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?

Thank you very much for the recommendation, londonmummy!

@londonmummy1966 do you think Jean Plaidy's depiction of Lucrezia Borgia (as, basically, a victim) was credible?

@sinceyouask - sorry if I wasn't that clear - I was only referring to the Tudor novels where I think she has a good grasp on the shifting politics of the likes of the Howards and Seymours. Whilst I suspect that Lucrezia Borgia had rather less free will than her brothers I don't think she was a puppet either which is rather Plaidy's take on it. I don't agree with her depiction of Catherine de Medici either although that is perhaps just about arguable. Not sure that her take on Elizabeth of York as a totally "docile" wife is necessarily correct either - her personal correspondence would suggest she wasn't a total pushover, even with the MIL from hell - I sometimes wonder how the C15/16th version of royal mumsnet would have responded to posts about Margaret Beaufort........

Camiila is so painfully deluded she's given me the best laugh I have had in ages.

Where did you find out all this rubbish, Camiila? Conspiracy documentaries?

I idly wonder sometimes if the 'tuberculosis' that killed Prince Arthur (Henry VIII's older brother) and Edward VI was actually severe asthma, or complications of. Also wonder how long people might have survived with cystic fibrosis back then...

londonmummy no, sorry, you were perfectly clear! It's just that I really enjoyed her Borgia books and then when I read other accounts of Lucrezia that painted her very differently I was quite disappointed... I think I just want to be told that she was more sinned against than sinning :)

sinceyouask Madonna of the Seven Hills was the first of her adult books that I read (after reading the Young Elizabeth and Young Mary ones until I could pretty well recite them) and is still one of my favourites! I doubt that she was as bad as her older brothers but I'm afraid that it took some nerve to ask the Curia to annul her first marriage on the grounds of non-consumation when very visibly pregnant....

BBC 4 have a programme just starting (9pm Wed) about Henry VIII armour - they might have some facts about his size !

In case anyone is interested, there's a programme on bbc4 now about armour, including Henry VIII's. I realise the thread has probably moved on from when I last read it, on page 10.

snap!

I loved Jean Plaidy. Read my Gran’s when I was little and I have a history related profession now thanks to the love she sparked off!

Scratch that! Here's Philipa Gregory, spouting utter shite.

Well that armour certainly looks like Henry would be over 6ft tall.

Yes, he wasn't debunking that !

Batteriesallgone I read a piece online about how "rushes" were probably woven rush mats. One of those references that people never explained because they assumed everyone knew.

The reasoning was all about how noble medieval women walked. It was quite stylised. Apparently they never lifted their trailing gowns but delicately kicked the hems away as they walked. The argument went that this would have been incompatible with loose rushes because they would have been dragged into piles.

I don't know if there is any pictorial or written evidence to prove this one way or the other.

Separately I also watched a video by IIRC a medieval combat specialist demonstrating how soft medieval shoes meant that men also walked by putting their toe down first. Again very stylised but reflected in dance steps of the time and also illustrations and tapestries.

I only found out recently that the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed on the 4th July. I thought that was the whole point of the celebrations.

@londonmummy1966 There's no evidence to suggest Margaret Beaufort was the MiL from hell. She and Elizabeth appear to have had a cordial relationship and even worked together to prevent Margaret Tudor's marriage from being consummated when she was too young.

Perhaps Margaret had bad memories of her own wedding night. She never had any more children, despite being married twice after Edmund Tudor's death, so I do wonder if she carried around some awful birth-related injury for the rest of her life?

LRDtheFeministDragon Even today we are all born with a genetic maximum height. Reaching that height depends on adequate nutrition. Medieval people were, surprisingly, on average taller than 17th and 18th century people. Wealthy people who ate mainly meat, would easily reach their genetic maximum height.

news.osu.edu/news/2004/09/01/medimen/

During the Boer War and in the lead up to The Great War there was panic when the powers that be realised that their potential recruits were so short. There were bantam battalions formed for those under 5ft 3ins. The increase in height from the early to late 20th century was all down to nutrition.

I'm old enough to remember as a kid seeing adults of very short stature and with bowed legs who had been children in the hungry thirties.

Sorry to go on but the medieval height thing really amazed me when I first heard about it. I had envisioned a steady increase over time.

I know? That was the gist of my post upthread.

Re: Great fire of London
I think it was started by people employed by Christopher Wren,

This!
A few years ago I was in London and the history of nearly every building I went in was 'burnt down in (any year but 1666) and rebuilt by Christopher Wren'. Damn that man was handy with a box of matches!

I'm team Richard. I think he would have killed the princes if it was beneficial to him but killing them and hiding the bodies would not benefit him in any way. In a time of high child mortality he would have displayed their bodies and let everyone grieve for them. Not telling the people the boys were dead gave people a figure head to rebel behind - trying to put Edward V back on the throne. There was no point killing them if he didn't tell people they were dead - rebellions would still happen in their name.
Plus they never officially went missing. There is the last recorded sighting of them and then... a little while later the battle of Bosworth Field. But just because nobody bothered to write down that they'd seen the princes didn't mean they weren't there. They weren't even rumoured to be missing until after Richard was dead. And like I said - a belief that the boys were alive and well would not bolster Richard's claim to the throne.
And as to why he took the throne in the first place - he was all set to crown Edward V and act as protector, but then a priest turned up and told them that he had married Edward IV to a woman in secret before he had married Elizabeth Wodeville (also in secret) therefore all the royal children were illegitimate.

And let's face it -after decades of civil war, most people would be much happier to accept an adult king (and a proven warrior) than a little boy. The vast majority of the population would be happy with the swap. So he had no need to kill them. The only people who wouldn't have been happy would be those who wanted to manipulate the boys for their own ends - and like I said, killing them in secret would not put a stop to that
There is no proof that those bones are the princes (or even boys) and even if they are the princes- that still isn't proof that Richard ordered the killing.
As to his scoliosis. I imagine some people knew about it - like a pp said, he would have had people who dressed him. But that doesn't mean it was common knowledge.
The person who wrote the history of Richard the Third was Thomas Moore. He was a boy at the time, and he grew up in John Morton's house. Who worked for Henry VII - he is the Morton of Morton's fork fame. Not exactly an unbiased (or reliable) source.

Re: Celts/saxons / romans/ vikings in Britain from earlier in the thread. in 2015 geneticists completed a fine scale genetic map of Britain showing the DNA extant in the population today. The results were interesting but not what was expected. Here is a summary. study

@queenoftheandals whilst they did indeed do their best for Margaret Tudor, this is the best book on Margaret Beaufort and certainly they way they present her is not a MIL I would want....

www.amazon.co.uk/Kings-Mother-Margaret-Beaufort-Countess/dp/0521447941?tag=mumsnetforum-21

I'm old enough to remember as a kid seeing adults of very short stature and with bowed legs who had been children in the hungry thirties.

Ricketts has increased hugely in the UK. When I started teaching I really did not expect to see it, nor TB, but neither are unusual.

Re: Celts/saxons / romans/ vikings in Britain from earlier in the thread. in 2015 geneticists completed a fine scale genetic map of Britain showing the DNA extant in the population today. The results were interesting but not what was expected. Here is a summary. study

I was involved in this. It is very interesting, but much misquoted and misunderstood. Its a certain DEGREE of "fine scale" which brings these regional differences into focus. You have to choose the resolution very carefully, just the right degree of resolution separates out certain groups, other degrees do not.

And as to why he took the throne in the first place - he was all set to crown Edward V and act as protector, but then a priest turned up and told them that he had married Edward IV to a woman in secret before he had married Elizabeth Wodeville (also in secret) therefore all the royal children were illegitimate.

Rather a fortunate coincidence for Richard

My link is a press release from the people who did the study - maybe I'm massively naive but I imagine they didn't misquote or misunderstand themselves.