General Chat

The 'old' Hollywood historical films make me laugh - since when did Robin Hood wear nice, stretchy, bright green hose? The leggings would have been woolly, itchy and covered in deer poo!

Somewhere in my schooling I got taught that Lake Victoria and Victoria Falls were in the same country. Just as well I knew different when I visited both places.

There are a lots of 'History' books but some have the facts and some are the writer's opinion of what happened.

However, the thing that gets me really annoyed is the lack of research by people on this site. You would think that genealogists rely on evidence and do their research properly, but I have seen stupid counties that do not exist -

Fifeshire, Buteshire, Angus-shire, Forfarshire, etc, etc.

Does anyone put Cornwallshire???? Kentshire???? Essexshire???? NO!!!!

Regarding the Tudors, I still remember watching it for the first time and wondering if he was meant to be playing Henry VII or Henry VIII.

I've always been really into Tudor history and I remember in my A Level year looking into how Henry VII passed lots of laws and acts to secure his power and make sure the nobles couldn't overthrow him - I think it would have been interesting for them to look at that, because Henry VII's laws meant Henry VIII had the power that he did.

But I suppose Henry VII is not "interesting" enough, only having one wife etc for the audience they are aiming it at.

As Jeanette and others have said, if they took on the entire Tudor dynasty, that would really be something.

Kate, If I remember right they were planning on doing others because the one for Henry VIII had been so successful, well...in the states anyway.

Of Course, if it wasn't for his brother dying Henry VIII would never have been king or married his first wife (not that he should have married her anyway and that was the argument he used to get out of that particular marriage)

We saw the film Sweeney Todd last week.

Fictional character supposed to be mid 1800's or earlier.

In the opening scene he is on a ship coming up the Thames and there in all it's glory is Tower Bridge which was built between 1886 and finished in 1894

Linda

The Tudors again......and Henry VIII younger sister Mary was shown as marrying the elderly King of Portugal.......not so she was married to the elderly Louis XII of France, and when he died she married Charles Brandon, Earl of Suffolk ? (unsure) who she really wanted to marry in the first place.....

I can't understand how they mixed the Kings of Portugal and France......

roflmao

I decided that if I ever saw Sweeney Todd that I'd have to set aside all I previously knew about the story as previously told as it was obviously going to be different in many places.

I suppose there's not much they can do to get rid of the bridge, but presumably they could have cgi'd it out.

Tudors again.......I had a problem with Henry VIII's sister.......he had two, the elder Margaret married James IV of Scotland......and the younger Mary married the King of France and when he died, Charles Brandon.....

It was bugging me......I knew that his younger sister was Mary, but in the series they called her Margaret......wrong......that was his older sister....

It is always good to see different points of view and history was written from very different perspectives.

1 - Is it factual?????
2 - Is it dramatical?????

BUT there is not excuse for being sloppy with the facts!!!

Forfar is in Angus, not Angus-shire!!!!!
Fife is a Kingdom, not a shire!!!! etc., etc.

Jeanette, sorry lost this thread and just seen your comment. yes I did -forget the biscuits!!

Ann
Glos

Still smiling, Historical inaccuaracies agravate the hell out of me, I shout at the telly frequently, guess where I work???
Yes I'm a library assistant, is it an occupational habit or does our personality lead us into our job? lol

Please can I add, Maid Marion with LOADS of lipgloss and slap on in the recent Robin hood series. In one scene she was in the shadows, but you could still see her lipgloss glowing in the candle light. Hmm?

I'm afraid I looked forward to the Tudors and felt mightily disappointed. I wanted to know about Henry VII. I managed to get over that after a couple of seconds until I spotted Henry himself. Now everyone in the land knows three things about good king Hal:

1) He was tall
2) He was ginger
3) He had six wives

So why did they dismiss the first two facts? The big burly bloke who played Buckingham (I think thats who he was) would have suited the part far better than a petite blond.
I stuck with it for all of 20 minutes. (Even if the short blond was fairly phwoorrrr)

oh thank goodness!

i think it should be put in the job description Helen.

i have to say i stuck with the tudors the whole way through ( mainly because of JRM!) but i moaned my way through it and in the end my boyfriend refused to watch it with me saying "if it's that bad turn it off!" totally agree to american for me.

Got to say (I know I'm being really pedantic now) the other thing about the Tudors that got me was the costumes - they didn't look very Tudor to me, considering how many portraits there are still around from Tudor times.

It seemed more like the costume designers had gone for almost a mediaeval look, rather than a Tudor one. I think Anne Boleyn had a sleeveless dress on at one point - this was a time when Jane Seymour made her lady in waiting stop wearing the "French hood" headdress (the ones that look a bit like a baseball cap perched on the back of the head with cloth over it) because it revealed too much hair! (Jane Seymour apparently favoured the English hood, which is a sort of four-sided thing that frames the face.)

One of the problems with portraits is that the subjects tended to wear their "Sunday Best" finery. Every day closed were much more mundane and drab, even for those with money.

It must be quite hard for costume designers to strike a balance.