More Tudor nonsense

Who told Jonathan Rhys-Meyer he was playing Henry V not the 8th? By that time Henry 8 could hardly walk let alone get on a horse and lead an army into battle and make a speech!!
Princess Mary speaks a "little Spanish"? Oh my.
And throughout the series I keep wondering where Cranmer is, the most important churchman in the land?
Why do I keep watching? No idea.
Paul

He was in the last two series - at least Latimer was shown this time.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To: RichardIIISociety forum
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:21 AM
Subject: More Tudor nonsense



Who told Jonathan Rhys-Meyer he was playing Henry V not the 8th? By that time Henry 8 could hardly walk let alone get on a horse and lead an army into battle and make a speech!!
Princess Mary speaks a "little Spanish"? Oh my.
And throughout the series I keep wondering where Cranmer is, the most important churchman in the land?
Why do I keep watching? No idea.
Paul

The main reason I haven't watched it is because I couldn't accept a skinny little Irishman playing a fat Welsh king.
 
I tuned in for the last lot because I read it would feature Henry and his nobles at war, and wanted to see how accurate the heraldry was (my specialist subject).
 
Unfortunately King Henry himself is shown bearing the wrong arms: France Ancient quartering England.
 
Any schoolboy will tell you that the last King of England to use these arms was Henry IV over a hundred years earlier.  With such a huge error there wasn't much point looking at the rest of the arms.  I've no idea what the red lion banner they had all over the place was supposed to be: it looks like they copied it from the Chronicles of Narnia, which is about as accurate as this show seems to be.

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Any schoolboy will tell you that the last King of England to use these arms was Henry IV over a hundred years earlier.  With such a huge error there wasn't much point looking at the rest of the arms.  I've no idea what the red lion banner they had all over the place was supposed to be: it looks like they copied it from the Chronicles of Narnia, which is about as accurate as this show seems to be.


Is "The Tudors" made for an American audience, which wouldn't know (or care, for the most part) about such errors? I'm an American, and though I care about historical accuracy, I think many details would go right over my head. As I think I mentioned earlier, though, I am regarding "The Tudors" as sort of Henry VIII's fantasy of how things happened, in which he is forever young and studly, and all the women are beautiful and lusting after him.

Your "any schoolboy will tell you..." made me smile. Years ago in some article I read "Every schoolboy knows the story of King Alfred and the cakes...." I didn't know it, and my not knowing it muddled the rest of the story for me.

Which brings me around to how there is a degree of uncertainty attached to some amount of what we read from earlier centuries, because we don't understand the syntax, in the broader definition of the term. The figures of speech, slang, colloquialisms, contemporary references, and so on. Most people seem to take it literally that Clarence was drowned in a butt of malmsey, but could that be some sort of code phrase? Drinking and being a drunk is a subject especially full of such.

And slang can change in a short span of years. My grandchildren find it convulsingly funny when they read about pirates out for booty. They would faint if I told them I used to wear thongs. Zorro the Gay Blade now raises eyebrows.

We may know what people said 500 years ago, but we have to be careful about assuming we know exactly what they meant.

Katy

Dear David,

I, too, only caught snippets of The Tudors. I used to work on costumes for stage
(and once for screen). While some choices are based upon over-riding artistic
"needs" and questions (what will photograph especially well? or what forms the
best visual impression in a wide shot but maybe won't satisfy a close up?), I
saw no real effort made regarding these important, "informative" images.

Indeed, the fantasy films by Peter Jackson showed higher regard for "accuracy"
insofar as even the banners born by the fictional Elves were based upon J.R.R.
Tolkien's own drawings and water-colors of Elven heraldric devices.... If
something so abstruse could be handled adroitly, why not the details of a
well-documented era?

But few people seemed to care, and in a world of earthquakes, we must sometimes
prioritize our battles.

Best wishes,
Judy



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 5:47:59 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense


The main reason I haven't watched it is because I couldn't accept a skinny
little Irishman playing a fat Welsh king.

I tuned in for the last lot because I read it would feature Henry and his nobles
at war, and wanted to see how accurate the heraldry was (my specialist subject).

Unfortunately King Henry himself is shown bearing the wrong arms: France Ancient
quartering England.

Any schoolboy will tell you that the last King of England to use these arms was
Henry IV over a hundred years earlier. With such a huge error there wasn't much
point looking at the rest of the arms. I've no idea what the red lion banner
they had all over the place was supposed to be: it looks like they copied it
from the Chronicles of Narnia, which is about as accurate as this show seems to
be.

Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.

Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they write
fiction.

I know I do not. (I used the word "riposte," then thought: Better check. And
sure enough, it was way too late.) But I must give myself some breathing space,
or I'll be more addlepated than...well, better not say. Some of the meanings are
still rather naughty.

Yo, Mama! (Hey, Baby!) changed from a flirtation into a terrible allegation, and
that's only since the '60s.

Cheers!
Judy



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 6:16:25 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense




--- In , david rayner
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Any schoolboy will tell you that the last King of England to use these arms was
>Henry IV over a hundred years earlier. With such a huge error there wasn't much
>point looking at the rest of the arms. I've no idea what the red lion banner
>they had all over the place was supposed to be: it looks like they copied it
>from the Chronicles of Narnia, which is about as accurate as this show seems to
>be.

Is "The Tudors" made for an American audience, which wouldn't know (or care, for
the most part) about such errors? I'm an American, and though I care about
historical accuracy, I think many details would go right over my head. As I
think I mentioned earlier, though, I am regarding "The Tudors" as sort of Henry
VIII's fantasy of how things happened, in which he is forever young and studly,
and all the women are beautiful and lusting after him.

Your "any schoolboy will tell you..." made me smile. Years ago in some article
I read "Every schoolboy knows the story of King Alfred and the cakes...." I
didn't know it, and my not knowing it muddled the rest of the story for me.


Which brings me around to how there is a degree of uncertainty attached to some
amount of what we read from earlier centuries, because we don't understand the
syntax, in the broader definition of the term. The figures of speech, slang,
colloquialisms, contemporary references, and so on. Most people seem to take it
literally that Clarence was drowned in a butt of malmsey, but could that be some
sort of code phrase? Drinking and being a drunk is a subject especially full of
such.

And slang can change in a short span of years. My grandchildren find it
convulsingly funny when they read about pirates out for booty. They would faint
if I told them I used to wear thongs. Zorro the Gay Blade now raises eyebrows.


We may know what people said 500 years ago, but we have to be careful about
assuming we know exactly what they meant.

Katy

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
>
> Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they write
> fiction.
>


Hand waving in air here. Long long ago, I got the compact two-volume edition of the OED, in a slipcase with a little drawer for the magnifying glass, for $50.00 as a premium for joining a book club. It's one of the objects I'd save from a burning house.

I wouldn't dare subscribe to the OED online. It is the very epitome of an invitation to richochet research. As it is, the only thing that saves me is that it's big and heavy, even though I bought a Bible stand to support it when opened up, and it gets tiring to hunch over it squinting through the magnifying glass. If I could browse the OED online or -- get thee behind me, Satan -- on the couch or in bed, on my iPad, I would never get anything done.

Katy

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
>
> Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they write
> fiction.
>
> I know I do not. (I used the word "riposte," then thought: Better check. And
> sure enough, it was way too late.)

Cheers!
> Judy


Sometimes you have to check just about everything. A while back I watched a Western movie set in about 1885 in which a dancehall girl
was singing Danny Boy in the background of a scene in a saloon. Londonderry Aire, the tune, is ancient, but the lyrics that make it Danny Boy were not written till 1910.

George MacDonald Fraser had a neat way to get around this in his Flashman novels. The conceit was that he was merely editing a manuscript of that rascal Flashman's autobiography. Most of the novels contain footnotes and endnotes in which he deals with research oopsies and errors in earlier books that readers have written to him to point out, such as by saying "Flashman often claims to have sung songs before they were written."

Katy

Because fiction is often what introduces folks to a specific subject, I
think it's important for the writer to do the research and, if nothing
else, get the big points right. While I'm fussy with myself about the
little details--where known, I'm not such a stickler about books and
movies that I indulge in for my own pleasure, as long as the writing is
true to the character/science/times/etc. That said, I can thoroughly
enjoy something that's anachronistic, as long as it's well done and the
creators got at a larger truth. For example, I really enjoyed watching
"A Knights Tale" with Heath Ledger despite and because of the purposeful
anachronisms. Another one I love is "Monty Python's Holy Grail."

And although I think that Shakespeare destroyed the real Richard III, he
nevertheless created a most compelling arch-villain. I doubt that
Richard would have been more than a small historical footnote without
Shakespeare's play. I find it deliciously ironic that we Ricardians
probably have Shakespeare to thank for bringing us together.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
judygerard.thomson@ wrote:
> >
> > Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
> >
> > Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they
write
> > fiction.
> >
> > I know I do not. (I used the word "riposte," then thought: Better
check. And
> > sure enough, it was way too late.)
>
> Cheers!
> > Judy
>
>
> Sometimes you have to check just about everything. A while back I
watched a Western movie set in about 1885 in which a dancehall girl
> was singing Danny Boy in the background of a scene in a saloon.
Londonderry Aire, the tune, is ancient, but the lyrics that make it
Danny Boy were not written till 1910.
>
> George MacDonald Fraser had a neat way to get around this in his
Flashman novels. The conceit was that he was merely editing a
manuscript of that rascal Flashman's autobiography. Most of the novels
contain footnotes and endnotes in which he deals with research oopsies
and errors in earlier books that readers have written to him to point
out, such as by saying "Flashman often claims to have sung songs before
they were written."
>
> Katy
>

Bravo, Joan!
(I'm prepping for work, so I haven't time to read everyone yet...)

As a child, I loved King Arthur. My Grandma took me to see Camelot. I was
besotted. The costumes were a mishmash of 12th-15th C.; I did not care and still
don't. Richard Burton, wow.

I too get really fussy over little things; now I take meds ; )

Fiction brought us to Richard, and it will continue to do so for others, due to
its accessibility. The smitten will go on to read more deeply. Whatever we can
do to win hearts, the minds (we can hope) will follow.

Leo Burnett et al. only wants your heart and your cash. But advertisers can
teach us a thing or two about engaging people to a cause....

Cheers!
Judy



________________________________
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 12:25:27 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense


Because fiction is often what introduces folks to a specific subject, I
think it's important for the writer to do the research and, if nothing
else, get the big points right. While I'm fussy with myself about the
little details--where known, I'm not such a stickler about books and
movies that I indulge in for my own pleasure, as long as the writing is
true to the character/science/times/etc. That said, I can thoroughly
enjoy something that's anachronistic, as long as it's well done and the
creators got at a larger truth. For example, I really enjoyed watching
"A Knights Tale" with Heath Ledger despite and because of the purposeful
anachronisms. Another one I love is "Monty Python's Holy Grail."

And although I think that Shakespeare destroyed the real Richard III, he
nevertheless created a most compelling arch-villain. I doubt that
Richard would have been more than a small historical footnote without
Shakespeare's play. I find it deliciously ironic that we Ricardians
probably have Shakespeare to thank for bringing us together.

Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935

--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
judygerard.thomson@ wrote:
> >
> > Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
> >
> > Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they
write
> > fiction.
> >
> > I know I do not. (I used the word "riposte," then thought: Better
check. And
> > sure enough, it was way too late.)
>
> Cheers!
> > Judy
>
>
> Sometimes you have to check just about everything. A while back I
watched a Western movie set in about 1885 in which a dancehall girl
> was singing Danny Boy in the background of a scene in a saloon.
Londonderry Aire, the tune, is ancient, but the lyrics that make it
Danny Boy were not written till 1910.
>
> George MacDonald Fraser had a neat way to get around this in his
Flashman novels. The conceit was that he was merely editing a
manuscript of that rascal Flashman's autobiography. Most of the novels
contain footnotes and endnotes in which he deals with research oopsies
and errors in earlier books that readers have written to him to point
out, such as by saying "Flashman often claims to have sung songs before
they were written."
>
> Katy
>

Yes, Katy, I loved Frazier.

(And Pale Fire by Nabakov, a similar conceit, but more of a satire. )

I'm entertaining the idea of "illustrations" in the form of marginalia on
certain "documents." This would be a fun way to add another layer to a story,
which is already semi-epistulary (sp?).

Incidentally, is there a data base for the words used by Caxton? I'm not sure
how I'd even phrase the search to find exactly what I want: a dictionary of word
usage from Caxton's books, with dates of use and explicit meanings and
derivations. Running searches through the O.E.D. might be possible, but I do not
have a subscription, alas!

Cheers!
Judy



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 10:14:15 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense




--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
>
> Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they write
> fiction.
>
> I know I do not. (I used the word "riposte," then thought: Better check. And
> sure enough, it was way too late.)

Cheers!
> Judy

Sometimes you have to check just about everything. A while back I watched a
Western movie set in about 1885 in which a dancehall girl
was singing Danny Boy in the background of a scene in a saloon. Londonderry
Aire, the tune, is ancient, but the lyrics that make it Danny Boy were not
written till 1910.

George MacDonald Fraser had a neat way to get around this in his Flashman
novels. The conceit was that he was merely editing a manuscript of that rascal
Flashman's autobiography. Most of the novels contain footnotes and endnotes in
which he deals with research oopsies and errors in earlier books that readers
have written to him to point out, such as by saying "Flashman often claims to
have sung songs before they were written."

Katy

Reading your mail in reverse order, Katy...

I gave away (yes, it's true) that very edition when I got the O.E.D. on CD.
Don't even want to admit what I paid. My set came from BOMC, I'm fairly certain.

The CD's obsolete, of course.... : ( Judy

And right you are about disappearing into a Good Book. Even as a child, I'd open
my old Funk & Wagnall's at random; at that time I was into King Arthur and
searching for Caxton's version. Librarians treated me as a Weird Child, and sent
notes to my parents...fortunately, my folks wrote back: Yes, let her check out
Don Quixote, etc.

And I drew little quasi-15th C. people in my notebooks. Not so much the women as
the men, in their armor. At about eight, I asked for a suit of plate armor and a
harp. My Dad gave me a plastic model of the Blue Knight, but it was too late a
style, and I was disappointed. I made a small harp from a solid-piece wooden
hanger, nails, and fishing line, but they wouldn't let me take it to school for
Show-and-Tell.

: ) Judy



________________________________
From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 10:05:51 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense




--- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
>
> Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they write
> fiction.
>

Hand waving in air here. Long long ago, I got the compact two-volume edition
of the OED, in a slipcase with a little drawer for the magnifying glass, for
$50.00 as a premium for joining a book club. It's one of the objects I'd save
from a burning house.

I wouldn't dare subscribe to the OED online. It is the very epitome of an
invitation to richochet research. As it is, the only thing that saves me is
that it's big and heavy, even though I bought a Bible stand to support it when
opened up, and it gets tiring to hunch over it squinting through the magnifying
glass. If I could browse the OED online or -- get thee behind me, Satan -- on
the couch or in bed, on my iPad, I would never get anything done.

Katy

I grew up in a small town in Southern Ontario. Everybody was on a first
name basis. My librarian took my mother aside one day, and told me she
was concerned that I was checking out books that were much too old for
me. In retrospect, she was probably right, but I don't think the books
damaged me in any way. I took out Costain, Dickens History of England,
etc. But I also took out works that were geared to my age, mainly
Geoffry Trease's works.

One of the 'older' sets of books I took out was Maurice Druon's
'Accursed Kings' series. If you haven't read those novels, you should
really treat yourself. They're still dark and fresh, even after 60
years. They spawned a French mini-series some time back.

On 15/03/2011 1:46 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> Reading your mail in reverse order, Katy...
>
> I gave away (yes, it's true) that very edition when I got the O.E.D.
> on CD.
> Don't even want to admit what I paid. My set came from BOMC, I'm
> fairly certain.
>
> The CD's obsolete, of course.... : ( Judy
>
> And right you are about disappearing into a Good Book. Even as a
> child, I'd open
> my old Funk & Wagnall's at random; at that time I was into King Arthur
> and
> searching for Caxton's version. Librarians treated me as a Weird
> Child, and sent
> notes to my parents...fortunately, my folks wrote back: Yes, let her
> check out
> Don Quixote, etc.
>
> And I drew little quasi-15th C. people in my notebooks. Not so much
> the women as
> the men, in their armor. At about eight, I asked for a suit of plate
> armor and a
> harp. My Dad gave me a plastic model of the Blue Knight, but it was
> too late a
> style, and I was disappointed. I made a small harp from a solid-piece
> wooden
> hanger, nails, and fishing line, but they wouldn't let me take it to
> school for
> Show-and-Tell.
>
> : ) Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>>
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 10:05:51 PM
> Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
> >
> > Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they
> write
> > fiction.
> >
>
> Hand waving in air here. Long long ago, I got the compact two-volume
> edition
> of the OED, in a slipcase with a little drawer for the magnifying
> glass, for
> $50.00 as a premium for joining a book club. It's one of the objects
> I'd save
> from a burning house.
>
> I wouldn't dare subscribe to the OED online. It is the very epitome of an
> invitation to richochet research. As it is, the only thing that saves
> me is
> that it's big and heavy, even though I bought a Bible stand to support
> it when
> opened up, and it gets tiring to hunch over it squinting through the
> magnifying
> glass. If I could browse the OED online or -- get thee behind me,
> Satan -- on
> the couch or in bed, on my iPad, I would never get anything done.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3508 - Release Date: 03/15/11
>

Why, thanks, Bill! I shall check'em out.



________________________________
From: Bill Barber <bbarber@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 1:18:56 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense


I grew up in a small town in Southern Ontario. Everybody was on a first
name basis. My librarian took my mother aside one day, and told me she
was concerned that I was checking out books that were much too old for
me. In retrospect, she was probably right, but I don't think the books
damaged me in any way. I took out Costain, Dickens History of England,
etc. But I also took out works that were geared to my age, mainly
Geoffry Trease's works.

One of the 'older' sets of books I took out was Maurice Druon's
'Accursed Kings' series. If you haven't read those novels, you should
really treat yourself. They're still dark and fresh, even after 60
years. They spawned a French mini-series some time back.

On 15/03/2011 1:46 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> Reading your mail in reverse order, Katy...
>
> I gave away (yes, it's true) that very edition when I got the O.E.D.
> on CD.
> Don't even want to admit what I paid. My set came from BOMC, I'm
> fairly certain.
>
> The CD's obsolete, of course.... : ( Judy
>
> And right you are about disappearing into a Good Book. Even as a
> child, I'd open
> my old Funk & Wagnall's at random; at that time I was into King Arthur
> and
> searching for Caxton's version. Librarians treated me as a Weird
> Child, and sent
> notes to my parents...fortunately, my folks wrote back: Yes, let her
> check out
> Don Quixote, etc.
>
> And I drew little quasi-15th C. people in my notebooks. Not so much
> the women as
> the men, in their armor. At about eight, I asked for a suit of plate
> armor and a
> harp. My Dad gave me a plastic model of the Blue Knight, but it was
> too late a
> style, and I was disappointed. I made a small harp from a solid-piece
> wooden
> hanger, nails, and fishing line, but they wouldn't let me take it to
> school for
> Show-and-Tell.
>
> : ) Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@... <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>>
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 10:05:51 PM
> Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
> >
> > Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they
> write
> > fiction.
> >
>
> Hand waving in air here. Long long ago, I got the compact two-volume
> edition
> of the OED, in a slipcase with a little drawer for the magnifying
> glass, for
> $50.00 as a premium for joining a book club. It's one of the objects
> I'd save
> from a burning house.
>
> I wouldn't dare subscribe to the OED online. It is the very epitome of an
> invitation to richochet research. As it is, the only thing that saves
> me is
> that it's big and heavy, even though I bought a Bible stand to support
> it when
> opened up, and it gets tiring to hunch over it squinting through the
> magnifying
> glass. If I could browse the OED online or -- get thee behind me,
> Satan -- on
> the couch or in bed, on my iPad, I would never get anything done.
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3508 - Release Date: 03/15/11
>

Here's a link that gives a bit more detail about 'The Accursed Kings'.
As well as the French material, it has some lively scenes featuring the
court of Edward III and the doings of Enguerrand de Coucy and Robert
d'Artois. De Coucy was quite the boy...very well travelled. Tuchman also
features him in /A Distant Mirror./
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accursed_Kings

On 15/03/2011 2:31 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> Why, thanks, Bill! I shall check'em out.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bill Barber <bbarber@... <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>>
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 1:18:56 PM
> Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense
>
> I grew up in a small town in Southern Ontario. Everybody was on a first
> name basis. My librarian took my mother aside one day, and told me she
> was concerned that I was checking out books that were much too old for
> me. In retrospect, she was probably right, but I don't think the books
> damaged me in any way. I took out Costain, Dickens History of England,
> etc. But I also took out works that were geared to my age, mainly
> Geoffry Trease's works.
>
> One of the 'older' sets of books I took out was Maurice Druon's
> 'Accursed Kings' series. If you haven't read those novels, you should
> really treat yourself. They're still dark and fresh, even after 60
> years. They spawned a French mini-series some time back.
>
> On 15/03/2011 1:46 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > Reading your mail in reverse order, Katy...
> >
> > I gave away (yes, it's true) that very edition when I got the O.E.D.
> > on CD.
> > Don't even want to admit what I paid. My set came from BOMC, I'm
> > fairly certain.
> >
> > The CD's obsolete, of course.... : ( Judy
> >
> > And right you are about disappearing into a Good Book. Even as a
> > child, I'd open
> > my old Funk & Wagnall's at random; at that time I was into King Arthur
> > and
> > searching for Caxton's version. Librarians treated me as a Weird
> > Child, and sent
> > notes to my parents...fortunately, my folks wrote back: Yes, let her
> > check out
> > Don Quixote, etc.
> >
> > And I drew little quasi-15th C. people in my notebooks. Not so much
> > the women as
> > the men, in their armor. At about eight, I asked for a suit of plate
> > armor and a
> > harp. My Dad gave me a plastic model of the Blue Knight, but it was
> > too late a
> > style, and I was disappointed. I made a small harp from a solid-piece
> > wooden
> > hanger, nails, and fishing line, but they wouldn't let me take it to
> > school for
> > Show-and-Tell.
> >
> > : ) Judy
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...
> <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 10:05:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
> > >
> > > Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they
> > write
> > > fiction.
> > >
> >
> > Hand waving in air here. Long long ago, I got the compact two-volume
> > edition
> > of the OED, in a slipcase with a little drawer for the magnifying
> > glass, for
> > $50.00 as a premium for joining a book club. It's one of the objects
> > I'd save
> > from a burning house.
> >
> > I wouldn't dare subscribe to the OED online. It is the very epitome
> of an
> > invitation to richochet research. As it is, the only thing that saves
> > me is
> > that it's big and heavy, even though I bought a Bible stand to support
> > it when
> > opened up, and it gets tiring to hunch over it squinting through the
> > magnifying
> > glass. If I could browse the OED online or -- get thee behind me,
> > Satan -- on
> > the couch or in bed, on my iPad, I would never get anything done.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3508 - Release Date: 03/15/11
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3508 - Release Date: 03/15/11
>

Yes, Distant Mirror. Have a long, weird story related to that book and how I
came to read it...too long and weird for here ; )

I used to have an old book about Gilles de Rais, also; don't know where he
ferreted off, but he's missing. However, Francois Villon's still here, plus
Rodrigo Borgia. Don't ask. They all cost me a quarter or less at some ancient
thrift shop in Florida.



________________________________
From: Bill Barber <bbarber@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 1:35:12 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense


Here's a link that gives a bit more detail about 'The Accursed Kings'.
As well as the French material, it has some lively scenes featuring the
court of Edward III and the doings of Enguerrand de Coucy and Robert
d'Artois. De Coucy was quite the boy...very well travelled. Tuchman also
features him in /A Distant Mirror./
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accursed_Kings

On 15/03/2011 2:31 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
>
> Why, thanks, Bill! I shall check'em out.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Bill Barber <bbarber@... <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>>
> To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 1:18:56 PM
> Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense
>
> I grew up in a small town in Southern Ontario. Everybody was on a first
> name basis. My librarian took my mother aside one day, and told me she
> was concerned that I was checking out books that were much too old for
> me. In retrospect, she was probably right, but I don't think the books
> damaged me in any way. I took out Costain, Dickens History of England,
> etc. But I also took out works that were geared to my age, mainly
> Geoffry Trease's works.
>
> One of the 'older' sets of books I took out was Maurice Druon's
> 'Accursed Kings' series. If you haven't read those novels, you should
> really treat yourself. They're still dark and fresh, even after 60
> years. They spawned a French mini-series some time back.
>
> On 15/03/2011 1:46 PM, Judy Thomson wrote:
> >
> > Reading your mail in reverse order, Katy...
> >
> > I gave away (yes, it's true) that very edition when I got the O.E.D.
> > on CD.
> > Don't even want to admit what I paid. My set came from BOMC, I'm
> > fairly certain.
> >
> > The CD's obsolete, of course.... : ( Judy
> >
> > And right you are about disappearing into a Good Book. Even as a
> > child, I'd open
> > my old Funk & Wagnall's at random; at that time I was into King Arthur
> > and
> > searching for Caxton's version. Librarians treated me as a Weird
> > Child, and sent
> > notes to my parents...fortunately, my folks wrote back: Yes, let her
> > check out
> > Don Quixote, etc.
> >
> > And I drew little quasi-15th C. people in my notebooks. Not so much
> > the women as
> > the men, in their armor. At about eight, I asked for a suit of plate
> > armor and a
> > harp. My Dad gave me a plastic model of the Blue Knight, but it was
> > too late a
> > style, and I was disappointed. I made a small harp from a solid-piece
> > wooden
> > hanger, nails, and fishing line, but they wouldn't let me take it to
> > school for
> > Show-and-Tell.
> >
> > : ) Judy
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: oregon_katy <oregon_katy@...
> <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com> <mailto:oregon_katy%40yahoo.com>>
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 10:05:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well-said, Katy. And I've been quite the stickler in times past.
> > >
> > > Show of hands, all people who consult the O.E.D. constantly as they
> > write
> > > fiction.
> > >
> >
> > Hand waving in air here. Long long ago, I got the compact two-volume
> > edition
> > of the OED, in a slipcase with a little drawer for the magnifying
> > glass, for
> > $50.00 as a premium for joining a book club. It's one of the objects
> > I'd save
> > from a burning house.
> >
> > I wouldn't dare subscribe to the OED online. It is the very epitome
> of an
> > invitation to richochet research. As it is, the only thing that saves
> > me is
> > that it's big and heavy, even though I bought a Bible stand to support
> > it when
> > opened up, and it gets tiring to hunch over it squinting through the
> > magnifying
> > glass. If I could browse the OED online or -- get thee behind me,
> > Satan -- on
> > the couch or in bed, on my iPad, I would never get anything done.
> >
> > Katy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
> > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3508 - Release Date: 03/15/11
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1498/3508 - Release Date: 03/15/11
>

When dealing with 'Tudor Nonsense', it might be useful to consider 'The
Tudors' to be a good example of post-modern parody (or pastiche). I
think it might be a trap to think of it as having anything to do with
'real Tudor times'. It's more a use of the Tudor Myth to send up our
present-day preoccupation with celebrity, depravity, etc: Henry VIII as
Charlie Sheenthe nutters we love to hate but long to be. To stretch the
example a bit, in the History Channel series 'Outlaw Bikers', one of the
bad-boys states that nobody wants to be a biker, but they sure as hell
want to dress like one. 'The Tudors' is all about voyeursim and our
obsession with it. I place it in the same realm as Ridley Scott's
playings with history, and I'll also throw in both the Coen Brothers
weirdnesses and the various Python epics. And to make it more fun, all
of these works are a slight tongue-in-cheek send-up of people who think
there is such a thing as objective reality. As a side-bar,
post-modernists don't usually suffer for their art; they're too busy
making money from it.

Now to push my point. For much of my career, I was a museum curator, and
as such, I dealt with the conservation of Ontario Architecture from
Georgian to Post Modern periods. Each architectural era is a rebellion
against the previous architectural era, and each era devizes rules that
one cannot break if one wishes his/her work to be /de rigueur.
/Everything from previous eras is trash. Everyone takes themselves very
seriously. Then along comes Post-Modernism with its devil-may-care
attitude and asks, "So what happens if we mash everything up and throw
it together again?" In terms of architecture , when we do that we end up
with hall-of-mirrors mixtures of past architectural whims rammed up
against each other. It's disturbing, but interesting, and it's great
because it POs Prince Charles and the rest of 'the establishment'.

This culture of send-up goes on in all our art forms. Post-modern
writers such as John Fowles and John Barth love to suck us in and spit
us out.

Does this post-modern stuff have any invaluable points to make? Some
does and some doesn't. Should we throw it out? Absolutely not. I'm sure
that on some forum fifty years from now somewhat will ask what drew
people to serious interest in Tudor studies, and the answer will be, "I
watched 'The Tudors' when I was a kid. To impart some Ricardian
relevance to my screed, there will be some who are drawn to Ricardian
studies because they read Terry Deary's "Horrible Histories" when they
were kids.

So lets enjoy 'The Tudors' for what it is, and so you know I'm not
making this stuff up, here's a link :-)
http://www.filmreference.com/encyclopedia/Independent-Film-Road-Movies/Parody-PARODY-AND-THE-POSTMODERN.html

P.S. This is food for thought the next time we watch 'The Daily Show',
'The Colbert Report' or anything from the CSI franchise. And its useful
to remember that a goodly number of people writing, producing, designing
and (sometimes) fronting this stuff have post-grad degrees (sorry if
this sounds snobbish), so they know about trends, generally from reading
academic art, literary and film criticism (not to be confused with the
Roger Ebert type of criticism). They're usually smart and gifted
people, and they know what they're doing and how it all fits together.






//

But it can be harmful.
 
For example "Braveheart" is almost entirely fictitious, yet most people take it as gospel truth. It has a significant influence on the growth of a Scottish nationalism which would have been anachronistic for the 13th century. 
 
By portraying what was in essence a Scottish civil war (in which Wallace and Bruce were on opposing sides) as a nationalistic struggle simply to indulge in mindless anti-English racism is an example of how the deliberate distortion of history to suit modern prejudices can be poisonous.
 
By all means use your imagination to fill in the gaps in out knowledge, but don't portray things you know not to be true as history.

Dear David,

Not to interrupt this thread, but might I prevail upon your expertise in
heraldry? Not many questions, and I haven't my ducks in a row yet, but I need
help describing in true College of Arms language (1) the colors, badges, etc.,
of the two Stanley Bros. as Richard himself might have "read" them, and (2) the
arms of William Herbert and Katherine his wife, Earl of Huntingdon.

Many thanks in advance...and strictly at your convenience; there's no urgency,
Judy T.



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Tue, March 15, 2011 5:58:35 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense


But it can be harmful.

For example "Braveheart" is almost entirely fictitious, yet most people take it
as gospel truth. It has a significant influence on the growth of a Scottish
nationalism which would have been anachronistic for the 13th century.


By portraying what was in essence a Scottish civil war (in which Wallace and
Bruce were on opposing sides) as a nationalistic struggle simply to indulge in
mindless anti-English racism is an example of how the deliberate distortion of
history to suit modern prejudices can be poisonous.

By all means use your imagination to fill in the gaps in out knowledge, but
don't portray things you know not to be true as history.

Oh David, you didn't really expect accuracy did you? :-)
Love the way the king's accent keeps slipping into Oirish. Maybe the actor was getting bored by this time!
Paul

On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:47, david rayner wrote:

> The main reason I haven't watched it is because I couldn't accept a skinny little Irishman playing a fat Welsh king.
>
> I tuned in for the last lot because I read it would feature Henry and his nobles at war, and wanted to see how accurate the heraldry was (my specialist subject).
>
> Unfortunately King Henry himself is shown bearing the wrong arms: France Ancient quartering England.
>
> Any schoolboy will tell you that the last King of England to use these arms was Henry IV over a hundred years earlier. With such a huge error there wasn't much point looking at the rest of the arms. I've no idea what the red lion banner they had all over the place was supposed to be: it looks like they copied it from the Chronicles of Narnia, which is about as accurate as this show seems to be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Prince Edward's accent was obviously Irish.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense



Oh David, you didn't really expect accuracy did you? :-)
Love the way the king's accent keeps slipping into Oirish. Maybe the actor was getting bored by this time!
Paul

On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:47, david rayner wrote:

> The main reason I haven't watched it is because I couldn't accept a skinny little Irishman playing a fat Welsh king.
>
> I tuned in for the last lot because I read it would feature Henry and his nobles at war, and wanted to see how accurate the heraldry was (my specialist subject).
>
> Unfortunately King Henry himself is shown bearing the wrong arms: France Ancient quartering England.
>
> Any schoolboy will tell you that the last King of England to use these arms was Henry IV over a hundred years earlier. With such a huge error there wasn't much point looking at the rest of the arms. I've no idea what the red lion banner they had all over the place was supposed to be: it looks like they copied it from the Chronicles of Narnia, which is about as accurate as this show seems to be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

In re: weird accents--Holy Shade of Kevin Costner, Batman!



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, March 16, 2011 10:37:27 AM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense


Prince Edward's accent was obviously Irish.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: More Tudor nonsense

Oh David, you didn't really expect accuracy did you? :-)
Love the way the king's accent keeps slipping into Oirish. Maybe the actor was
getting bored by this time!
Paul

On 14 Mar 2011, at 22:47, david rayner wrote:

> The main reason I haven't watched it is because I couldn't accept a skinny
>little Irishman playing a fat Welsh king.
>
> I tuned in for the last lot because I read it would feature Henry and his
>nobles at war, and wanted to see how accurate the heraldry was (my specialist
>subject).
>
> Unfortunately King Henry himself is shown bearing the wrong arms: France
>Ancient quartering England.
>
> Any schoolboy will tell you that the last King of England to use these arms was
>Henry IV over a hundred years earlier. With such a huge error there wasn't much
>point looking at the rest of the arms. I've no idea what the red lion banner
>they had all over the place was supposed to be: it looks like they copied it
>from the Chronicles of Narnia, which is about as accurate as this show seems to
>be.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>