closer of the Bosworth Cross. A crucer of it's thought to be carried at the head of the procession in the private masses, conducted for Cambridge in the 3rd. Such private devotion to continuing even, perhaps especially at times of battle, is explained the discovery of a cross near the site of which is between to the dead at Bosworth in 1485, a wnaeth y llaw o'r ffordd, a'r oeswn i'r ffordd. Yn y penedigodd yng nghymru o'r anhygoel, rydyn ni'n fyddio'r anhygoel ar y llwyddoedd ar gyfer ymingol i'r anhygoel ar gyfer yng ngynghwyr yn maen nhw, nid yw'r anhygoel ar yr anhygoel, oedd yng Nghymru i'r anhygoel ar yr anhygoel. Mae ydi'r anhygoel ar y Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth, Llywodraeth, tractors, pwleidwyr, sgolol ynghyd, bwlyntio ar gyfer y sgrifennid, ac ond yw'r Unesgrifet Prydeiddorol. Yn oedd erbyn bod â'r unrhyw sydd yn fwybodaeth ffantaf am yegarfyrdd oherwydd ein ddeirwyr a gweithio'n ysglwyr. Yn oedd ddeirwyr â'r tant ddeirwyr. Efallai yw'r tant ddeirwyr. Durham has three original texts of Magna Carta, those issued in 1216, 1225 and 1300. There's three charters, and you can see here on the left-hand side in 1216 Magna Carta, are preserved, as I said, in the archive of Durham Cathedral. Durham has the only surviving original text of Magna Carta from 1216. It also has, in the archive of the Cathedral, a copy of the 1217 Forest Charter, which sorts and restricts the crimes that are exclusive rights over large parts of England, and which re-establish wider access for hunting, grazing and fuel. On 1217 Magna Carta and the Forest Charter were re-issued, and after each re-issued, most cathedrals seemed to have kept the latest version and to have described copies that were no longer current. But Durham was and is different. The area between the Rivers Tynan teams formed, in the Middle Ages, a centre of the plant, an area of independent jurisdiction that was ruled separately by the Bishop of Durham, separate ways from the rest of England. But at the same time, was the Bishop, was, generally speaking, in point of appointment, and this ambiguous position that Durham occupied in the Middle Ages was independent, and, in the end, with their heads, he was essentially a rogue acquaintance, made Durham, I think, particularly conscious of English legal custom, and encouraged a remarkable tradition of record keeping. Thanks to Durham Cathedral, we were able to show the 1216 Magna Carta. So, at Durham, we wanted to commemorate the anniversary of Magna Carta. We have three charters, we have issues on Magna Carta. The next question was what kind of exhibition would be Magna Carta at Durham. We couldn't compete with the resources of the budget at British Library. I couldn't compete, certainly, with the expertise of Professor Stephen, Stephen Church and Expert on Magna Carta and on King John. So, what we wanted to do was to organise an exhibition that took quite a distinctive approach to Magna Carta. We did this, actually, we did this kind of accidentally in a way, but there's a quite strong or short contrast between the Durham exhibition and the British Library exhibition. The British Library exhibition, I'm sure you all attended, ends with the 1215 Magna Carta. In the Durham exhibition, we started with our Magna Carta, the 1216 Magna Carta. I think this was several reasons. One is that I, as another expert on Magna Carta itself, but I work, as a president, as said, on protest, on dissent, on revolt, and especially on notions of citizenship in Llanema Llywod, England. And what really interested me about Magna Carta was the circumstance of this production. For the charter, it was forced upon the King and was the consequence of rebellion. So, this is an image from quite a beginning of the exhibition, the banners and the rebel, the rebels who opposed the King John, the steel boy, the Swalser, the leader of the world, the Stenifotipi. I think we signalled, immediately, to those who attended the exhibition, the kinds of approach that we were going to take. We provided this rotation from the leader of the radical special leader in the 17th century, the leader of the Diggas, Gerard of the Stanley, freedom as a man, to know the world upside down that women weren't dead enough. At the beginning of the exhibition, the two causes, which state, no matter, no free man should be imprisoned except by judgmentals, are disputed by the law of the man, and to no one will the King himself deny justice. These two causes in the 15th century in Magna Carta are preserved in the 16th century in Magna Carta, and you can see that we've highlighted the two causes in the 15th century. At the same time, as historians have argued, by rightly, that the charter itself was the law that the King could not break. So, in a sense, Magna Carta has been approached very much in terms of the history of that very important principle of government, the Gwylwyr Gwylwyr, and 8 and 10 years of the Gwylwyr Gwylwyr. But it seems to me that in both of these approaches, what is sometimes forgotten is that the text itself, the photography of Magna Carta, was the result of rebellion, a charter forced upon the King by a group of parents who took a post against the King. And so what we wanted to do in the exhibition is to emphasise that Magna Carta is not just about law and constitution, it is also about politics and conflict. It is, as we said in the exhibition, as much by the breaking as it is about the making of law. Of course, I've made this point already, that the Magna Carta and the 1250 Magna Carta is not the only Magna Carta. King John declared the 1250 Magna Carta illegal, the war started again, and then when the King died in 1216, a new charter was issued, a slightly revised version of Magna Carta, in the name of Henry III, and it's that charter that we have in Durham. One of the points that we tried to make in the exhibition, I think this might have come across very well, is that the 1216 charter is arguably more important than the 1250 Magna Carta. Without the 1216 charter, 1250 might have been a forgotten because the charter property was cancelled immediately. The 1216 charter was issued in 1817 and 1235 each time with slight changes. So what happened to the Magna Carta is that the charter was adopted by the Crown, it was appropriated by authority. In the process, the Crown tried to take a sting out of the charter by making it so, but the Crown never succeeded, never quite succeeded in doing so. It seems to me that there are two interesting points about Magna Carta and the nature of process. The first point is that while the rebels were waiting for the King, they saw their cause as just and legitimate. They used religious language to describe themselves and presented themselves, if you will, as Crusaders. The rebel leader, Bobby Fitzforter, styled himself, martial, the army of God of the Holy Church. Revolts have gone on their side, it's generally kings who do, but in this case the rebels have gone on their side. So revolt, from one perspective, was an act of war, an illegal act, but from the perspective of the rebels, there was a legitimate act, and they claimed their authority with reference to the Church and divine authority. They tried the rebels in 1215 to present their opinion as a legitimate, not a lawful. And this, it seems to me, is true of all forms of dissent and resistance in our position. The need for justification and the desire to claim authority, and I'll come out to that point in a moment. The second point about 1215 is that the rebels had the influence on the program of Maira Heslif. There happened, they'd never before been involved like this in English history. The rebels had a project, a reformed agenda. They drew up their own demands and a document that they published just before the King agreed to Maira Heslif. This was the document that showed the articles of the violence. The rebels sat down there and negotiated with the King John. And then the two points here. You imagine it all, the violence from their own liberal subjects, they were self-evidently violence, at least on the King's perspective. But equally, in making claims, in holding government account, the rebel violence were active. They did not see themselves as mere subjects of the King of Abidian student. They were politically active, politically engaged, attacked corruption, demanded better government. They believed they had rights, in particular, the right to speak out against authority to oppose. The exhibition picked up these two ideas and developed one about nature, first of all about nature of protest, the ideology and nature of justification of resistance to authority. By that's having the line between obedience and disobedience, loyalty and disloyalty. And secondly, the sense of citizenship that materialised in and gave rise to revolt. And the exhibition explored the line between citizen and rebel. The connection between these two points is that citizenship itself could be a set of ideas that could legitimate protest and resistance. Citizenship, if it is anything, is a language of violence. To organise an exhibition around a microcota and to see microcota through the lens of citizenship does not mean reducing the charter to a statement about the enduring character and homogeneity of British values. In J.C. Colts classic brilliant study of the word charter, he wrote, The history of microcota is the history not only of a document, but also of an argument. The purpose of the Durham exhibition was to show that his argument is a continuing and sometimes violent debate about the identity of rights and responsibility of the citizen. His argument played out at different points in British history. And in different ways in rebellion and in other forms of resistance. It struggles over freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. And crucially, we argue in the exhibition that this argument has not been settled. And we can think here by debate today about privacy and so the right to privacy. There has always been an issue in mind separating the rebel from the citizen. And in the main gallery, we do two things. In the main gallery, the exhibition, we looked at the nature of resistance, the nature of the rebel and the different senses of citizenship that remind us of the culture of our process. So in the main gallery, we organise around five particular periods. Magna Carta, which you can see here. Secondly, the Wars of the Roses. Thirdly, the British Civil Wars of the 17th Century. Fourth, the Gorgias Revolution and the Jacobite horizons at 517, 15 and 45. And then finally, the Charter movement at the middle decades of the 19th century. And in the second gallery, which you can see here, we focus on the experiences of English Catholics. Immediately after the reformation, when they were seen increasingly by the authorities as rebels and traitors. And we explored how inter-Catholic tried to retain their religious identity and the ever-made citizens in post-reformation England through public conformity but private dissent. And then finally, in the third and last gallery, which was an interactive gallery, we moved the story into the 20th and 21st centuries. So people left the second gallery, which you can see, which is sort of beautiful, gets into the 16th century. So we confronted by images of the police in the riot here, which is, I suppose, wrong, this concert. But the point we're trying to make here is a debate about, is a protest and revolt, how continued to reflect and generate ideas about citizenship. And on the screens, there are screens that are left and to the right here of the police, that showed the suffragettes movement and the divisions of the suffragettes movement and the civil rights movement in America. And we encouraged people there, we asked people, so if you want to show back, we asked people if they would, so that's the point to get here, on this board here, where they had rights that they would protest for, for which of your rights as a citizen would you protest. And people responded very positively to this. We weren't trying to incite rebellion, we were not trying to encourage people to be rebellious, but we wanted people to think about the history of protest and the way in which the history of protest has shaped a sense of citizenship and to think about past struggles and current debates about citizenship. So I'm now just going to add a bit more detail to these themes. The first thing then is the nature of revolt, the nature of resistance. The exhibition explores the question who is or what makes a rebel. We argued in the exhibition that that boundary between rebellion and loyalty is a fluid one that moves because the nature of authority and therefore the limits of what is acceptable and unacceptable are never fixed. This mutability creates and shapes the identity of rebel and the character of rebellion. People who might not see themselves as an actual rebels become rebels in the idea of being the eyes of authority. When the English monarch became head of church and state in the 16th century, the punitive insistence on religious and political conformity turned Catholics into rebels and traitors. Although resistance was occasionally public and collective in the form of overplots for the monarch, mostly it was hidden and domestic. Worship took place behind closed doors at the site of those in authority. And you can see here a second gallery which was an attempt to recreate inside of the 16th century to the breakfast of a Catholic household. Covec religious practices, although a matter of individual conscience where evidence or can be seen as evidence of rebellious thoughts and can be considered in the attack upon states, private dissent could have public consequences. And one of the things that we showed in the 17th gallery was the series of objects, often commonplace objects. I think my favourite actually is that there's a long left hand sign here which is at the place of Bruce Lane that has been converted into an altar, an altar stone. I was interested in exploring the extent to which you can have rebellious objects and those could be quite commonplace items, but they could become rebellious through the ideas and the thoughts that people might attach to them. The glorious revolution of 1688, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the 1701 Act of Settlements and Anglo-Scotish Union in 1707 helped to forge a British identity that defined citizenship in religious service. It was now difficult to be Catholic and British. Jagobots were on those who felt alienated from the new confidence at British state. And I thought it was quite interesting in the exhibition to have an exhibition on the Macrobots and Revolts and to place the Macrobots alongside the Jagobites' uprisings. So in the same space, and this is somewhat of an aside, but in the same space we had revolts in 1215 which is there to get the absolute pretensions of the monarch. And then in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, the Jagobite uprisings and the Jagobites were very much believers in the divine might of monarchy. And when we went, when we approached the private lenders, Dr Richard Shaw, to borrow some of his artifacts, some of his objects, some prints, some portraits of William Showery, the old Potembe, etc. Snack boxes, other things. He said, you should be sure you want to show this stuff. The Jagobite material alongside the Macrobots aren't even completely different things. But the point about that was to explore that changing measure of revolts and the different ideologies of revolts had Jagobites could find themselves very much fighting against the status quo. There's been this in the divine might of monarchy. So on the one hand, the nature of authority can shift and people can come round us. But what happened when authority was almost completely absent? This was a question that confronted the English political community in the 1450s and that led to the wars of the roses. While confusingly I've shown an image here of 1381 of the peasants' revolts, but the key items here are really the three books that are beneath this image of the peasants' revolts. Henry VI was the best indecisive, at worst, individual, that someone had to rule. The nobility found themselves in the position of revolts. Vidal factions had to find their only secure way to justify their claims. Military success was not sufficient. The views of ordinary citizens had to be taken into account. York's leaders, between the 1450s and 1460s in particular, although you can see I've visited this from earlier in the decade, turned to the language of the common good to justify and explain their opposition to the king. No character here is the common's. All of these citizens believe that they were entitled to speak publicly and to be heard and to matter the role of the personal community. Nesafol was an important element in the legitimation of archipassar opposition to the crime. And these three objects, these three texts were manifestos written between 1459 and 1661 in English aimed at a public audience. So that use of English was particularly interesting. But the issue of legitimacy has been an enduring feature of rebellion. In the British Civil Wars of the 17th century, in Harry Segal's Henry Cook wrote a column of a lawyer of the 17th century and her poems of the English Jewels Kings, in the 17th century, and again in the chartist movement of the middle, that came in the 19th century, Magna Carta became a touchstone for the revolt, having acquired the status of a sacred ancient text that was fully intelligent inspired for sisters. The past, or while the memory of the past, was invoked to challenge the exercise of power of the present. And rebellion has its own limit. By that, I mean that the chartists in the 19th century in presenting their six demands, demanding the representation of the world for crisis and the growth of political rights, presented their demands in the form of a people's chart that Titic Otzi referred back to, Magna Carta. The second theme of the exhibition was the connection between citizenship and resistance and revolt. A protest has an essential place in the history of citizenship, and that is because the concept of citizenship is, and always has been, rather a contested set of ideas. There is lots and there has been a single definition. Is it about rights? Is it about liberties? Is it about privileges? Are those rights individual? Are they collective? Is it about responsibility? Is it about duties? Do we define citizenship in terms of political engagement and popular activism, or do we see it rather in terms of obedience and doing, as was told? Is it about passively accepting a God, or is it about making demands and assertive rights? Henry Hunt, the 19th century radical politician who spoke at St Peter's Fields in Manchester in 1819 in what became known as Peter's Field Massacre, offered a defence of the right to protest when he stated that the time to support the public meetings in the campaign parliamentary before was, I quote, a constitutional gist. The chartists asserted their rights as citizens to assemble, speak freely, and petition. The authorities had different understanding of our citizenship. They saw it as more socially exclusive and preferred to think of the masses as subjects. The British government, along with local magistrates, tried to prevent the occupation of public space, which you can see here in the initial meeting in 1948, and to restrict freedom of speech. Citizenship in the past, as today, has always included some people and excluded others. The rules about who is or who is not a citizen have provoked debates both in the past and in the present. Felly, in the exhibition of their own, we presented an argument that the revolt is a consequence of shifting conceptions and contested definitions of citizenship. Citizenship has never been a fixed set of ideas or values. It can empower people to speak and act to get to the vote in that sense of having rights. But it can also be used to close down spaces with dissent and resistance in the interests of good government. Citizenship can therefore extend and limit rights. It can be about responsibilities and freedoms. The relationship between duties and liberties is open to competing and conflicted interpretations. People make claims they try to retain rights and liberties from governments, but governments often reluctant to give them up. Sometimes governments infringe on people's rights in the name of order and stability and security, and this causes why we have struggle and conflict. The exhibition ended here by going back to Magna Carta, and I think the significance of having it at the beginning of the exhibition is well in the end, I hope, is that, and was a part of those who visited the exhibition. The struggle for political participation and representation has been an area of conflict historically. The main focus of that gallery was really about political rights, about representation and participation. But why are debates about what makes a citizen about human rights, about the whole language, and ideology in white character rights, provoke resistance in the 20th century and continue to drive popular challenges that political regimes throughout the world? Despite the exhibition with Magna Carta, it is to make the point that the rights of citizens were not secure by Magna Carta, or indeed by the People's Charter of the 19th century. They remain something to be claimed and fought for today. Thank you very much.