A A Gill

This is totally OT but while we discussing all these Gills etc., I thought I would mention I have
come across A A Gill before - history is not his usual genre. He writes articles for a glossy
magazine called Cotswold Life and some time ago he upset many, many people by a
particulary nasty/vitrolic article on a perfectly nice little Cotswold town, Stow on the Wold. As
soon as I saw the name my hackles rose. Nevertheless I did enjoy the article even though
there were, as discussed, several inaccuracies.
Oh yes, he seems to detest "townies" that have moved to the Cotswolds such as myself so I
was a tad amused to read Steven's post that he was born in Scotland!! Hey Ho!
Eileen

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> This is totally OT but while we discussing all these Gills etc., I
thought I would mention I have
> come across A A Gill before - history is not his usual genre. He
writes articles for a glossy
> magazine called Cotswold Life and some time ago he upset many, many
people by a
> particulary nasty/vitrolic article on a perfectly nice little
Cotswold town, Stow on the Wold. As
> soon as I saw the name my hackles rose. Nevertheless I did enjoy
the article even though
> there were, as discussed, several inaccuracies.
> Oh yes, he seems to detest "townies" that have moved to the
Cotswolds such as myself so I
> was a tad amused to read Steven's post that he was born in
Scotland!! Hey Ho!
> Eileen
>
Thanks - the original article was by AA Gill

I'm talking about Patrick McGill who, with Jonathan Jones, put
together "Standards, Badges, and Livery Colours of the Wars Of The
Roses" a marvellous source for both descriptions and illustrations of
what it says on the cover!
Paul

On 25 Aug 2008, at 23:21, eileen wrote:

> This is totally OT but while we discussing all these Gills etc., I
> thought I would mention I have
> come across A A Gill before - history is not his usual genre. He
> writes articles for a glossy
> magazine called Cotswold Life and some time ago he upset many, many
> people by a
> particulary nasty/vitrolic article on a perfectly nice little
> Cotswold town, Stow on the Wold. As
> soon as I saw the name my hackles rose. Nevertheless I did enjoy
> the article even though
> there were, as discussed, several inaccuracies.
> Oh yes, he seems to detest "townies" that have moved to the
> Cotswolds such as myself so I
> was a tad amused to read Steven's post that he was born in
> Scotland!! Hey Ho!
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

I might have to buy this as I'm still working on Kingmaker cards and my
own set of banners.

Does it give specific dates for the heraldry? For example, Howard
(along with the other co-heir Lord Berkeley) would have qualified to
bear the Brotherton quarter only after the death of the last Mowbray.
This was Anne, child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, who died in 1481.

After this date Howard could have legitimately added the quarter, even
though the estates and titles of the inheritance were vested in young
Dick. Or were even the Norfolk arms considered part of the deal? Small
wonder Howard and Berkeley joined the coup that set aside Edward's
children.

Before the death of Anne, Howard might have quartered his arms with
those of his grandmother Alice Tendring from whom he inherited what was
(as far as I can find out) his only landed estate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukes_of_Norfolk_family_tree

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm talking about Patrick McGill who, with Jonathan Jones, put
> together "Standards, Badges, and Livery Colours of the Wars Of The
> Roses" a marvellous source for both descriptions and illustrations
of
> what it says on the cover!
> Paul

As and when possible it is accurate, dates and all, as far as I can
tell. I've not seen any mistakes during my multiple dips into it. The
Illustrations are fantastic!
They were published in 1990 and 1992 (two separate books) by
Freezywater Publications, 14 Meadway Freezywater, Enfiled, London,
EN3 6NU
May be out of print by now.
Paul

On 27 Aug 2008, at 18:06, theblackprussian wrote:

> I might have to buy this as I'm still working on Kingmaker cards
> and my
> own set of banners.
>
> Does it give specific dates for the heraldry? For example, Howard
> (along with the other co-heir Lord Berkeley) would have qualified to
> bear the Brotherton quarter only after the death of the last Mowbray.
> This was Anne, child bride of Richard of Shrewsbury, who died in 1481.
>
> After this date Howard could have legitimately added the quarter, even
> though the estates and titles of the inheritance were vested in young
> Dick. Or were even the Norfolk arms considered part of the deal?
> Small
> wonder Howard and Berkeley joined the coup that set aside Edward's
> children.
>
> Before the death of Anne, Howard might have quartered his arms with
> those of his grandmother Alice Tendring from whom he inherited what
> was
> (as far as I can find out) his only landed estate.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukes_of_Norfolk_family_tree
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm talking about Patrick McGill who, with Jonathan Jones, put
>> together "Standards, Badges, and Livery Colours of the Wars Of The
>> Roses" a marvellous source for both descriptions and illustrations
> of
>> what it says on the cover!
>> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Yes, they're listed as out of stock on the book sites I've looked at
so far.
The lists of wargame flags for sale (I assume these are identical as
they're also from Freezywater) contain many mistakes in the
descriptions of individuals and their titles, but the only error I've
noticed on the flags themselves is for Lord FitzWarine.
I'll see if my library can find them.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> As and when possible it is accurate, dates and all, as far as I
can
> tell. I've not seen any mistakes during my multiple dips into it.
The
> Illustrations are fantastic!
> They were published in 1990 and 1992 (two separate books) by
> Freezywater Publications, 14 Meadway Freezywater, Enfiled, London,
> EN3 6NU
> May be out of print by now.
> Paul

At 23:21 25/08/2008, you wrote:
>This is totally OT but while we discussing all these Gills etc., I
>thought I would mention I have
>come across A A Gill before - history is not his usual genre.

Isn't he best known as a restaurant critic?

I thought the Telegraph article was a very interesting introduction
to Towton. We don't need introducing, but others do and may
eventually wend their way in the Society's direction.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

A.A.Gill is the television critic of The Sunday Times, although he also
contributes some restaurant reviews. He has an appreciation of British
history and can, on occasions, produce prose that is strangely moving
(for example his description of the soldier on Platform l at Paddington
station with his gas mask and tin hat - the GWR war memorial). I
thought that his Towton article in The Sunday Times was rather good.

And his comment that most English people have never heard of Towton
rather underlines my own suggestion that the English, on average,
probably know less about their own history than any other nation on
earth.

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> A.A.Gill is the television critic of The Sunday Times, although he
also
> contributes some restaurant reviews. He has an appreciation of
British
> history and can, on occasions, produce prose that is strangely moving
> (for example his description of the soldier on Platform l at
Paddington
> station with his gas mask and tin hat - the GWR war memorial). I
> thought that his Towton article in The Sunday Times was rather good.
>

Henry VIII had six wives and Elizabeth was a great queen. Anything
else, zilch!
Most haven't even heard of the battle of Hastings! Deplorable. But
then the school curriculum is now 20th century dictators and little
else.
Paul


On 31 Aug 2008, at 12:09, theblackprussian wrote:

> And his comment that most English people have never heard of Towton
> rather underlines my own suggestion that the English, on average,
> probably know less about their own history than any other nation on
> earth.
>
> --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>>
>> A.A.Gill is the television critic of The Sunday Times, although he
> also
>> contributes some restaurant reviews. He has an appreciation of
> British
>> history and can, on occasions, produce prose that is strangely moving
>> (for example his description of the soldier on Platform l at
> Paddington
>> station with his gas mask and tin hat - the GWR war memorial). I
>> thought that his Towton article in The Sunday Times was rather good.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> And his comment that most English people have never heard of Towton
> rather underlines my own suggestion that the English, on average,
> probably know less about their own history than any other nation on
> earth.

I said this some time ago - and stand by it still.
Eileen
>
> --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> <stanleyc.jenkins@> wrote:
> >
> > A.A.Gill is the television critic of The Sunday Times, although he
> also
> > contributes some restaurant reviews. He has an appreciation of
> British
> > history and can, on occasions, produce prose that is strangely moving
> > (for example his description of the soldier on Platform l at
> Paddington
> > station with his gas mask and tin hat - the GWR war memorial). I
> > thought that his Towton article in The Sunday Times was rather good.
> >
>

The point which Adrian Gill was trying to make about Towton was that it
is one of the least-known battles in British history although, as a
Scotsman, he may also have been having a dig at the English! I do not,
however, think that the British are particularly ignorant about their
own history. Indeed, many thousands of people are enthusiastic about
various aspects of history - one thinks, for example, of the huge
interest shown in subjects such as the Great War, RMS Titanic, the
railway system or indeed Richard III. It is nevertheless abundantly
clear that few of these enthusiasts would have been taught any
meaningful history in what passes as "schools" in this benighted
country (unless of course their parents could afford the fees charged
be top schools such as Eton or Winchester).

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> And his comment that most English people have never heard of Towton
> rather underlines my own suggestion that the English, on average,
> probably know less about their own history than any other nation on
> earth.


I think the US could compete. In a recent man-on-the-street, few
could identify the first line of the Declaration of Independence and
many thought Benjamin Franklin had been President.

I think most people, including me, know a lot about a few things and
not much about most things. I happen to like certain eras of the
history of certain areas, among other subjects, but I don't know much
about gourmet cooking (except to enjoy eating some of it) or wine, or
hunting, or higher mathematics, or golf, and for the most part, I
don't regret my lack of knowledge enough to do something about it.

In my experience, all my school years accomplished was to give me a
smattering of general knowledge and provide an introduction to many
subjects, some of which interested me enough that I continued to study
them on my own.

Katy

"theblackprussian" wrote:
> <snip>
> And his [Gill's] comment that most English people have never heard
of Towton rather underlines my own suggestion that the English, on
average, probably know less about their own history than any other
nation on earth.

Carol responds:
I think that the Americans could give them some competition in that
regard. Of course, our history is a lot shorter than yours (meaning
the written historical record, not the occupation of the Americas by
Native Americans). Most American adults remember 1492 and 1776. I
suspect that most English adults remember 1066 and a few other
significant dates. (Not 1485, for better or worse, much less 1452.)

Sorry about the OT comment, but I couldn't resist responding to this
remark. I really hope that history teaching in England isn't as
abysmal as it is in the U.S., where the emphasis is on
multiculturalism, and history (as taught) begins with the Civil Rights
movement. When I was young, every American student had at least heard
of George III, presented to us as the king that the Americans were
rebelling against in the American Revolution. These days, kids are
almost as likely to have heard of Richard III as of George III, which
is to say, not likely at all.

Carol, promising to get back to Richard now!

The British curriculum is mainly 20th century dictators nowadays.
There is a broader one for older students, but the History Channel
seems to cover more diverse subjects than the schools do these days.
Paul

On 6 Sep 2008, at 02:19, Carol wrote:

> "theblackprussian" wrote:
>> <snip>
>> And his [Gill's] comment that most English people have never heard
> of Towton rather underlines my own suggestion that the English, on
> average, probably know less about their own history than any other
> nation on earth.
>
> Carol responds:
> I think that the Americans could give them some competition in that
> regard. Of course, our history is a lot shorter than yours (meaning
> the written historical record, not the occupation of the Americas by
> Native Americans). Most American adults remember 1492 and 1776. I
> suspect that most English adults remember 1066 and a few other
> significant dates. (Not 1485, for better or worse, much less 1452.)
>
> Sorry about the OT comment, but I couldn't resist responding to this
> remark. I really hope that history teaching in England isn't as
> abysmal as it is in the U.S., where the emphasis is on
> multiculturalism, and history (as taught) begins with the Civil Rights
> movement. When I was young, every American student had at least heard
> of George III, presented to us as the king that the Americans were
> rebelling against in the American Revolution. These days, kids are
> almost as likely to have heard of Richard III as of George III, which
> is to say, not likely at all.
>
> Carol, promising to get back to Richard now!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Well I bought the companion books on heraldic banners, and very useful
they are.
However, there are major errors with the heraldry given for the senior
branch of the Nevilles, so I'm wondering if anyone has definitive
information on this subject?
That is, the arms of the various Nevilles descended from Ralph, 1st
Earl, from his first wife.


--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I might have to buy this as I'm still working on Kingmaker cards and
my
> own set of banners.

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm talking about Patrick McGill who, with Jonathan Jones, put
> > together "Standards, Badges, and Livery Colours of the Wars Of The
> > Roses" a marvellous source for both descriptions and illustrations
> of
> > what it says on the cover!
> > Paul
>

Depends on the age group. When I was at secondary school (1960s) we
covered the range of English history from 1066 to 1918. However, Scots
and Welsh history coverage was pretty abysmal. And I am neither an
Etonian nor a Wykehamist.

Richard G

--- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
<stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>
> It is nevertheless abundantly
> clear that few of these enthusiasts would have been taught any
> meaningful history in what passes as "schools" in this benighted
> country (unless of course their parents could afford the fees charged
> be top schools such as Eton or Winchester).
>

Yes Richard. We were lucky.
I did Greek and Roman history, the Norman Conquest, the Black Death,
the WOTR, the Tudors ( I groaned through most of this!) the English
Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution. I got to choose in my A-Level
years, and did the French Revolution, along with 17th century
France, which fitted in nicely with my French course.
Yes, very lucky.
Paul


On 10 Sep 2008, at 16:53, rgcorris wrote:

> Depends on the age group. When I was at secondary school (1960s) we
> covered the range of English history from 1066 to 1918. However, Scots
> and Welsh history coverage was pretty abysmal. And I am neither an
> Etonian nor a Wykehamist.
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "Stanley C.Jenkins"
> <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
>>
>> It is nevertheless abundantly
>> clear that few of these enthusiasts would have been taught any
>> meaningful history in what passes as "schools" in this benighted
>> country (unless of course their parents could afford the fees charged
>> be top schools such as Eton or Winchester).
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Hello Richard, Paul & All

Somewhat younger than you and secondary modern educated until aged 15, our main history syllabus covered the Normans (yr 1), Elizabeth 1 (yr2), the Civil War (yr 3 - we went to see Richard Harris' 'Cromwell' at the flicks <g>!) and The Corn Laws and Potato Famine in my last year.  Had I done my 'O' Levels at school rather than at the local college as I did, we would have gone on to cover WW1 in that year.

To have such gaps and leaps seems extraordinary to me now, but I benefited hugely from having a young and charismatic history teacher, Janet Reid, who brought all the history she taught us to thrilling life.  She was also self-confessedly madly in love with both Charles II and Palmerston, so we learned a great deal about those two guys in particular outside of the syllabus requirements.  I've no idea what she thought of Richard III, but I remember her telling us about him in relation to That Urn of Them Princes! ;-)

Regards, Lorraine