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?

Was that for me, Ethylred? Please do enlighten my poor moronic self, if it was.

I love this thread. The truth is, history is built around people's perspectives of the truth alongside archaeology. A lot of it is guess work. I love hearing different views

yes I know - my point was the people of that day (including Richard) all believed in purgatory and literal hell. That his religious beliefs - which would have been devout - would have a bearing on the way he saw the world. And therefore would have been an influence in what he was willing to do. He would have to be very certain that it was worth it before he murdered a king.
To be clear - I'm not saying that he wouldn't murder a king if he deemed it worth it. But that to leave a giant loophole like not mentioning that Edward is dead is a bit slack if you genuinely believe you might burn in hell for all eternity for committing the crime.

His execution of Hastings without a trial shows that he wasn't entirely above all that.

According to Thomas Moore, Hastings was rushed down in the tower of London and beheaded on the nearest log. In actual fact he was beheaded a week later and Richard then granted his forfeited estates back to his widow and restored his children;s rights of succession to them. They automatically lost this because Hastings was conspiring to kill Richard - conspiring to treason.
The other conspirators were pardoned. More fool Richard - one was Lord Stanley.
However, there is a decided difference between executing an adult conspirator caught in the act, and murdering a child, who is also the nephew you have sworn to protect.

"His execution of Hastings without a trial shows that he wasn't entirely above all that."

But haven't doubts been cast as to the date of the execution which suggestion that a trial may actually have taken place? Although as Constable and now Protector R had the legal power to act as judge, juror and execuitioner if he perceived a threat of treason. As you say, very mediaeval to our 20/21st century sensibilities!

Talking of treason, didn't HVII try to date his reign from the day before B.O.B. (who are you kidding, Richmond?), and therefore try to accuse R's followers of High Treason? The sneaky weasel!

He did! They didn't let him though - it would have opened a massive can of worms if he had been allowed to set that precedent! No one would have fought for their King ever again if they could be accused of treason in the event of him losing. Henry could well have shot himself in the foot if that had gone through.

The idea that the barbarians were violent, uncivilised and, well, barbarians. Apparently they were pretty much just like the Romans, with the only difference being that they didn't speak Latin. And that's why the Romans called them barbarians.

Well, that's completely wrong for a start.

• The word “barbarian” originated in ancient Greece, and was initially used to describe all non-Greek-speaking peoples, including Persians, Egyptians, Medes and Phoenicians. The ancient Greek word “bárbaros,” from which it derives, meant “babbler,” and was onomatopoeic: In the Greek ear, speakers of a foreign tongue made unintelligible sounds (“bar bar bar”). Similar words exist in other Indo-European languages, including the Sanskrit “barbara,” which means “stammering.” - History.com

As in Bar bar bar bar Barbara Anne

sorry

That was what a history lecturer told me, although come to think of it, she might've said Greeks rather than Romans...

Eleanor of Aquitaine was always a heroine of mine but I recently read a book which claims much of what we think we know about her is myth and she was not as powerful as is commonly believed.

Pressed send too early there, but I think the growth in the historical fiction market has a lot to do with how we perceive Eleanor and various other characters.

I have wondered if the princes just died of disease so many children did and as they were no longer considered in line for the throne they were just buried quietly.

That was what a history lecturer told me, although come to think of it, she might've said Greeks rather than Romans...

Easy mistake.

If in doubt, just remember the general rule of thumb; the Greeks did it first.

As in Bar bar bar bar Barbara Anne

Now we see the literary reference. Truly never given the recognition deserved as a Classic of Musical History.

Remember RIII always paid his baby mamas maintenance, so he must have been an honourable chap - right? #teenagedads #brokenbritainerrimeanengland

Lily, there would have been a record of their illness and death in that case, surely.

Icant, you said Richard wouldn’t have killed the kids because people wouldn’t want a child murderer on the throne, but then you said hiding their death/murder is of no advantage to him. Which is it?

He couldn’t have suffocated them and written it off as a fever. There were still inquiries into deaths of important people and someone would definitely have noticed there was no prior sickness, no record of medical treatment etc.

To have the princes appear less and less, to have people believe they were alive and about the place somewhere would have been far less suspicious. He may have expected to be able to get through a few years without people giving him trouble by saying they had been seen recently, or were away visiting somewhere or other.

You say people were happy to have a man on the throne rather than a child, but then you say their being alive would have caused an uprising. Again, which is it? Because it does still sound like he had a motive to kill the boys and keep it quiet.

It is very common for people who have been close to royalty throughout history to appear one way while a king was alive then change dramatically after their death. Why would Richard be any different to the rest?

By the accounts I've read, RIII was a well loved and respected ruler in the North, on behalf of the King. It does seem strange that he would suddenly turn into the power hungry despot he was portrayed as by the Tudor writers.

I always remember the "history was written by the victors" thing when looking into the subject, and also do my best to remember that times were very different then. Behaviors that we would consider barbaric and cruel these days were done by ALL rulers in past times, and the way society worked then they were only being practical.

It took centuries before the Ottoman emperors stopped killing all their surviving brothers & nephews on taking the throne, that was normal by their standards. There is a school of thought that Mary Q of Scots had very little to do with some of the plots to put her on the throne (though there seems to have been evidence that she WAS involved deeply in some). Many plots were carried out without the knowledge of the beneficiary - there is a school of thought that Anne Boleyn didn't sleep around, and it was a plot with fake evidence made up by Henry's advisors to get rid of her - perfectly feasible in those days

Even in modern times you had George V "euthanised" by his own doctor for a simple motive of ensuring what time his death was announced.

"there is a school of thought that Anne Boleyn didn't sleep around, and it was a plot with fake evidence made up by Henry's advisors to get rid of her - perfectly feasible in those days"

I think it's beyond a school of thought, isn't it? Going by Alison Weir's book, on many of the alleged dates of adultery, AB was not in the same location as the men in question or was pregnant/immediately post birth/miscarriage. So whilst it can't be shown she never committed adultery, it can be shown that the case as presented was far from watertight.

And re Richard III - Josephine Tey makes some persuasive psychological arguments which are espoused above and I love them too. But her book is, what, 50 years old now?

However, again via Alison Weir... my understanding is that the bones found in the White Tower were (a) found with fragments of clothing that indicated royalty and (b) were of a size that indicated the boys were the right age for RIII's reign not HVII's.

Obviously this wouldn't convict RIII, or death via illness/misadventure, but would seem to indicate HVII wasn't the murderer.

As for divine right of kings - if you believe that blindly, I think you believe that the holy oil and coronation itself makes the monarch - in which case, you wouldn't fight to depose the Lancastrian king. Again, not saying that RIII was not devout etc etc - but I don't think it's an argument you can make in favour of his innocence.

or rule out death via illness/misadventure

OP, how would you feel about moving this thread to History Club?

It’ll die a death there.

"As for divine right of kings - if you believe that blindly, I think you believe that the holy oil and coronation itself makes the monarch - in which case, you wouldn't fight to depose the Lancastrian king"

Yes, but as the Lancastrians had deposed the "rightful" but unpopular king Richard II, then the Yorkists could argue that they were simply correcting a wrong, as I said earlier. And since the children of EIV had been declared illegitimate, then EIV's eldest son couldn't become "the righful king", hence all the hooha. And let's not forget the doubts about EIV's own legitimacy, hence Clarence's constant taunts and claims to be the rightful king himself. But since E had long since lanced that particular boil on his bum, that left E's next nearest kin i.e. kid brother Richard.

Then again, there is also the belief that if a king dies in battle (in this case RIII at Bosworth), then God must be on the side of the victor and his ragtag of forrin mercenaries , so that would make old weasel face HVII the rightful monarch from then on. Might is right and all that.

"were of a size that indicated the boys were the right age for RIII's reign not HVII's."

Difficult to date accurately when the period could be as short as two plus to three years, though?