To wonder which ‘history facts’ aren’t true.

[LeslieKnopefan]

I understand that history isn’t always true and the further we go back in time the harder it is know what the truth is and what is simply made up.

However I recently posted that I thought it was true that Marie Antoinette hair turned white overnight after her best friends head was paraded in front of her and that I only realised it wasn’t when I told a mate who pointed out it couldn’t be true.

So which history facts that people think are true are known to be lies?

Also the post about the celts is true

I’m going to throw a “fact out there”. See what you think:

Elendon is actually Camiila...

“Fact” out there. 😒

whatever

The biggest myth in history is that perpetrated in school history departments that the only bit of history school children want to study is the second world war and England in the first half of the C20th. What children or history departments want has nothing to do with what's taught in schools.

Can it be true that only 3 people died in the great fire of London?

I’m sure I read or heard that somewhere. Or was it 1?

I always assumed that the 3 people were 3 people of note and all the poor people just weren’t missed or counted.

Storminateacup I do understand what you're saying, though I'm skeptical of the science (as recorded on the current Chat thread on this). The big problem I have with this is the conflation of geography (what you're talking about), political entities (the labels you / the company are using as shorthand for that geography), and biology. In these times of populist right wing rhetoric, I think claims that there is such a thing as "Belgian" dna are potentially highly dangerous.

^^apologies for tangent OP!

I think you're probably right @SimonBridges

I love that Camilla is so determined that she's the true knowledgeable intellectual on this thread with access to all the Facts. Yet her arguments include "shut your mouth" and "whatever"

What children or history departments want has nothing to do with what's taught in schools.

But it shouldn’t do. Children are taught the most important things to know and WW2 is definitely one of them. It is a huge warning from history. It has worked too, educating about fascism has meant that it has never been able to take hold in any meaningful way here.

I just wish they had covered Stalinism and many of the evils that happened under Communism just as much because the younger generations don’t seem to be clued up about that and are falling for it again.

Practice PhD in Vikki Pollard studies going on there.

At A level (back literally in historical times) I studied the industrial revolution and 19th-early 20th century British political history.

Are you calling the modern Labour Party Stalinist / communist Bundlesmads?

Yeah but no but I think you're viking about the qualifications though!

All I remember from A’Level history was the defenestration of Prague. Purely because I liked the word ‘defenestration’. It was a looooooong time ago though.

Not necessarily the Labour Party, but more grassroots left wing organisations.

Also, and I say this as someone who has loved history since childhood, and read Jean Plaidy from start to finish, the academic discipline of history isn't reciting Horrible History type facts. It's studying sources, analysing political movements, investigating social history. We don't do enough of the latter in schools, but history isn't really about the gore and the affairs.

There are big discussions to be had about the curriculum and how we approach history but there are limits to how much it should be dumbed down.

My own A level history was in part about the 'expansion of Europe', i.e. the exploration and colonisation of Africa and the Americas. That was great, with loads of social history involved and a few really striking facts, but plenty of treaties and political machinations too. As an undergraduate I did as much social stuff as possible, but school has a vital role to pave the way in that by giving that grounding in sources and analysis.

I only recently found out that cesareans have nothing to do with julius caesar. Apparently he couldn't have been born that way because at that time they only preformed on mother's who had died and his mother could have even outlived him.

I’m sure in one of our school history books they presented as a fact that Anne Boleyn had six fingers.

The whole of the Phillipa Langley thing has to go down as one of my all time fave tv moments. She’s crackers for sure but how hilarious that they actually found Richard in a car park and had a bloody funeral for him! Brilliant. It was all so eccentric. I remember watching the ‘commentary’ of the funeral and they had Starkey, phillipa Langley and Phillipa Gregory all together on the sofa. They were disagreeing about something and Starkey just said ‘well if you will get a novelist and a loon from the Richard the 3rd society to comment...’ I do have a soft spot for him. He’s just so rude but pulls it off somehow.

A friend of mine is a historian of language and he and Starkey have been trading insults through footnotes for 20 years. They both enjoy it enormously.

The first proper 'lecture' I ever went to was Starkey, lecturing to sixth formers, and it was electrifying.

Caesarian was the son of Caesar and Cleopatra wasn't he ??

Starkey is my guilty pleasure. I have a real fondness for him and his spectacular rudeness (which is often correct). I'd never tell anyone about this in real life. I just quietly watch him when everyone is out

Trampire I’m glad I’m not the only one! I thought I’d get flamed for saying I’m a fan.

@Rumpledfaceskin The most hilarious part of the funeral was the massive eye roll from historian John Ashdown-Hill when they forgot to mention him and Philippa L!

Actually no, the most hilarious bit was the Internet loons calling for a state funeral. For someone who'd been dead 400 years!

Starkey's a racist misogynist knob.