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?

Historically a retrospective look on history is via centuries or 'ages'.

So the 20th century is a period of great wealth; economic downturns, famine and poverty; technological development; contagion, and an explosion in population growth; man made global warming and wars. Conversely, it is also a period of stability and peace.

Not really any different from any other century.

That the woman who created the A-Z map of London walked round all the streets of London. She created the map using existing town planning maps. It was the creation of the street index cross-referenced against the map that was time consuming and the real innovation. She had a card index with a card for each street.

Camiila's point that 'everyone has Viking ancestry' is a bit of an unnuanced one!

This article is helpful: www.google.co.uk/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/are-you-a-viking-yes-but-so-is-everyone-else-14144

From the article: "Computer models predict that, despite geographical boundaries, every individual in the world today is descended from every successfully reproducing individual in the world just a few thousand years ago, when humanity had already reached every corner of the world. Maybe the answer to our would-be Vikings should be, “Yes, we all are Vikings… and Romans, Huns and Slavs, and we are also all Africans, Asians and Native Americans.”

In other words, if you go back through sufficient generations of your ancestors you eventually reach common ancestors shared by all humans. It doesn't mean every human is literally descended from vikings. Just that once you go back far enough, we all share the same ancestry. Somehow the detail of this has been lost in the telling since the original study which did the computer modelling.

Camiila's point that 'everyone has Viking ancestry' is a bit of an unnuanced one!

I made this particular point on a different thread, because someone had PAID a DNA company to be told that they had some Viking ancestory!

the Vikings intermarried in Europe, Asia, America and to a lesser extent in Africa. In the centuries that followed, enough Australians and south Americans have interbred with other continents to ensure that mathematically, Viking DNA has reached every population in the world.

You don't need to pay to be told you have Viking ancestory, we all do!

In other words, if you go back through sufficient generations of your ancestors you eventually reach common ancestors shared by all humans

2-3000 years, 3000 years is the very outside estimate

It doesn't mean every human is literally descended from vikings.

we will ll have a bit of Viking in the mix somewhere though.

@Camilla can you explain the Viking thing please

everybody comes from everybody.

If you are English, you only have to go back as far as Edward III to be sure that every single living person in England at that time, who has living decedents, is an ancestor of yours. Including Edward III.

If you go back 1000 years, you have the same ancestors as everyone else from your continent

If you go back 3000 years, you have the same ancestors as every person in the world.

The Vikings were travellers, they went everywhere, their DNA will be included in the DNA of every continent.

Columbus did not discover America (named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian explorer). There’s evidence of at least 2 other cultures being there before him.

He was a poor geographer, estimating the distance to the Spice Islands as half of what it was, despite reliable accounts from other explorers. He treated his slaves disgracefully. I cannot understand why he is so revered in America. I laugh at his statue in Barcelona pointing the wrong way-the irony!

Billy the Kid didn’t 21 people, one for each year of his life.

Marking my place, this is interesting. Don't have any facts to contribute though, sorry

I also think Richard was responsible for the (probable) death of the two princes.

They were under his protection and yet he didn’t respond in any way when they went missing. That’s impossible to explain away.

Plus...the bones of the two boys found are very likely to be them, imo. Denying a good Christian burial to anyone was a shameful, shameful thing and only happened when the manner of death was sinister and needed to be hidden.

Whoever these two boys were it’s unlikely they died of natural causes as there’d be no need to stick them under a staircase if they did.

So, we have two probably murdered boys who died at roughly the same time as two boys of the same age went missing from the exact same building. Their “protector”, who was the King and ultimately in charge of the building and everything that happened within it, didn’t trouble himself to launch any investigation or even enquire as to what had happened to them.

This is why RIII will always be the prime suspect.

The bones found and declared to belong to the missing princes were not definitely male. They could have been either, and the idea they belong to the missing princes was seized upon with glee. The Royal family will almost certainly not allow them to be tested again, but I am sure I read somewhere that the bones were treated with varnish to protect them, thus rendering them useless to DNA testing now.

There was a campaign to blacken Richard's name and reputation after he died, as everyone scrambled to please the new king who had a vast chip on his shoulder, because he knew his claim to the throne was weak. He was vindictive towards the remaining Plantagenet family for a very long time. His propaganda campaign worked so well, that even now, people think the Tudors are the be-all and end-all of royal dynasties.

Camiila, where’s your information about the bodies under the stairs coming from? The bodies have never been dated that accurately as far as I can tell. Thomas More said the boys were murdered by Richard and buried under the stairs too. And there were the bodies.

We won’t know for sure until Westminster Abbey lets people do some DNA/radiocarbon testing. I’m sure that will happen eventually. For now I think it’s bizarre that anyone couldn’t see this adding up to his very obvious guilt. Anyone who is pro-Richard has had all their ideas ripped apart publicly by historians and scientists. People were sometimes brutal in the past. Why is it so hard to accept he was just another jerk?

Gide Who you know or the agenda has a lot do with these things.

It depends on what you think history is. Is it what happened or is it what a historian says happened? In which case much depends on the interpretation of the historian and their perspective

You might have guessed I am pro-Richard, and I have not had my ideas ripped apart. Philiipa Langley gives me the creeps and I distance myself from her and her weird ideas. However, that being said, I have done, and continue to do, a huge amount of reading around the subject of Richard and his life. Many of the things that are considered facts were in fact based on the writings of a very few people.

Richard may well have murdered the boys. There have been 2 mock trials done on TV, one here and one in the US, and on both occasions, Richard was found not guilty of the murders. Of course, we will never know. There are various theories around and everyone is free to take their pick of them. However, Richard has suffered from bad publicity. Many other medieval kings did far worse things and are not vilified to the same degree as Richard is. You need to look at as many different historians views as you can and read the facts before making your mind up.

And as to the person who said they were reading Alison Weir, up thread. She claims to be coming at this from an unbiased place, but the more you read of her utterly tedious book, the more you realise that she is very biased against Richard and it shows in every sentence she writes.

And as for Phillipa Gregory - that woman wouldn't know research if it came up and introduced itself.

@Camiila you do seem to have a very broad historical knowledge (as well as being incredibly rude!). So I'd be interested in your credentials also. In the spirit of reciprocity I'm a BA Hons In history.

@LeslieKnopefan the 2 fingers! I have heard that too! However I always assumed it was the opposite if the peace sign.

So what if they weren’t “definitely male”?

They were definitely kids around the same age as the princes and the age of the bones indictates they were put there at the right sort of time. So, dead children who probably met a sinister end found hidden in a building that two children went missing from? A building that very few people would have had access to?

Not slam dunk, but as circumstantial evidence goes, it’s extremely compelling.

But I do agree that Richard has been demonised to a ridiculous degree.

I think every period creates its own myths. The most recent I heard was that the Ancient Egyptians were black. They weren't.

Sacha with respect that is rubbish. Many lifeboats on titanic were launched under 50% of their limits. What boats they did have were not fully utilised.

another modern one is that Mary Seacole was as important as Florence Nightingale. Again, not true, but it fits into our current ideas.

@TimeIhadaNameChange re celts, have a look at my link from the British museum upthread - it is a better explanation!

So, we have two probably murdered boys who died at roughly the same time as two boys of the same age went missing from the exact same building.

not quite

A big jumble of bones was uncovered, and two "sets" were selected to represent the missing princes.

They display congentital deformities not recorded for the missing princes, or anyone else in the royal family

They are probably female

It is very unlikely that two complete sets belonging to two children was pulled out of the jumble, it is more likely to be from an assortment of different people.

They were most likely buried in a different century to the century the princes went missing.

Never the less, they were buried as princes as a tribute to the princes.

The two skulls, both with abnormal dentition, are likely to have been related, mother and daughter, sisters, cousins, etc

Of course they MIGHT be the two princes, it isn't impossible, or the two princes might have been hidden amongst the jumble at some stage.