Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

600 replies

LeslieKnopefan · 25/03/2018 05:19

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?

OP posts:
Camiila · 25/03/2018 10:10

Don’t take Camiila seriously! She thinks the whole population of the planet originated from the Vikings, including Africa, our mother continent. hmm

no I don't, I said that everyone on the planet has viking ancestory, not that everyone on the planet originated from the vikings.

If you genuinely don't understand the difference, I suggest you close your mouth before you embarrass yourself further, go quietly away and educate yourself and say anything until you understand something of what you are talking about.

You make yourself look terribly ignorant to be sneering at someone who has told you a completely correct piece of information, just because you don't understand the history, biology and maths behind it.

Vitalogy · 25/03/2018 10:11

unfortunately, the number of people clinging tight to their university degree content is one reason for myths to survive. I think added to that are all the people that have built their whole lives and career around certain ideas.

wildduckhunt · 25/03/2018 10:11

I don't know why history and english graduates are s resistant to the idea that they were taught wrong information

They're not though. I'm pretty sure I could find you at least 5 academics from my old department who would bite your hand off to be the first to make that idea mainstream if they had the evidence.

Camiila · 25/03/2018 10:13

They're not though. I'm pretty sure I could find you at least 5 academics from my old department who would bite your hand off to be the first to make that idea mainstream if they had the evidence.

there is absolutely no shortage of evidence...

Iwasjustabouttosaythat · 25/03/2018 10:16

Shakespeare didn’t say Richard was a hunch back. He was described as a “poisonous bunch-backed toad”. How he’s depicted in each theatre production is another matter, but what is clear from the bones is that the scoliosis resulted in a short trunk with one shoulder noticeably higher than the other. It seems his later physical descriptions are exaggerated for dramatic effect, but really not by much.

The princes in the tower are another matter. The facts are:

  1. The boys disappeared while Richard was in charge - he was their protector - and no fuss was made by him.
  1. The bones of two boys of roughly the same age were discovered hidden undet stairs at the Tower of London that were erected at the time of the princes’ disappearance.

Why would Richard keep the disappearance so quiet unless trying to draw attention away from their disappearance? And why would he do that? Because he had them murdered?

Even if you think he was somehow a really decent guy who sent them away for their own protection, where did they go? They absolutely would have come back to claim the throne. All pretenders to the throne have been investigated and no one believes for a second they were one of the princes.

The most compelling fact is the bodies. If not the princes then who were they? A pretty bloody big coincidence for two boys of the same age at the same point in history to have their bodies hidden away under the stairs like that.

The only thing that makes sense is that Richard had them killed, buried them where they wouldn’t be found for as long as possible and kept it as quiet as possible. He had motive and opportunity and his actions imply guilt.

Elendon · 25/03/2018 10:17

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

GladAllOver · 25/03/2018 10:21

When the history of this decade is written, people won't believe that a majority actually voted for Brexit. It will just sound so ridiculous.

Camiila · 25/03/2018 10:23

The most compelling fact is the bodies. If not the princes then who were they?

those bones have been dated, and don't match. There are many bodies in the tower of London, no surprise that some are going to be roughly the same chronological age. Those two bodies under the stair have been proved not to have been buried at the right time, the closest possibility was around 30 years out, I believe, but probably closer to 100

Camiila · 25/03/2018 10:26

sorry, that wasn't very clear - the bodies are 100 years out, the staircase is 30 years out

BlondeB83 · 25/03/2018 10:27

Walt Disney did not originally draw Mickey Mouse, it was Ub Iwerks. He did voice him though.

Elendon · 25/03/2018 10:29

Oh and in case anyone is wondering why Turkey would have donated such an amount from the link I gave above, there are many people in Turkey who have Irish descent. This is directly as a result of Viking trade in Irish slaves/thralls. Many of those slaves went of their own accord.

Bundlesmads · 25/03/2018 10:30

Re Marie Antoinette: I read somewhere, years ago, tha she said something along the lines of let them eat brioche. To the rest of France brioche was a fancy cake bread they couldn't afford, but to Marie, that WAS her bread. So she was sympathising in her own way. But so privileged had no conception that her tasty sweet bread was so far removed from the lives of normal people.

That isn’t correct. It was a popular ‘meme’ at the time which was used against any female royal who was perceived as over privileged and uncaring for the poor. It was recorded as being in use in such cases for at least 250 years before Marie Antoinette supposedly said it.

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 25/03/2018 10:32

You don't have to know an awful lot of history to be well aware that persecution of Jews didn't begin with Hitler.

Elendon · 25/03/2018 10:35

One last point regarding the Irish Famine. The Choctaws, native American Indians, generously donated money to the Irish.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40304645

'Sculpture marks Choctaw generosity to Irish famine victims.'

Bundlesmads · 25/03/2018 10:36

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

This isn’t true either. Although many new parts of the Roman were developed civilisations (particularly in the Eastern Empire like Greece, Syria) the Romans wouldn’t have regarded them as barbarians and in some cases were inspired by their culture. But even there Romans introduced significant cultural changes.

In the East of the Empire things were much less developed, for example no real urban culture existed nor any literary culture or codified systems of law and the technology, housing, architecture and social practices were well, well behind Rome.

Yorkshirebetty · 25/03/2018 10:37

I have been a History teacher for more than 30 years. I have never seen a textbook ever claim that anti Semitism began in Nazi Germany....

pencilhoarder · 25/03/2018 10:37

We make the history we want, don't we? As a society we bend the narrative to fit our own agendas and present what is not provable as facts. (The word fact in English is derived from the Latin verb 'facere' which means to do, also used in legal terms such as in 'after the fact' or after the deed.)

One thing's for sure, this will aways be the way. Future generations will say some very odd things about us, I've no doubt Smile

QueenOfTheAndals · 25/03/2018 10:37

Re Shakespeare and Richard III, I don't think it was a case of "Tudor propaganda" to blacken Richard's name 100 years after his death. Rather, Shakespeare used some of his histories to critique the politics of the time - Julius Caesar (ageing ruler has no definite successor) is thought by some scholars to be about who would succeed Elizabeth I to the throne. Likewise, Richard III is based more on one of the Cecils (who actually was a hunchback) than Richard himself.

And yes, Philippa Langley and some of the Internet warriors who've been dubbed "Brides of Gloucester" seem to be slightly bonkers!

DiplomaticBag · 25/03/2018 10:40

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....

Ok, let's unpick this farrago of poorly-understood elements of archeology, language history, Tudor propaganda and modern national identity.

Yes, the extent to which the Iron Age people who lived in these islands should be considered 'Celts' is now disputed. That the languages referred to as 'Celtic languages' existed is not. Old Irish, one of the Goidelic languages, was being written in Ogham inscriptions by the 3rd/4th century, and the earliest Old Irish texts date from around the 8th century. English was first introduced into an Irish-speaking (not 'Gaelic'-speaking) Ireland with the Norman invasion of the 12th century, but was only spoken in the Pale and by the time of the Tudor conquest (which, whatever the Tudors' domestic investment in their Welsh origins, viewed the Irish as politically troublesome savages, rather than 'noble Celts' read Spenser, for heaven's sake!), the Normans had become thoroughly absorbed and even the Pale was predominantly Irish speaking, a situation that remained the case until the 19thc, when English began to predominate over most of the island.

I'd be very interested to see evidence of the trend for English 'nobles' (who? when? why?) sending their offspring to learn 'proper English' in Irish households 'before they were galic [sic] speaking'? When exactly are you thinking of?

And yes, in Ireland the 'Celtic Revival'/ 'Celtic Twilight' became an important element of cultural nationalism in the late 19th c, off the back of antiquarian interest in Old and Middle Irish, and contemporary Irish-language folktales, particularly in the west of Ireland which had been less subject to colonisation -- but the highly distinct culture, liteature and language on which the movement drew for its inspiration was not invented.

TheHandmaidsTail · 25/03/2018 10:40

Shylock in Merchant of Venice is a very good indicator of the ill feeling towards the Jews centuries before.

Bundlesmads · 25/03/2018 10:40

When the history of this decade is written, people won't believe that a majority actually voted for Brexit. It will just sound so ridiculous.

Jesus, is there ANY thread people won’t try and derail with Brexit?

Bundlesmads · 25/03/2018 10:44

those bones have been dated, and don't match.

Now Camilla that is a complete flipping lie. It’s well known that the bones haven’t been tested by any modern scientific methods because the Queen won’t let them be exhumed and never will.

WellThisIsShit · 25/03/2018 10:44

One of the things I was taught in school history lessons was the foundations of critical thinking and also the basics of how to examine and critique / interpret different types of evidence.

From the myopic perspective of a teenager I thought this was really ANNOYIIIIIIING as it got in the way of the ‘proper’ history I wanted to know about, but it’s probably one of the most useful things Ive ever been taught. It certainly molded my young brain enough to take this type of positive skepticism in my stride at university level then in a professional capacity since.

Bravo lovely history teacher, you knew more than I gave you credit for as a bolshy teen!

Bundlesmads · 25/03/2018 10:45

Henry the VIII was married six times. Legally, he was only married twice.

WellThisIsShit · 25/03/2018 10:49

@Camilla can you explain the Viking thing please? Sounds interesting - how can so many people have Viking dab? They get around a lot don’t they!