Bonfire Night

It's been a long while since I've done a history post. I think I'd forgotten that I used to do them. Also I've probably been distracted by TV.


Anyway today in the UK it is Bonfire Night, also known as Fireworks Night or Guy Fawkes Night.

Remember, remember the fifth of November

Gunpowder, treason and plot

Theoretically we are celebrating the 409th anniversary of King and Parliament not being blown up. Though most people are probably just enjoying watching fireworks and attending bonfires, which for the sake of convenience tend to happen more on Friday and Saturday nights.

I see no reason why gunpowder treason

should ever be forgot

The image of Guy Fawkes has come to mean different things over time. Especially recently with Alan Moore's V for Vendetta graphic novel, the film version in 2005 and the use of the V mask from the graphic novel/film by various groups, including the Occupy movement. These are all things that make their own very reasonable point. The original Guy Fawkes wasn't motivated by citizens' rights or ending corporate greed. For him it was all about religion.

James I/VI

The Gunpowder Plot took place at the start of one of my favourite periods of British history, the reign of the Stuarts. James VI of Scotland came to the throne of England as James I in 1603. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots, was cousin to Queen Elizabeth I -who had had her executed, but possibly didn't really mean to. This was the first time England had had a King since young Edward VI, and the first time there had been an adult King with a family since Henry VIII (he of the many wives).

In 1603 England was a Protestant country and Catholics were persecuted. They had to pay recusancy fines for not attending Protestant Church services. Many rich Catholic families would attend Mass in secret, performed by travelling priests and Jesuits who would be tortured and executed if discovered. Many stately homes from the period have priestholes, hidden rooms and spaces where the Jesuits could hide if the house was raided. The general attitude towards Catholics in England and the 17th Century can be compared to the fear and paranoia of the 'reds under the bed' attitude in 20th Century America.

When James I came to the throne English Catholics had reasons to be hopeful, his mother had been Catholic, though she'd barely featured in his life due to her extended imprisonment and eventual execution. His wife, Anne of Denmark, was also a Catholic. Before becoming king Jame hads made promises of leniency and religious freedom to Catholics who came to see him. At first various measures were relaxed and recusancy fines were dropped. This led to Protestants at Court, especially the more Puritanical ones, protesting and pressuring James to reverse his lenient measures. One of the stronger anti-Catholic voices was that of Robert Cecil, who had been prominent under Elizabeth and was one of James I's chief advisers(check). The Catholics of England felt they had been betrayed, especially when James denied ever making any promises, brought back recusancy fines with arrears and ordered all priests out of the country. This new dynasty would be no more friendly to them than (most) of the Tudors had been.

The Plot
The chief arhcitect of the plot was Robert Catesby, who seemed to be a charismatic and convincing guy. He and 5 friends initially discussed blowing up the House of Lords during the OPening of Parliamen(check) thus removing King and Parliament altogether and creating a power vacuum. The plan was to take James' eldest daughter, Princess Elizabeth, and install her as a Queen who would bring England back into the Church. They seemed to think they would meet with a swell of support from all English Catholics, who would ride forth to crown their new Queen.

In fact Catesby and co were radical hot-heads and didn't even have the general support of their oppressed community. Most Catholics were willing to keep quiet and hope King James would return to leniency. The Plot also was not sanctioned by the Pope, the Church, or even the Jesuits who were protected and hidden by the plotters and their families. Even Catesby saw the Plot as a last resort and the plotters tried to find other means, including going to Catholic Spain to see if there would be help from overseas. As it was Spain made a peace treaty with England that made no mention of the treatment of English Catholics. What the plotters did get from Spain was a gunpowder expert called Guido Fawkes.

Everyone had that kind of beard then

The Man
Guy Fawkes had left England to fight alongside the Spanish, which was why he often went by 'Guido' (the Spanish version of Guy). He and the other plotters gradually filled a basement underneath the House of Lords with 36 barrels of gunpowder, this included replacing barrels that had spoiled and of course always being very careful they were not discovered and their powder did not ignite prematurely* [*Diana Wynne Jones Witch Week]. At the start of November, assuming the authorities had no idea of their plan, the rest of the plotters left London, leaving Guido to watch the basement and start the explosion. Guido was probably chosen for this as his career fighting in Europe meant he had experience with Gunpowder.

As it was the authorities had known for days that something was coming. The Parliament buildings were searched and Guido was found, initially claiming to be a servant called John Johnson. He was arrested and interrogated. Torture could be used by permission of the King, who unsurprisingly granted it. Guido was tortured for days, revealing the Plot, but only naming names after being told his fellow conspirators had been arrested. His final signature is barely legible and a sign of his suffering. Fawkes was eventually hung, drawn and quartered along with 3 of his fellows.

It All Went Wrong
The main reason the Plot was discovered was because of the Monteagle letter. Over time the Plotters grew from a handful to a group of 13. One of the plotters sent a letter to his brother-in-law Lord Monteagle advising him not to go to Parliament. The letter was received on 26 October 1605  and spoke of "a terrible blow". Instead of burning the letter, as it advised, Monteagle took it to Robert Cecil. There are claims that Cecil had known about the Plot for along time, and allowed it to run its course in order to further implicate and demonise not just the Plotters themselves, but Catholics in general. I don't believe Cecil instigated the Plot, or knew about it at its early stages, but he did wait until the rewards of discovery were maximised, and waiting almost a week after getting the letter before telling the King.

News of the arrest of "John Johnson" spread fast and the Plotters fled into the West Midlands.Back then there was no major city in the region, Birmingham (which now dominates the area) was a small town among other towns of similar size. Revelations from London meant a lot of the hidden priests went out to check on colleagues and were caught. The remaining Plotters raided Warwick Castle for supplies, but received little help or sympathy from the family and fellows, who were terrified of being branded traitors too. The fled to home of one Plotter and spread some of their damp gunpowder in front of the fire to dry - this is why these guys needed a powder expert. A spark set it off and  badly burned three of them. Eventualy the Sheriff of Worcester arrived, besieged the house and the last Plotters were killed or arrested.

The outcome of the Plot was that life got even harder for English Catholics, with strict limitations enshrined in law, some of which were not repealed for centuries. Jesuits and priests were blamed and hunted more ruthlessley, even though none had known of or condoned the actions of the Plotters. Parliament felt a wave of goodwill towards the King, and Cecil leveraged this to get a lot of money off them. Foreign, Catholic powers were assured that England bore them no ill will, and they all denounced the Plotters.

Aftermath
When Parliament finally met (in January 1606) they declared that 5th November should be an annual commemoration of the near miss. The act remained in force until 1859, and even today we still celebrate it. Bonfires, fireworks and burning effigies of Guy Fawkes were soon part of the festivities. There's a tradition of kids making effigies using any old clothes and and paper, then selling them in the street with the cry of 'penny for the Guy'. I've never seen that happen, but when I was a kid it was the kind of thing adults talked about from when they were kids. Guy came to mean a man in scruffy clothes, and then any male.

Bonfire Night is one of the main UK holidays that remains largely unchanged in how it's celebrated, though nowadays the anti-Catholic sentiment and effigy-burning have been removed. Most other traditional holidays (Christmas, Easter, etc.) have had their traditional festivities altered over time. The Victorians often pulled stuff like this, Queen Victoria being responsible for importing and promoting the traditional German-style Christmas celebration. It's mostly about people enjoying fireworks, bonfires and toffee apples nowadays, and November is a good time to have them because it's dark by 5pm.

Happy Bonfire Night!

If you're interested and want more there's Gunpowder Plot Society, their website has a lot of info.

Thoughts from an Exhibition

Today I went to a local exhibition of art from the Government Art Collection and attended a talk about the exhibition given by one of the Government curators.
I'm not particularly an art fan and don't consider myself knowledgeable about art (except for some Ancient Greek stuff). However one of the nice things about art is that you can go and look at it and see what takes your fancy without having background knowledge. I do like to learn things and the talk was certainly good for that.

The exhibition was divided into 5 parts, all displaying a variety of different pieces. Mostly paintings, but also photography, sculpture and video, spanning about 5 centuries. This is the first time pieces from the Collection have been brought together like this as the art is used for display in Government buildings and Embassies.

I've put images and my thoughts under the cut.

Recent Reading - and a bit of myth

The Assassin's Curse 

Cassandra Rose Clarke

 The Assassin's Curse in the first batch of books published by YA imprint Strange Chemistry, which is part of the Angry Robot imprint. Told in first person POV (as seems traditional in YA) it's about Ananna, daughter of a pirate captain, who escapes an arranged marriage and is chased by assassins for it. Due to a magical accident she ends up bound to an assassin, who must protect her from harm. They reluctantly travel together to find a way to break the curse.
The fantasy world is well drawn and not overly explained. Ananna is a great heroine, confident, brave, quick-witted and rather stubborn, she was born and raised in a world of thieves but has her own ideas of right and wrong. Seeing the world through her viewpoint means it's easy to be on her side, but it is also clear that her actions are foolish at times. The assassin is also a good character, proud, deadly and impatient he also has vulnerabilities, though these remain mostly mysterious. The interactions between the pair are beautifully done. The various characters they meet felt genuine and the situation is complex enough to absorb attention.
The story was a good one, the pace was brisk and events unfolded smoothly. I wanted to see more of the world and learn more about the characters and their adventures. My only complaint is that it ended too soon; in fact it's clear that the story has been cut in two. Weighing in at under 300 pages The Assassin's Curse is a shortish book, although that's not usual for YA. What confused me a bit is that the blurb on the back is clearly a description of the entire story, not just the half I have access to. At least one of the incidents mentioned on the back cover doesn't take place in this book, which is unusual I think. I read quickly but as I got closer to the end I realised that what approached wasn't an actual ending, just a pause in the story. I will definitely buy the next book, but just after I finished reading this one I felt as though I'd been promised more story than I actually got.

The Assassin's Curse is one of the books I bought at FantasyCon, in fact I bought it directly from the publisher, who was working the stall at the time. I only bought 5 books at FantasyCon, the other 15 or so me and my husband bought back from Brighton were all free, which is a sign of a good convention. This is how we discovered that our suitcase is not built to transport nearly 20 books, and how one of its wheels ended up disappearing somewhere on the hill between the seafront and Brighton train station.

The Song of Achilles

Madeline Miller

I don't tend to read books that have won mainstream prizes, often because there's not enough fantasy in them. However my husband bought this book for me because I love Ancient Greek mythology and it turns out this was an excellent choice on his part and contained more fantasy than I expected. It was an excellent and emotionally powerful read.
The novel is a retelling of the story of Greek hero Achilles, told from the point of view of Achilles' companion and lover Patroclus. According to legend Achilles was the son of human king Peleus and the sea goddess Thetis -whose son was destined to be greater than his father. This prophecy was the reason the Olympian gods (already plagued by inter-generational strife) married Thetis off to a mortal. In the book Achilles is destined to become the Best of Greeks and he will prove himself at Troy, the war that unites the squabbling Greek city-states. However the battlefields of Troy are also destined to be the site of his' demise. All the supernatural aspects of the story are kept (no wonder I liked it) with Thetis being a terrifying and unworldly presence in the book. Here we see powerful, alien, manipulative gods, not the melodramatic -if fun- squabbling family the Olympian gods are often shown as (and in fact were sometimes portrayed as such by the Ancient Greeks themselves).



The next bit of the review actually gets a bit long, since it's so tied up with a subject I love.

Behind the scenes at the musuem

Last week I was off work and had several very enjoyable days doing things and being social.

On Friday I joined some of my fellow volunteers on a behind the scenes tour of the new gallery at Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery. As the gallery isn't due to open until October there was still much work going on, and the artefacts had not yet been put in position.
The gallery is a long space that tracks the history of Bimingham, the 2nd largest city in the UK and one which is not generally considered to have that much history (for a British city, anyway). I volunteer at a Medieval site, so I know this assumption is incorrect and hopefully this interesting new gallery will show that to people.

One of the most impressive things we saw was a beautifully detailed model of Medieval Birmingham. It was a wonder to behold, and should impress those who like model making. Even those who aren't interested in history will be drawn in by the detail. It wasn't fully functioning when I saw it, it'll be partly interactive and have sound.

The rest of the gallery looked impressive with plenty of interactive things that children and adults can try and at least one other impressive (but very different) model. The gallery proceeds chronologically, with themes running through each time period.

It should be a great addition to the museum and to general understanding of Birmingham history.

Recent Reading

The Secret Diary of Miss Anne Lister 
ed. Helena Whitbread

Anne Lister is a fascinating figure. Born in 1791 she was a single woman who inherited a house & modest estate near Halifax in Yorkshire. She kept a detailed journal for most of her life, recording her thoughts, feelings and all that happened in both her public and private life. Anne's diary is intriguing because large sections were written in a secret code that she referred to as 'crypt hand' and for a long time the contents of these passages were kept secret. These sections contained details of Anne's various relationships with other women. Her diaries were not only an account of life in the Regency period, but gave details of a rarely glimpsed world of lesbianism.

This book collects Anne's diaries from 1816 to 1824. During this time she lived at Shibden Hall with her unmarried aunt and uncle. Anne had a few lovers, and more infatuations, during this period. The main one was a woman who had married an older man for the security he provided, but still kept up a relationship with Anne and promised that they would be together when her husband died. It is clear that this arrangement caused Anne a lot of insecurity and unhappiness.
Anne was an independent sort of woman, in a time when such independence was unusual for women. She had clearly decided that she would never marry or be involved with men, but she did long for a partner and companion to share her life with. She was a woman who valued education and as well as learning languages and attending lectures she was an avid reader.
At times I found it hard to identify with Anne, a woman who held such different values and lived such a different life to my own.  However there were times when her feelings are expressed so strongly it is difficult not to empathise with her. The passage that struck me most was where she described how writing her journal and reading books relieves her worries.

    "O books! books! I owe you much. Ye are my spirit's oil without which, its own friction against itself would wear it out."
This is a sentiment I can very much agree with, even if I wouldn't put it that way.

I can very much understand the value of these diaries to Regency history, women's history and lesbian history. I have no particular interest in Regency England and know only bits and pieces about the period, but that didn't cause me much of a problem as this is someone writing about their life rather than their times, and the explanatory notes provided by the editor are helpful without being intrusive.




666 Charing Cross Road - Paul Magrs

Being a fan of the Brenda & Effie series I was interested to see what Paul Magrs newest book would be like. It's not a part of that series, but sounded like it covered similar themes.
The strength of the story is in the characters. They're mostly ordinary (or seemingly ordinary) people with mundane concerns who encounter the occult and must deal with it as best they can. Shelley and Jack are regular New Yorkers who get dragged into demonic business by their boyfriends. Liza appears to be an eccentric old bibliophile, but she knows more about spooky stuff than she lets one, not that this stops her from making some pretty catastrophic mistakes. Even the antagonist Daniel can be understood to an extent, thought he's not particularly likeable even before he gets possessed.
The writing style felt very similar to the later Brenda and Effie books. It's an informal style that has a lot of the characters thoughts and preoccupations laid out on the page. It means that you always know what emotional state the viewpoint character is in and feel close to them quite quickly, even if you don't agree with them. Some of the writing feels like it's telling rather than showing (which is generally a cardinal sin for a writer) but the way the points of view are done means that though you are being told one thing, you are also being shown something else.
666 Charing Cross Road is definitely more of a horror story than the Whitby-based books. The plot features a single major threat and plays out across a few months, with the character's lives being increasingly taken over (and lost) to the danger. In this way it felt more like a film than the more playful, complex Brenda and Effie series, which at times has the feel of an sketch show.
I enjoyed 666 Charing Cross Road and I'm keen to read more about these characters if further titles come out, though at the moment I still prefer Brenda and Effie.

Why I Love Stuart History

One of the most famous -or infamous- English royal dynasties is the Tudors. They are certainly the only one to have their own sexy TV show made in the US.
The Tudors have some great characters. Henry VIII with his enjoyment of weddings and executions. Bloody Mary I, who has her very own cocktail. Feisty Elizabeth I who love her country more than any man!
There was also a financially responsible guy and some kids as well.


Now this is all well and good, but what I like is the family came after that.
The Stuart monarchs are an interesting lot who ruled over a fascinating period of British history.
In just four generations the monarch went from the most powerful person in the country to being a figure whose religion and choice of spouse had to conform with the constitutional will of the nation, with Civil War, execution, abolition and revolution along the way.

Things started well enough for James I (VI of Scotland) who was the first adult King of England since Henry VIII. James' father was blown up when he was just a child and his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, was imprisoned and then executed by her cousin Elizabeth I. Given this background it's unsurprising that he was paranoid, and the 1605 Gunpowder Plot couldn't have helped.
Other than being the monarch who instituted Bonfire Night (giving generations of Britons a reason to set off fireworks in November), James is probably most famous for commissioning the King James Bible. James greatly  feared witchcraft and Macbeth -with it's scary witches and general Scottishness- was written to please him.
James was probably homosexual, and certainly enjoyed the close company of handsome men. Perhaps his most infamous 'favourite' was George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham was widely hated for rapidly becoming one of the most powerful men in the country, and for generally proving awful at any job he was given.

Charles I is best known for upsetting Parliament and being so principled and unbending that the country was ripped apart by Civil War, which ended with his execution. Unlike previous internal wars this was not a battle between competing factions over who should be king, but a conflict between the King and his subjects. At the outset no one had any intention of executing the King or abolishing the monarchy, but things just got crazy. Charles wouldn't give up on his beliefs, and his opponents realised that Charles Stuart would not surrender his power.
Charles married Catholic princess Henrietta Maria of France. The marriage was initially neglectful, but the couple bonded and eventually fell in love after Charles' friend Buckingham was assassinated by a disgruntled naval officer (he had it coming). During the Civil War Henrietta Maria first went to Europe to beg for aid, then returned to the dangers of war torn England and despite being heavily pregnant travelled around the country with Royalist forces.


After Charles I's execution no one really knew what to do next, no one had planned for that outcome. There followed years of uncertainty and governmental change, which many people unsurprisingly took as a sign of the end times. Religious and political radicalism ran rife. Parliamentarian general Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector -he refused the title of King, even though that would have provided ongoing stability to his regime. Instead Cromwell tried to find a new way to govern the country, however he received much opposition and eventually ended up dissolving Parliaments and throwing opponents in prison -exactly the sort of thing that had made everyone so mad at Charles I. Cromwell held things together, mostly by resorting to military dictatorship whenever his latest idea for governing the country failed. On his death his son Richard inherited the title of Lord Protector, but didn't have his father's support and the government fall into chaos again.

Charles II was invited to reclaim his father's throne in the Restoration. Charles had fought a second Civil War to get the throne back after his father's execution, but had only been crowned in Scotland and had been beaten back into exile (with a brief stopover in an oak tree on the way).
Charles II is known as the Merry Monarch, and considering the number of mistresses and illegitimate children he had it's fair to say that he was no stranger to pleasure. He was also surprisingly loyal to his long-suffering wife Catherine of Braganza, refusing to divorce her even though she never had children.
Charles became popular when he stayed in London during the Great Plague and then helped firefighting efforts during the Great Fire of London. Unlike his father and brother Charles was good at getting on with people and though he faced various problems and plots he is mostly remembered as a charming, roguish figure.

James II came to the throne after the death of his brother Charles. As an open Catholic and a believer in absolute monarchy it was clear he wasn't going to get on well with a largely Protestant country that was still scarred from what happened last time a king got too big for his boots.
If a Catholic King was a worry then a Catholic succession was a nightmare. When the Queen gave birth to a son rumours were rife that the child wasn't truly the heir. One of the odder conspiracy theories states that a baby was smuggled into the birthing chamber in a warming pan.
Leading Protestants invited James' son-in-law, William of Orange, to invade -the country having learned the benefit of forward planning since the last time they needed a change of ruler. After a 4 year reign James II fled and despite some serious attempts to regain his throne he died exiled in France.
James II is pictured fleeing the country with the Royal Seals (not salt and pepper shakers). He threw them in the Thames as he fled and Parliament conveniently decided that this was tantamount to abdication.

Willam III (II of Orange) and Mary II were cousins and spouses (that's just how it goes in royal circles). After kicking out his father-in-law with his Dutch army William -who was third in line to the throne after his wife and sister-in-law- became King on equal terms with his wife Mary, they were the only co-monarchs in English history.
William and Mary were the first constitutional monarchs, ruling by the will of the nation. Many of the rules of British monarchy (especially those involving Catholics in succession) were laid down in law for their reign. William had to defend his reign from the Jacobites, who felt that the succession rightly lay with James II and his son. Mary gave William a lot of her authority, although she did rule well when he was away on military campaigns
Interestingly the History Mug has William and Mary separate, something which rarely happens in Monarch lists - though that might be because the handle got in the way. I have no idea why William is pictured upside down with rodents by his head, I'd be fascinated to know what that's about.

Anne finally became Queen when her brother-in-law/cousin William died. She had refused to speak to her sister Mary for years, resenting the fact that Mary had allowed William to leapfrog her place in the succession. Anne was the first monarch of Great Britain after the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were united.
Anne had many pregnancies and many miscarriages, her eldest child only lived to eleven. Succession caused Anne political as well as personal difficulties. Jacobite Tories wanted Anne to name her half brother James as heir, whereas the Whigs wanted her to pass the throne to her Protestant second cousin from Hanover. This was a period when the two party Parliamentary system first became entrenched in British politics.




Like the Tudors the Stuart's Royal dynasty ended with a childless Queen. The Hanoverians -known as the Georgians- came to the throne, although the exiled Jacobite Stuart line continued to cause them problems.

Why I Love Greek Mythology

When I was 6 (maybe 7) I was told the story of Hades and Persephone by a supply teacher at school. I remembered the story, though I'm sure the pronounciation of Persephone (per-sef-oh-nee) escaped me at the time.
It was like a fairy tale, but it explained something and the ending wasn't simply happy, there was compromise.

It later occurred to me that despite their popularity in children's literature Greek Mythology (like most other mythologies) is not especially child friendly. However, possibly because they were viewed as scholarly and academic, Classical myths managed to escape the bowdlerisation that fairy tales underwent. So when they're presented to children they are simply toned down not reworked.
Telling these same recognisable tales is quite a trick for a set of myths that involves kidnaps, killings, weird sexual/reproductive stuff and so, so many extramarital affairs.

I remember having a Usborne book of the Ancient World (I still have it and read it fondly while doing my Ancient History degree) and going back to the page about the Greek pantheon. There was just something fascinating about these figures that represented things, but were also very definite characters.

The interest grew, I read tonnes of Greek mythology books. As I got older the details got more graphic.
Aphrodite wasn't born from a Titan's blood falling into the sea, she appeared when a Titan's castrated genitals were thrown into the sea.

As a kid you accept that the Minotaur was the product of a woman and a bull. As a teenager you realise that's impossible, however you are intrigued to hear that Daedalus (Icarus' dad, who created both the wings and the labyrinth) actually fashioned a 'device' so that Queen Pasiphae (Pass-ih-fie-ee) could slake her unnatural lust for a bull,* whilst wearing some kind of cow disguise.
Now there's a mental image for you.

One of the great thing about Greek myths is that they are interesting stories, with interesting characters. Over 2000 years later there are still themes, emotions and motivations we can understand today. This is probably why the stories get retold and redone so many times, and in so many ways. I'll be the first to admit that I can get a bit pedantic about this particular subject (I usually try to do it for comic effect). But in all honesty Greek myths have been reshaped so many times, in so many ways -and that's just during the BC period- that they are actually fairly malleable, whilst still being a very recognisable set of tales.

At Eastercon Gideon Nisbet (lecturer in Classics) gave a talk and made the point that Classical themes tie very well with SF. He even drew a comparison between Classical Mythology and the comic book universes of DC and Marvel. There's a big cast of characters with a variety of back stories.
This struck a chord with me as I love Greek myth and my husband loves Marvel comics -and we've had discussions over which is more complicated. I maintain that without time travel, alternate/parallel universes, clones, and aliens Greek myth can't be as complicated. Though as I've said above mythology doesn't have canon and there's no editorial hand guiding, but equally there's no change in editor/writer to try and unmake previous tales.

Edited to add:
The text of Gideon's BSFA lecture is now available online for any that are interested.


* She did get hit by Eros' love arrow, I can't remember why just now.

2 Edwards and a Henry (and a mysterious big cat)

Further English monarchs.

Pictures from my history mug, info mostly from David Starkey's book Crown and Country, although I've read other things as well.

Henry III
He became king at 9 years old, but ruled until he was 56, which is probably why he isn't drawn as a child. He was dominated by more forceful men throughout his reign. He let his in-laws and half-siblings run riot and the barons disliked him almost as much as they had his father (King John, the much hated king who signed the Magna Carta).

Of course the real question is, why does he have a leopard? Maybe it's a cheetah? Maybe it's a lynx? It's certainly not a house cat. Why is it there? Starkey doesn't mention it, but there must be a reason! Does anyone know?



Edward I
Known as the Hammer of the Scots (pictured without hammer, or Scots), Edward was a strong king who made himself incredibly popular with his people. He established regular parliaments as a good way of raising taxes for his various wars. These wars involved removing the Welsh princes, fighting the French, and taking the Stone of Scone from the Scots. He was pretty obsessed with conquering Scotland, hence the nickname. He didn't subdue the northern nation, but he did cause them a lot of grief.


Edward II 
Edward lavished money and attention on his special favourites, who became figures of hate among the barons. Like his father Edward II tried to invade Scotland, but failed miserably. His wife Queen Isabella -fed up with marital neglect- eventually joined with her lover to seize the crown for her eldest son. Edward II was the first king to be deposed, after which he was locked away and quietly murdered. Poor guy.




Previous Monarch Posts:
Early Normans
Anarchy and early Plantagenets

Anarchy and early Plantagenets

Returning to David Starkey's book Crown and Country and my history mug.
The first post on this topic can be found here.

Henry I's son was drowned in the sinking of the White Ship (not to be confused with the magical Arthurian Green Ship, which probably didn't exist) leaving the succession unclear. This is never a good thing.

A dysfunctional family

Stephen
The events of King Stephen's rule are dramatised in Pillars of the Earth, which I suspect may not be 100% historically accurate.
Stephen succeeded his uncle and spent most of his reign fighting his cousin Empress Matilda, who said she was her father's true heir. This civil war was known as the Anarchy, and England was split with different regions recognising different rulers. Matilda was almost crowned after a victory, which led to Stephen being held captive. However she upset the people of London by suggesting they should pay taxes and the like, so she had to go.* Stephen kept England but had to accept Matilda's son Henry as his heir.
The mug makes it look like they didn't get on.

Henry II
As his mother wished Henry inherited England from Stephen. He also inherited various parts of France from both of his parents, so once he'd expanded his territories he was an incredibly powerful ruler. His main flaw (besides having a truly terrible relationship with his sons) was angry rages. Courtiers knew not to pay any attention to him during these episodes when he was liable to say almost anything - well they normally didn't pay any attention. It seems that 'turbulent priest' business was simply an unfortunate oversight.
I don't know why he's vaulting a table on the mug, leapfrog was not mentioned by Starkey.
As Kate Beaton shows Thomas Becket and Henry II were actually great mates before the archbishopric came between them. So sad.
She's also drawn this excellent Plantagenet Family Portrait.


Richard I
Richard and two of his brothers -egged on by their mother- fought against their father. Henry II tried to split the empire between his 4 sons, which just led them to fight amongst themselves. Two died, leaving Richard as King. Richard spent about six months in England and the rest of his reign crusading, fighting over his other territories in France, and being held hostage. He is fondly remembered, probably because everyone hated his brother so much.

John
Historians say John was good at record keeping, which is nice for them but isn't necessarily a good quality in a king. In fact John appears to have been weak, paranoid, and widely disliked, especially among his barons. After the Robin Hood stuff he's most famous for signing the Magna Carta -on the mug he's looking at it in dismay. It's an important historical document that was signed by a ruler who didn't have the political capital to do otherwise.
I have seen his final resting place several times as he's buried in my hometown.



* Matilda was never actually crowned Queen but she was preparing for her coronation before she made herself truly unpopular by suggesting a tax hike. She was in charge for a few months (and technically ruled parts of the country for years), far longer than Lady Jane Grey, making her effectively the first female ruler of England. So how come she isn't on the mug (or most king lists), when Jane is? Possibly it's because she had her opponent locked in a castle, that's considered cheating.

Return of the History Mug - Early Normans

I'm reading David Starkey's Crown and Country. A history of England told through the monarchy.

So far I've read from the departure of the Romans through the Anglo-Saxon period, the Vikings and the Norman Conquest to Henry II.
Thomas Becket's just been made Archbishop of Canterbury and I have a bad feeling about it. Funnily enough, so did he.

I don't know much about the Anglo-Saxon period, most king lists start at 1066 so it tends to get overlooked. Turns out it involved a lot of people called Æthel-something, ruling mostly by consent of the people. The Staffordshire Hoard was mentioned as one of the most important finds in the last 50 years. I didn't see the Hoard when it was first in my local museum, mostly due to the massive queue. It was nice to see that so many people were interested in it though.


Earlier (20th November 2010) I mentioned my History Mug, which has pictures of the Kings and Queens of England since 1066. The pictures generally show something about each monarch, but sometimes I'd like more info. It occurred to me today that this book could give me some answers.

Early Norman Kings

William the Conqueror was known as William the Bastard. Partly because his parents never married each other and partly because he trashed the north of England sowing death and destruction as he went.

William II is shown being shot through the lung while hunting in the New Forest. His companions ran off, so a peasant had to clear his body away. The exact circumstances aren't known, but his brother Henry rushed off and became king ever so quickly.

Henry I made himself a popular king, rather than just being some French bloke who ruled the country. He linked himself with earlier kings, like Edward the Confessor, and set up an effective administration, including many Anglo-Saxon traditions. As King of England he took Normandy from yet another older brother and rebalanced his father's previous conquest. The book probably indicates his reputation as an intelligent, scholarly king.

Beaton-tastic

I'm going to talk about the work of 2 women. They share a surname but as far as I know they aren't related -though it might be cool if they were (actually it'd be cooler if they teamed up somehow, relatives or not).


Kate Beaton
Kate Beaton is Canadian web-comic-maker (web-comicer? web-comictress? web-comictrix?) who is interested in history, just about ALL history. This in itself is impressive. The fact that she turns history, personal experience, pop-culture musings, nostalgia and vintage book covers into hilarious web comics is pretty bloody amazing. Thanks to Kate Beaton's line drawings I have giggled, laughed aloud, smiled and also learned some stuff.

Her website is called Hark! A Vagrant
She also has a blog at Livejournal
Some of my favourite comics:
Herodotus the Father of Lies - because let's face it writing about flying snakes, griffins and how to steal gold from giant ants is fun, but not historical.*
Sexy Tudors - because (if you believe television) history was very glamorous and sexy, and not at all full of dirt and disease. *nods*
Mystery Solving Teens - why did everyone believe those strange, hippy-van-driving kids over local adults?


Clare Beaton

Elusive Moose published by Barefoot Books

Clare Beaton is a British artist and illustrator who works mostly with felt. Her work is AMAZING! She has done a variety of things but I'm most fam,iliar with her work for Barefoot Books. These are very simple picture books that teach children about different animals and environments, but the pictures are so delightful and well done I find myself sitting and studying them.

The first Clare Beaton book I read was Elusive Moose. The eponymous moose wasn't blue, but the pictures and artwork were fantastic.
Further titles include Hidden Hippo, Secret Seahorse, Who are you, Baby Kangaroo? and One Moose and Twenty Mice. The latter book title includes two of my favourite animals. Clare has also written some informative books about working with felt, they too are for children, but it was still interesting.
Her website is simple, but features more fascinating and colourful artwork.


* I don't recommend reading Herodotus unless you are inclined to read historical writings (if so give him a try), but if you can find a good summary online it should be amusing.

The King's Speech

I'm back. My laptop has a new power supply and I don't have to use my husband's computer anymore.


My first cinema outing of the new year was to see The King's Speech, which has won/been nominated for various awards, and which I've been looking forward to since before Christmas.

I am interested in history, this is no surprise to anyone who knows me. I've enjoyed studying all sorts of different historical periods, but by the time I was 16 I'd decided I wasn't that interested in modern history. Because modern history -as taught to me in both History and English lessons- was mostly World Wars. However over the last few years I've developed a growing interest in the bits of twentieth century history that aren't 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. In a way Downton Abbey and The King's Speech came along at just the right time for me.


The film was excellent. The look, the feel, the acting, the emotions, it all just worked.

I've always quite liked the quirkiness of Helena Bonham Carter and the characters she has played. Yet here she was returning to period-drama, which defined her early career. Instead of playing a waif or ingenue, or a quirky gothic type she played a woman who was at the very heart of the British upper-class/royal establishment. She was excellent. She really captured the polite iciness of Elizabeth towards Wallis Simpson.

Colin Firth was brilliant as well, something which came as a pleasant surprise. I tend to think of him as a romantic lead, with the exception of Shakespeare in Love, so I was interested to see what he would be like with such a strong character role. He was wonderful. Bertie (King George VI) was a challenging part and he really rose to the occasion. Going from a loving father, to a frustrated stammerer, to a formal prince and later reluctant king, Firth -well directed with a wonderful script- showed different facets of the man who never wanted to be king. The voice was obviously a major part of his performance, and Firth made those stutters and stammers feel real, as well as doing a good imitation of the posh but somehow small voice of the prince. It was interesting to see him play a character who was so lacking in charisma, but he always kept dignity in the role and never became ridiculous or bumbling.

Geoffrey Rush was excellent, but then I generally expect Geoffrey Rush to be excellent. He was excellent even in Pirates of the Caribbean 3 when he'd been given lines that didn't make any sense. So seeing him working with such a good script is a real treat.

I'd also like to take a moment to mention Timothy Spall in a supporting role playing Winston Churchill. Now Spall is an actor who has played a variety of parts, many of them comedic, some of them grotesque. However I've often felt that, though he's not a big name, he must be a good actor. Seeing him as Churchill (pre-WWII MP and newly-made Lord of the Admiralty Churchill) just felt like a good piece of the casting. In fact I'd quite like to see him play Churchill again. If any TV or film people could arrange it that'd be just lovely.


I knew various bits and pieces about the abdication, about Edward VIII's love for Wallis Simpson, about the horror the British establishment felt about the whole situation. I knew that the Queen Mother had never liked Mrs Simpson back when she was still the Duchess of York, and that when she was Queen she referred to her as "that woman". Then again apparently Wallis Simpson referred to her sister-in-law, the Queen of England, as "Cookie". Clearly these were two women who were never going to get along.
It was a constitutional crisis, the first one since the madness of George III. Personally I think the constitutional crises -historical ones at least- are interesting, which is probably why I love Stuart History so much.

I heartily recommend this film to anyone who enjoys drama and strong character-based story-telling.

Pillars of the Earth

I've been watching the television adaption of Ken Follett's brick-sized book for the last 5 weeks. I'm just over half way through and enjoying it.

Confusingly it's both obvious and unpredictable. There are various tropes, which you can see coming from a great distance, and give the show a cheesy feel among all the violence and scheming. It's obvious who's going to murder who and who's going to be a really crappy husband. It's clear which character is particularly significant, we don't need a ghostly dream prophecy to tell us, but we get one anyway.

A present from my mother-in-law

That said, the fortunes of almost all the characters, from builders and whores to Empresses and Kings, see-saw from one episode to the next. You can see why this period of history was called the Anarchy. The plot has taken various turns I didn't expect, and I'm honesty not sure what will happen to the bulk of the characters, or the cathedral.
The only reason I know part of the outcome is history. Medieval history is not my strong-area, so I consulted my History Mug.* As you can see it told me that there is no King Eustace. In fact a fist-shaking King Stephen is succeeded by a lively young Henry II, who apparently enjoys leapfrogging small tables.

I've never read the book, so I don't know how faithful the miniseries is to the source material. Though wikipedia informs me that the incest and suspected witchcraft were added in for television, because who doesn't love watching that? I have vaguely considered reading the book, but there are so many other books to read, and then they put it on TV for me anyway. A similar thing happened with Lord of the Rings.

I thought the setting seemed pretty good. Medieval England is skillfully played by rural Austria and Hungary. There's plenty of dirt and muck, which is what history was like, although certain main characters (especially women) still look a little too clean and glamorous.


* Ok, so it's actually a Kings and Queens of England since 1066 Mug, but that is not as catchy.