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?

Interesting thread!

I remember at school we did a couple of experiments to highlight the problem we face with history ‘facts’.

First one. We all had to watch a short clip of a (staged!) robbery then afterwards we had to fill in a ‘witness statement’. It was incredible how different the accounts were - when we ALL WATCHED THE SAME CLIP! Colours of cars, height of suspects, what was said. Every single persons account was very slightly different. Most instances the differences were minor but it was a good excerise in highlighting that history facts (from any source)should be understood to be a version of what happened. It taught us to question sources and not rely on just one account before forming an opinion.

Second experiment. Class was split into 5 and we had to make a news report based on a new factory being built in a nearby town. We were all given the same facts but each group was assigned a role. One was local news, one was national news, one was an environmental group and the other two groups represented the party of the local MP and an opposition candidate. We had to report the news to represent the style or views of our group.

So the national news group focused on economic growth, the local news welcomed new jobs but raised concerns about pollution to residents etc etc. So the same facts could be interpreted positively or negatively depending on your outlook. Another big lesson in how we must look at history from many angles.

Which is why I find it highly amusing when certain people on this thread are so adamant they are correct on specific facts. No - you believe a version of events based on particular secondary sources.. 20 academics could (and have) written a book on the Tudors (for example) and each would be different.

No one alive today has seen Henry Vlll so therefore no one can be CERTAIN of his height / weight / manky winkle / rancid body odour.

What we have is his armour and some clothing - all of which seem to indicate he was a tall (over 6ft) man who got chunky later in life (too many sausage rolls from Ye Olde Gregge’s Pye Shoppe perhaps?). I’d hedge my bets and say he WAS a big man but that’s just my opinion - it will never be fact.

Most of the widely known 'facts' about the disappearance of the Marie Celeste were actually invented by Arthur Conan Doyle in a wildly inaccurate magazine article. There was no meal set ready to be eaten, and the ship's boat was not on board, it was missing. He even got the name of the ship wrong -- she was actually called the Mary Celeste.

As I understand it, every summer the Vikings laid on a number of cruises so they could pop across the North Sea, maybe bring back a wife or, if they were really lucky, a wife plus farm enabling them to stay and add to the gene pool. Inconvenient husbands not a problem.

Then they tired of the cabins open to the elements, so decided to travel to Paris for a bargain break. Unfortunately, the Parisians had double booked and wouldn't let them in, so they decamped to what we now call Normandy and the rest, as they say, is history.

Ironically it was William who bought the first Jews over here, but sometime later we performed our first ethnic cleansing (at York).

I'm quite sure the Nazis did have paper trail of deaths – sometimes; just been researching (for another purpose) Norway in WW2 and most of the records were destroyed, which means a total figure for the Holocaust must be an estimate.

Anyone wanting a clear idea of the losses the Russians suffered in the war (more than all of the Allies added together) read Max Hastings', 'All Hell Broke Loose'.

Like others I was taught at school how great our nation was – I'm guessing most nations do the same – and have slowly discovered things weren't quite as we'd been taught. India for example was the richest nation on the planet until we got there and managed to get a significant amount for ourselves.

I love history, mainly because it can't be changed, only our view of it can. Makes for an enjoyable thread.

I like Gregorys books. Of course they are very fictional, that’s WHY I like them, they are an entertaining read and i can connect with the heroines. She has her way of looking at the facts we „ know“ and telling them in her novels ( novels! Not history books!). And I am absolutely convinced that many of you know more or better about british history-but I personally learned a lot about it by reading her fiction ( snd Margaret George and Alison Weir and some others) -because the general dates/coincidences/marriages/births/deaths are not invented but researched. In Germany we don’t learn british history, it’s purely my own interest in it that made me read those books. And so, even if she’s no „real“ historian and it seems Philippa-bashing is a thing here, you have to give her credit to make people like me learn about ( and even read more „serious“ books about ) your history. I‘m pretty okay in explaining the general outlines of the cousins wars or tudor times WITHOUT thinking that the „white queen“ actually performed magic/witchcraft/curses with her mother or seeing it as a historical fact, that Anne Boleyn slept with her brother to conceive a male heir. Just saying...

Have to google the other Philippa now, sounds interesting

I really enjoyed Sharon Penman, especially the more "historical" rather than "fun" ones. I also read some good ones on Scottish History which taught me most that I "know" about that other than Mary Queen of Scots (King David etc.) but I can't remember the author now.

Germany, that’s not right. A lot in Gregory’s book is entirely made up. She’s not like Weir which is pop history. Nothing against people reading and enjoying Gregory, but it’s fiction extremely loosely based on history, not history.

visitorfromgermany Even the dates of birth, deaths, marriages, etc aren't true. I'm sure Gregory does do research, but she in no way sticks to the facts in her books - even the important parts.

Ok, I did not know that. She tells about some changed dates, but most seemed okay. But however, she made me read Weir and others, biographies rather than novels and I probably wouldn’t have developed an interest for that, if I hadn’t enjoyed reading „the other boleyn girl“ and so on. So at least she made me learn

If you like Weir Germany, try Antonia Fraser too.

Maybe you were raised in a different country and that was 'the BEST' too?

God yes. I grew up in the Soviet Union. Best country in the world that invented and discovered absolutely everything.

I thin I have some of hers too, but I‘ll check, thsnk you, Mighty! I usually just read here, so I don’t know all the functions, I tried „reply“, but it doesn’t show your name, sorry.

Antonia Fraser's Marie Antoinette biography is very good, though you can definitely see it's been written from a certain perspective. A quite tragic history, though. The 'let them eat cake/brioche/whatever' had been said about a number of foreign princesses to demonstrate their apparent disconnection from the people of their new country.

Re William/Harold/1066 - it was only when I read about 1066 in French that I found out that William had been Edward's named successor.

I thought the moment of seeing Phillipa's little face was actually brilliant.
I find it very interesting that the Ricardian side are still denying the spine issue.
I mean, he was reputed to have a spine issue and it was dismissed as propaganda.
Then at their side's instigation he is found and exhumed and he actually has a spine issue, clearly visible and it is still being denied.
You can't say it wasn't visible then as you don't know that. The fact it was said of him and then actually found tells me it was most likely visible and common knowledge. Probably exaggerated after his death but there nonetheless.

Strange I agree Antonia Fraser is a great writer, I enjoyed Marie Antoinette and Henry VIII.
Still confused about what the affair of the necklace actually was though!

Nothing to add but a fascinating thread. Thank you

I grew up in the Soviet Union. Best country in the world that invented and discovered absolutely everything

I remember at uni in the 90s being with a group of really bright American students, science and engineering types, and none of them had heard of Yuri Gagarin. Didn’t have a clue.

noble so who did they think was the first man in space?

Of course, on the other hand according to my science school books, radio was not invented by Marconi but Popov. I'm not even starting on how the history books described the occupation of Baltics..

I don’t think they’d ever learned it, or maybe it was only mentioned in passing, there wasn’t any glimmer of recognition at the name.They knew about Sputnik and then I think the Soviet side was glossed over in favour of the details of the US who obviously emerged triumphant on the moon.

I expect it’s the same for lots of things in history books!

Yes - if we still had Soviet Union, I'm sure most people there wouldn't know who went to the moon first, except that they were dirty capitalist pigs.

visitorfromgermany if you are interested in the Tudors and want to read fiction I'd recommend Jean Plaidy - a bit dated now but she was pretty scrupulous that if she stated something as a fact - eg a date of execution - it was true - the fiction was in the conversations etc. I have to say her "take" on Tudor court politics is pretty credible most of the time - enough to get me through my degree anyway....

Yuri Gagarin came to London in 1961 and was hugely celebrated here. There was a parade and he was received at Buckingham Palace.

If you stay in Australia you will be reassured that you are in the best country on earth. Often ;)

This is a bit off-topic, but almost all Americans I've met genuinely believe they live in the best country ever, and everybody else is desperate to move there. During my recent business trip there (to Detroit, of all places), I met several who refused to believe that I did not want to stay there, given the chance. I live in Switzerland..

Yuri Gagarin came to London in 1961 and was hugely celebrated here

I think that, as well as not being quite so paranoid about communism as the USA government, the British government still held some residual gratitude to the Soviets for their massive part in winning the war. It always amazes me how quickly the Americans forgot that the Soviets had been their allies and had had, arguably, a much bigger role in defeating the Germans than they had.