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?

I guess it depends on the 'fact' you're debunking. In some cases, there is simply absolutely no evidence for it, in some cases there might be an official record that disproves it, or in other cases you couldn't be totally certain but there are enough corroborating and reliable accounts to dismiss it.

With regards to nursery rhymes and folk songs, those are notoriously hard for proving or disproving origins. They tend to evolve over time and borrow from all sorts of places and have varying versions. In addition, they're also often cryptic or just a bit nonsensical and could plausibly refer to any number of things.

A song or rhyme as we know it today may draw most of its influence from a particular period or event, but still have existed earlier in a different form.

basta, I'm an academic and there are loads of us on MN, but you can also access quite a lot of primary sources online these days. It wouldn't surprise anyone (I think) to know that what you learned in a science course 20 years ago might now be considered outdated or even incorrect, but lots of people seem to think history stays still and if you learned in in 1998, it's true for all time.

This thread has been so interesting!

I know this thread has quietened down now but I also found it extremely interesting, especially the Richard III stuff. I've studied history to degree level but never covered this period. For anyone else like me who wants to know more, Future Learn offers a course on this topic. I started it a couple of weeks ago - it is free (unless you want a certificate at the end of it), covers the basics and is pretty interesting. Here's the link (sorry can't do clicks links)

www.futurelearn.com/courses/england-of-richard-third

I did that years ago but it drove me mad as the forum for it was full of people who'd never read anything beyond Penman and Gregory!

@QueenOfTheAndals I've been avoiding the forums for that very reason!

There is also the strange view in schools that English history starts in 1066, Apart of from the Vikings. The creation of England and the preconquest kings are overlooked

Brahumbug- I'm a History teacher. Part of the GCSE spec is Anglo Saxon England.

Yes, but Anglo Saxon Britain and the creation of England are very underlay ed compared to post conquest English history.

Have any of you history buffs been watching Cunk on Britain. If you haven't I highly recommend it. It's a spoof history documentary covering all these "facts" of British history that we've discussed here and it has made me howl with laughter. It also takes the piss out of history documentaries themselves.

eg "We know what happeneda t the Battle of Hastings because a quick-thinking by-stander had the presence of mind to take a tapestry"

BitOutOfPractice - I hadn't heard of Cunk on Britain, so I've just watched episode one on iPlayer. It's bloody hilarious at many points. Loved the "Middle Evil Age". I recognised some of the professional historians - no idea how they kept a straight face.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Elendon-There were stores of corn in Irish ports but it was for export. Irish beef was seen as a speciality in the UK and exported There are famine graves throughout the island. People did walk around half naked, no shoes. Many Catholics were fed if they turned religion. Queen Victoria's aid during this time was paltry.www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/queen-victoria-irish-famine

The USA magazine Irish Central as a source is unreliable and loaded with nationalist bias. It was IC who were partly responsible for the 'Irish Slaves' myth. Victoria actually donated a substantial amount of money toward famine relief. It is also a myth that people were forced to change religion in order to be fed in workhouses.

A myth I don't think has been mentioned is that Churchill wanted kill civilians with 'poison gas' (he was in fact talking about using tear gas to prevent deaths)

Thomas Edison did not invent the lightbulb. They still teach them in primary that he did though!

Camiila-The whole saga of the "celts", it is still believed, as evidenced by another current thread!They never inhabited Britain, they only ruled it, they did not displace the ancient Brits, because the ancient Brits are still here, they were not displaced by Anglo Saxons because no one was. The so called " Anglosaxons" were just a rag tag mercenary force of assorted ex auxiliaries retired from the Roman army employed by ancient British tribal leaders to support their infighting.The whole story of the nobel "Celts", as a tribe which inhabited the UK and were driven into the Western extremes was invented by the Tudors who had no substantial claim to the English throne, but came from Wales, so invented this whole story about the true inheritors of Britain having been driven into Wales, and now reemerging from Wales.Their propaganda machine was so good people still believe it today. The tribe we call "celts" only ever inhabited the Western fringe of the UK, and dominated the whole island from there, there technology, political and military structures etc were so much more advanced than hours, they set up and upheld rulers to rule the whole of Britain.So places like Ireland were English long before they were "Celtic" and in fact nobles sent their sons to Ireland to learn proper English there, before they were galic speaking! And as for were this tribe even "Celtic" - no they weren't, nobody seriously believes that these days. That was a Victorian invention, much like Scottish clan tartan....yet their are peole who's identity is so closely bound up with these old fairy stories that they can't cope with the truth.Says a lot about the stupidity and pointlessness of choosing and clinging to an "ethnic identity"

Not sure I agree with this but it is an interesting theory.
I do agree though that the whole Celt and Anglo-Saxon (replacement) thing has been exaggerated. Especially during the 18thc. 'Celt' is not an ethnic group and there isn't much evidence that the population was replaced by Anglo-Saxons. Apart from maybe in the south east/East Anglia, but even then not completely. Yes 'Scottish' tartan is a modern invention too. Bagpipes are not just from Scotland and Haggis is just a big black pudding. But good for tourism though!

I recall reading about a linguistic connection between the people of Brittany and the people of Cornwall. And also that people in Newcastle can still understand, to a limited extent, people from Norway. I can't immediately recall when the notion of nation-states or borders drawn on a map came to determine who a people were, but, despite the rhetoric of our sceptred isle, almost all the equivalent motorways/flight paths/internet connections were, for very many generations past, those by sea and river.

It's interesting to think about social history as compared to political history. All those kings and their borders and their subjects; meanwhile the seafarers were nipping across the waters in either direction to do a bit of raiding or trading, or marrying or just settling down.

There's definitely a connection - you get Tre-, Pol- and Pen- in Brittany too!

Haggis is nothing like black pudding 🤔

History is always changing as new evidence appears or modern views are applied. However there is such depth and richness in understanding what came before it matters little about the changes unless you are personally invested.

At school I did very little Scottish history beyond the clearances, focus on the wars and the Russian revolution. But I studied modern Scottish history, Celtic history, American history and Bruce and Wallace at university.

Best advice from a history lecturer,for life as well as reading history:
Question everything and if it all looks ok question it again.

Iirc the reason why Breton is so similar to Cornish and other Britonic Celtic languages is due to large amounts of emigration from Britain to Brittany when Brittany was part of the Angevin empire. Having Geordie family I'd be surprised about understanding Norwegian, though, particularly because the Angles and Vikings that invaded the northeast were primarily Danish

One history fact which definitely isn’t true is that Queen Victoria personally sent the potato blight to Ireland by launching it out of a massive catapult at Buckingham Palace and laughed while she did it.

His Uncle told him that when he was a kid and believed it for years.

*Told my DH

I love this post. First it made me read up on the French Revolution and now I'm reading the Private Lives of the Tudors.

Having Geordie family I'd be surprised about understanding Norwegian, though, particularly because the Angles and Vikings that invaded the northeast were primarily Danish

Wikipedia says - Mutual intelligibility. Generally, speakers of the three largest Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish) can read each other's languages without great difficulty. This holds especially true of Danish and Norwegian. The primary obstacles to mutual comprehension are differences in pronunciation.

Wikipedia says - Mutual intelligibility. Generally, speakers of the three largest Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish) can read each other's languages without great difficulty. This holds especially true of Danish and Norwegian. The primary obstacles to mutual comprehension are differences in pronunciation

Off topic but the Danes who invaded Sunderland would have spoken pre-medieval Danish which would be very different to nynorsk or bokmal. They would have had a good chance of understanding Icelandic though.

St George was at least half black or brown. Many people have overlooked that fact.

Black, Arab, and Indian history in Europe doesn’t start with British colonization. It started with the Silk Routes and even before - there have been Black, Arab, and Indian people in Europe and even the UK since before the Greco-Romans. Which is why white washed historical dramas are so false and why Merlin was probably partially historically accurate in including black and brown people in the show. The surname Jones comes from Yunas!

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

That's misstating things somewhat. I don't think there are any serious Tudor historians who think the allegations against her were true.