Coun Tom Clare, the Mayor of Kendal, argues that understanding historical events can give greater clarity to issues in the world today.

Perhaps it’s my age - which I often think is only 38 - but I sometimes wonder why we mark anniversaries.

For example, a few weeks ago I was told that 2015 is the 300th anniversary of ‘The Old Pretender’ (a descendent of James II) advancing with an army from Scotland to Preston - with a stay at Kirkby Lonsdale along the way.

Surely more important is the fact that this year, 2014, is 300 years since the arrival of George 1 - an event which prompted the Jacobite uprisings - and led to the dynasty which includes our current Royal Family and significantly a new heir to the throne called George.

George 1 was, of course, also a Hanoverian and Kendal’s twin town Rinteln is near Hanover.

Moreover, the accession of William and Mary, after James II had fled to France, was ‘the glorious revolution’ referred to on the obelisk on Castle Howe in Kendal.

So as a grumpy 38 - okay, 68 - year-old, I wonder which events we choose to commemorate, and why.

Can I suggest one reason we should commemorate or re-enact the past is that it allows us to understand better the present?

For example, the start of World War 1 was triggered by an assassination in Sarajevo by a Serb nationalist.

Sarajevo and Serb nationalist: words which resonate today in the context of our own world and that of the 1990s.

Does this not inform current foreign policy?

Does our commemoration of 1914 and of the D-Day landings not require us to acknowledge that the EU was originally founded to ensure peace between France and Germany and to build the kind of ‘United States of Europe’ referred to by Winston Churchill in 1946?

Nor are the Balkan conflicts of recent years the only hang-over from the First World War.

In 1916 Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot agreement to carve up the Ottoman Empire.

Most importantly for us, today, is the comment on Wikipedia where it is stated that it failed to provide the Arab homeland which Lawrence of Arabia had promised them in exchange for their support, and that this is cited by Islamic State as one reason for its actions in the present conflicts in Syria and Iraq - 100 years on.

Clearly the present is rooted in the past and one reason why we should choose to remember specific anniversaries.

But can I suggest we might distinguish between re-enactment of an historical event and its commemoration?

A couple of weeks ago on August 24, for example, we re-enacted the Hardman picture of sheep descending Allhallows Lane in Kendal: we did not commemorate it.

But history can be selective - selected to support what we want to believe to justify our position.

It was, for example, an invasion of Irish which led to the foundation of a Scottish kingdom which eventually replaced the old ‘British’ kingdoms, which meant England in 1066 ended at Tebay and the Duddon.

Do we hear of this in our history? The history we teach and learn in Cumbria is that of England and largely ignorant of ‘Scottish’ or Irish history; or British history.

Can I suggest, therefore, that in a multicultural society wrestling with the issues of ‘radicalisation’ and ‘inclusion’, there is a need for a new approach to teaching and understanding history.

All parties are agreed that regardless of how the vote on Scottish Independence goes there will be a need to rethink the nature of ‘the Union’.

There will be a need to revisit the past and learn new histories.

So the anniversary of the first Jacobite rebellion does, after all, require acknowledgement and reflection - but not commemoration.

MORE TOP STORIES: