In exactly one month time, Jack the Ripper real time tweets will begin. On the 30th of August, next month. Join us on Twitter as we focus on the infamous Jack the Ripper events. The events which shocked the Whitechapel area for the latter half of 1888. Jack the Ripper was an infamous murderer (or murderers?) who killed at least five women between August 1888 and November 1888. The brutal murders caused by Jack the Ripper have caught the worlds attention ever since they happened. To this day, people are fascinated by the case. Why? Probably because we don't know who the ripper was. Or why he killed those women, during late 1888. But, many historians and criminologists seem to be agreed on the fact that it was a man, and that it was one killer. With the information that we currently have on the Jack the Ripper case, it is likely that we will never know who Jack the Ripper was. And why he committed those murders. There only seems one, tiny hope, of ever solving the case once and for all. The 'secret' papers in Scotland yard, which could tell us who it is. Or, at least give us more indication on who it was. The chance of knowing what is in those papers seem slim. As, Scotland Yard have alreadyrejected releasing the papers to the public. Join us for Jack the Ripper real time tweets, on the 30th of August, here @events_bl
0 Comments
Thomas Cromwell was Henry VIII's right-hand man. Chancellor. Earl. And friend to the king. That us, until he fell out of favor with the king.
Once he fell out of favor with the king, his fortune dramatically changed. For the worse. Like many who were close to Henry before him. Such as Thomas Moore and Anne Boleyn. He lost his life because king Henry VIII fell out with Cromwell. Cromwell was executed in London, on the 28th of July 1540. He was born in Putney in 1485 Thomas Cromwell may have fell from grace spectacularly, like Anne Boleyn and Thomas Moore. But, he was a shrewd and cunning operator. The political and religious ambition which governed his life, ironically was to be his downfall. Here are three facts about Thomas Cromwell. One Some historians believe that the person responsible for the downfall of Anne Bolyen and her family was, Thomas Cromwell. Most historians cannot agree about why Anne had to die and who was responsible for her death. therefore, we will probably never know if Thomas Cromwell was responsible for her death. Two Cromwell was a powerful player in the English Reformation. He was a main motivator behind the break off with Rome and the formation of the Proestant church in England. However, many believe that Cromwell was instrumental in bringing down Anne. He did have motivation to bring her down. Like Cromwell, Anne was a reformer of the Christian religion. But, they disagreed about some of the methods. Anne disagreed with Thomas Cromwell about dissolving the monasteries. This issue alone may not seem to be enough for Cromwell to bring down Anne. However, we must remember that Cromwell was power driven, and ruthless. It would have been in his interest to remove a woman he thought to be in his way. Three Ironically his downfall replicated the downfall in of Anne Boleyn many ways. He was close to the king (like Anne was). He fell out of favor with the king (like Anne did). Also, like Anne, he fell spectacularly from grace and was beheaded. In short, Cromwell was a powerful player in the Tudor court. However, his legacy in history is an infamous one. Linked to the downfall of a Tudor Queen. He is also known for his ruthless cleaning of the Catholic religion of the time. It may have took a while for things to come full circle on Cromwell. In other words, it took a while for his actions to finally catch up with him. But, catch up with him it did. An it cost him his life.
as queen
Mary Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate the throne on this day. The 24th of July, 1567. Her replacement was her one year old son, the futureJames I (IV). The future monarch James would go down in history as the king who united Scotland and England. He was the king responsible for the Union of the Crowns. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots, could have done what James have had done earlier. And united the countries. However, there were several things which stood in Mary's way. The first, her position as the Scottish queen wasn't secure. She lived most of her life in France. And had enemies in Scotland. Another reason why Mary didn't unite Scotland and England before James, was because she was politically immature and naive. The latter would prove to be Mary Queen of Scots downfall. When Mary was deposed as queen of Scotland, it would prove to be the beginning of the end for the queen. She fled toEngland, showing how naive she really was. By seeking out protection from Elizabeth I, Mary had made the most foolish mistake of her life. Given that Mary Stuart had a claim to the English throne, she made herself a target in England. By being a Catholic monarch with a claim to the English throne, it made her even more vulnerable. Mary's downfall from her abdication was a long one. She was imprisoned in England by Queen Elizabeth for almost 20 years. When Mary's downfall comes, we get another indication of how naive and foolish she actually was. Mary was involved in the Babington Plot. A plot which aimed to execute Queen Elizabeth I and restore a Catholic monarch on the throne of England (Mary).
Written and researched
by Jennifer The United Kingdom has had many long reigning monarchs. Our history is full of them. Last year, our current queen, Queen Elizabeth II became the longest serving monarch in the UK's history last year, on the 9th of September. When she overtook Queen Victoria to achieve that. In this list of the longest serving monarchs, we are going to include monarchs during the time of the union, and before the union. #10 David of Scotland II
22David II of Scotland w`as one of Scotland's medieval kings. He ruled Scotland for an impressive 41 years and 260 days.
His reign lasted from the 7th of June 1329 to the 22nd of February 1371. #9 Elizabeth I Everyone knows the story of how desperate king Henry VIII was to have a son. Ironically, his two daughters were strong than their brother. Particularly Elizabeth, who had a very long reign. Perhaps if Henry lived to see his daughter on the throne, he may not have been so desperate to have a son. Elizabeth was by far the most successful of Henry's children. She reigned 44 years and 127 days. From the 17th of November 1558 to 1603. #8 Llywelyn the Great Llywelyn was a de facto ruler of Wales. He was not a king, he was a prince. The prince ruled over Northern Wales during the Middles Ages. He is the only Welsh monarch on the list. But, he does hold an impressive stance in British history. It is not quite clear how long Llywelyn actually ruled Wales for. Some sources estimate that he reign for 44 years. Others suggest that he reigned between 44 to 46 years. #7 William I of Scotland William I of Scotland is another medieval monarch on the list. He is also known by the name of William the Lion. The lion king has the second longest reign in Scottish history. Not including the Scottish monarchs under the Act of Union. He ruled Scotland for almost 50 years. His reign lasted from the 9th of December 1165 to the 4 of December 1214. Meaning that his reign last 48 years and 360 days. #6 Edward III Edward III was king of England and Lord Protector of Ireland. He is another medieval monarch which makes the list of our longest serving monarchs. Edward's reign began in 1327, on the 25th of January. And lasted until the 20th of June, 1377. This cements the kings place in history. With a ruling of England and Ireland which lasted 50 years and 147 days. #5 Henry III Henry III was king of England and Lord Protector of Ireland between 1216 and 1272. He `became king on the 18th of October and his reign ended on the 16th of November. He is the last medieval king on the list. His leadership lasted 56 years and 29 days. #4 James I James I is the first monarch of the union to appear on the list. And he is not the last. The top four longest reigning monarchs in British history served (or are serving) under the United Kingdom. James is well known for creating the United kingdom. The first king of the United Kingdom. Mary Queen of Scots, James mother, tried to claim both the English and Scottish thrones. But. She failed. James approach was different though. There was no heir to the English throne after Elizabeth. And, as he was a relation of Elizabeth's, he became the only heir to the throne. Uniting both countries. His reign lasted a very long 57 years and 246 days. #3 George III George III is the last male monarch on our list, and therefore the longest serving male monarch of the United Kingdom. His reign was exceptionally long, almost 60 years. He ruled the kingdom for an impressive 59 years and 96 days. #2 Victoria
ell
This time last year Queen Victoria was our longest serving monarch. Today she is our second longest serving. Though, her length of reign is exceptional. Victoria reigned for 63 years and 216 days. Between the 20th of June 1837 to the 22nd of January 1901. #1 Elizabeth II Our current queen, Queen Elizabeth II, is Britain's longest serving monarch. Since the queen is still on the throne, we do not actually know how long her reign will be. If the current queen lives as long as her mother, she could reign for another 10 years. The queen doesn't look as if she is slowing down, and for her age looks in good health. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II has served for 64 years and 165 days.
Written by Jennifer
Much of what we believe about William Wallace is fiction, instead of fact. In other words, it is a myth. This is largely to do with the film Braveheart. A fiction which takes a fantasy approach towards the Scottish Wars of Independence, and William Wallace himself. The truth is, we don't actually know that much about Wallace. Especially during his younger years and before his rise to being Guardian of Scotland. #1 Myth 1 Wallace was a poor commoner In the film Braveheart, Wallace and his family are portrayed as being poor farmers. We get this indication through the clothes the Wallace family were in the film. The picture above is from the start of the film, were we are introduced to a young William Wallace. With the dirt on his face, the rags for clothes, and the mud hut for a house, we are clearly give the indication that he is a poor commoner. Historians generally think that Wallace and his family were a gentry family. The gentry were aristocracy, wealthy land owners. Therefore, it is likely that Wallace was probably what we would describe today a 'middle-class'. Perhaps upper middle-class. #2 Myth 2 Bruce betrayed Wallace In the film we see that Bruce is the one who betrays Wallace. It is not just Robert the Bruce who betrays William Wallace on the battlefield, it is his father too. Apart from this portrayal of Robert the Bruce in Braveheart, most historians agree that Bruce was accurately portrayed otherwise. Perhaps the historical accuracy of Bruce is the only historical accuracy that we get it the film. As, otherwise, it seems like a made up version of; Wallace and the Wars of Independence. The person who did betray Wallace was a man named Sir John De Menteith. A Scottish Nobel who was loyal to the English king Edward I. Many Scottish nobles were loyal to Edward at the time. Many Scottish nobles remained loyal to the English crown, and had lands there - which Braveheart sort of sows - but gets it wrong. In Braveheart, we see that the Scottish nobles are bought off with land, to crush the 'rebels'. However, in reality, those nobles already had land and were loyal to Edward. #3 Myth 3 Scotland wasn't united In Braveheart we get the story of how Scotland is one unifying force to 'defeat' the English. This simply isn't true. Scotland was divided. So much so that Scotland was in a civil war during the time. It was a civil war which was mainly motivated by a battle for the Scottish crown between Bruce and Comyn. Remarkably, Braveheart entirely ignores the reason for everything that happened during that period in history. Namely, it ignores that there was a battle for the Scottish crown. It ignores that all Scots were not united, but divided. Braveheart actually misses out a lot of very important stuff. It misses out that Edward I (Longshanks) was superior and overlord of John Balliol (King of Scots). It misses out that when Balliol abdicated the throne, that one of Balliol's relatives, John Coymn and Robert the Bruce were both trying to claim the throne. These are important points because Braveheart drives on a false narrative by missing these things. Instead of showing that Scotland was at war with itself, it shows a false narrative that England was in control of Scotland and being brutal towards it. The reality is, for most of Wallace's life, there was no English invasion. That happened in 1296, with the issue of the crown. Wallace only fought a year, between 1297 and 1298 until he went abroad to France. He came back to Scotland in 1303, and was captured and killed in 1305. None of this is shown in Braveheart. #4 Myth 4 He had a relationship with Queen Isabella Everything about Wallace and Isabella in the film is made up. Because, Isabella was a child at the time. A very young one, just a little older than a toddler. It means all of their interactions in the film didn't happen. They didn't meet. They didn't have a secret relationship. And, they didn't have a secret love child together. When we see Isabella and Wallace speak in French, their conversations would have been picked up on by those others in the tent. Because, French was widely spoken in England at the time, especially among the nobility. #5 Myth 5 Clothes In period dramas or films, getting the attire right is important. Braveheart gets it completely wrong. The clothing of the Scottish people in Braveheart are hundreds of years before their time. Which means that they must have been time-travelers. Only kidding. In Braveaheart kilts are worn in what is 13th century Scotland. In reality, kilts did not come into existence until the 17th century. Which means that kilts didn't exist until hundreds of years after Wallace lived. In fact, Scots most likely wore what those in England were wearing. Medieval tunics. Wallace probably looked more like Robin Hood, than a Jacobite.
Written By Jennifer
Any pauper who shall neglect to observe such of the regulations herein contained as are applicable to and binding on him:-
Any pauper who shall, within seven days, repeat any one or commit more than one of the offences specified in Article 34 [above];
It shall be lawful for the master of the workhouse, with or without the direction of the Board pf Guardians to punish any disorderly pauper by substituting, during a time not greater than forty-eight hours, for his or her dinner, as prescribed by the dietary, a meal consisting of eight ounces of bread, or one pound of cooked potatoes, and also by with-holding from him during the same period, all butter, cheese, tea, sugar, or broth, which such pauper would otherwise receive, at any meal during the time aforesaid. And it shall be lawful for the Board of Guardians, by a special direction, to be entered on their minutes, to order any refractory pauper to be punished by confinement in a separate room, with or without an alteration of diet, similar in kind and duration to that prescribed in Article 36 [above] for disorderly paupers; but no pauper shall be so confined for a longer period than twenty-four hours; or, if it be deemed right that such pauper should be carried before a Justice of the Peace, and if such period of twenty-four hours should be insufficient for that purpose, then for such further time as may be necessary for such purpose. It shall be lawful for the Board of Guardians, by any special or general order, to direct that a dress different from that of the other inmates shall be worn by disorderly or refractory paupers, during a period of not more than forty-eight hours, jointly with, or in lieu of the alteration of diet to which any such pauper might be subjected by the regulations herein contained; but it shall not be lawful for the Board of Guardians to cause any penal dress or distinguishing mark of disgrace to be worn by any adult pauper or class of adult paupers, unless such pauper or paupers shall be disorderly or refractory within the meaning of Article 34 or Article 35 of this order. SourceParliamentary Papers, 1842, XIX, pp.42-43. Source: http://www.victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/ruleswh.html No cited author on text. victorianweb.org This page may be used without prior permission for any scholarly or educational purpose The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 was the classic example of the fundamental Whig-Benthamite reforming legislation of the period. Preceded by the massive and well-publicized report of a Royal Commission it received general parliamentary support and passed into law with comparatively little discussion. The machinery of the new law in itself constituted a virtual administrative revolution: a central commission not under direct ministerial or parliamentary control, with wide powers to:
For political and administrative reasons it proved impossible to apply these principles rigorously, particularly in the northern and midland industrial districts. As early as 1837 the commissioners modified their instructions to permit outdoor relief at Nottingham where the creation of the new poor-law union coincided with a period of acute unemployment. In 1841 a general order was issued to a number of northern unions prescribing rules for the administration of outdoor relief to able-bodied men, half of which was to be in kind (bread, potatoes etc.), in return for some form of supervised work. In practice, the local boards of guardians in both town and country enjoyed a greater latitude in the administration of relief than commonly supposed. The widespread belief that assistance could only be obtained by entering the workhouse (the workhouse test) was completely erroneous. In 1841, of the 1,300,000 persons who received relief, only 192,000 were in workhouses, the remaining 1,108,000 being assisted in their own homes. Of the total sum of £3,884,000 spent in poor relief from the rates, only £892,000 was expended in the workhouses, while nearly £3 million was spent on outdoor relief. The figures for 1839 and 1840 show similar proportions. An Act for the Amendment and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales. [4 & 5 Will. IV cap. 76]It shall be lawful for His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, to appoint Three fit Persons to be Commissioners to carry this Act into execution:
Source <Victoriaweb.org>
Braveheart is a great piece of entertainment, however, it is mostly pure fiction, and riddle with historical inaccuracies. The one thing that Braveheart, and pretty much the only thing Braveheart gets right, is it's portrayal of Robert the Bruce.
But, as great as Braveheart is, let us leave it behind to focus on the real Robert the Bruce. Some quick facts about Robert the BruceRobert the Bruce was born in 1274, on July 11th, at Turnberry Castle in Aryshire. He died in 1329, on the 7th of June at Manor of Cardross His coronation happen in 1299 on 15th of December His heart was buried at Melrose Abbey His body was buried at Dunfermline Abbey He was Catholic Early lifeUnlike William Wallace, we have a good in-depth details about Robert the Bruce's life; mainly because he was a monarch. His father was English, and the Bruce's held many English lands. It is therefore thought by historians, that Robert likely was brought up in English customs, and traditions. It is possible that Bruce spoke both in Gaelic, and Scots, it is also highly likely that he also spoke in Latin. He is thought to have moved between castles as a young boy. This would have meant that he would have been traveling to areas of Scotland which had different languages, such as; Gaelic, Scots, and Latin. Although the vast majority of Scots today speak English, there are still pockets of these languages left, but, in Bruce's time, it would have been much more widespread, virtually no one at the time would have spoke English in the era of Bruce. His ability to speak different languages matters, it shows that he was intelligent, and that he was educated. Murder of John Coymn, Robert the Bruce makes his first dent in the history books when he murders John Coymn; Coymn was not only a noble, but, it is said that he was Scotland's most powerful noble of the time. He was not only very powerful, but Coymn also had some powerful Nobel allies on both sides of the boarder, both in England and in Scotland. He also owned land the length and breadth of Scotland, from the lowlands, through the Central belt, and right up to the highlands, in places like Fife, Aberdeen, and Angus. The power that Coymn had in the ownership of large swathes of land was one thing that made Coymn a strong threat to Robert the Bruce, but, it was not the only thing, or even the most worrisome thing for Bruce; as Coymn had claim, and laid claim to the Scottish throne. It made both men rivals. It is suggested that Coymn signed an agreement, which gave up his right to the Scottish throne. An agreement made to both Robert Bruce, and Edward I of England. However, Coymn is said to have broke that agreement, which marked him as a traitor to his word. Because of this, Bruce sought out to challenge Coymn. Bruce, on 10th of February, 1306, asked to meet with Coymn at the Chapel of Greyfairs Monestray. Some sources say that Bruce murdered Coymn, others say that Bruce assaulted Coymn, and that Coymn was finished off by one of Bruce's men. Another source, an, English source tells that Bruce planned to murder Coymn, to gain the murder of the Scottish throne. Several sources conflict on what really happened in the Church that day, and the true nature of Coymns murder, but, as Coymn threatened to take Bruce's crown, it is highly likely that Bruce did plan to murder Coymn, whether he directly did it, or indirectly done it, is debatable.
A bruce crownedJust six weeks after Coymn was murdered, Robert the Bruce was crowned King of Scotland. The murder of Coymn seems to be an omen for Robert the Bruce's entire reign, as his reign as king was a battle, a war torn Scotland.
Bruce was corinated king of Scot's just a few months after William Wallace was dead. if anything, the challanges that Bruce faced during his reign, were worse than the ones that were faced during the time of Wallace. Just shortly after his coronation, Scotland was invaded by England. As Edward's assult on Scotland grew stronger, so did his assult on Bruce himself. Edward seemed to be king of Scotland, not Bruce, as lands were taken away from Scots, and those loyal to Bruce, and they were given to those loyal to Edward. Not only that, Bruce's female family was captutered by the English, and sent to be imprisoned for four years. The fact that Edward imprisoned members of the Scottish royals, and that he seized much Scottish lands, provideds evidence that Edward was a far greater monarch, in the sense that he was more powerful, and that he had a stronger army. It suggests that Robert the Bruce was a weak king in several ways.
War in the highlandsBruce evaded being captured by the English by being in the highlands; he was in battle in the highlands for many years after the death of Edward I, who died June 7th, 1306.
Bruce, from 1306 to 1308 spent his time in the highlands battiling with two enemies. He battled with the English on one hand, and he battled with John Coymns family, specifically John Coymn 3rd, Earl of Buchan. Essentially in his early years as king, Robert Bruce was fighting a Scottish civil war, and a foreign invasion. 1309, A show of strengthFinally, in 1309, Robert Bruce had a show of strength, he contained the rebellion in the North, and fought of the English. By 1309, he had control of the North, and the highlands. In March of that year, Bruce held his first parlaiment in St Andrews. He managed to gain the support of his councilers, and of the clergy. There were still English strongholds, castles held at this time, though, by 1312, he and his men managed to capture a fair few castles from the English, including Dumbarton. He was slowly gaining, and winning Scotland. Bruce finally one Scotland when he one the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. It showed that he had stregth, determination, and courage. And why he is remembered as one of Scotland's greatest monarchs.
We are still in the middle of Summer, even if it is cold, grey and raining. However, In just under two months time, Autumn will be with us once again! So, here are this years Autumn tv shows which are historically inclined. 1. Poldark
Poldark starts its second season this year. It is a tv series based on the works by Winston Graham. And is set in 18th century Cornwall.
There is no set date when the new series of Poldark will begin. However, it is scheduled to begin in the Autumn sometime. Which means you still have time to catch up on the first 8 episodes of season 1. 2. Ripper Street
Ripper Street is going into its forth season this Autumn. It is unclear when in Autumn this show is scheduled for.
As you'd expect, Ripper Street is inspired by the Jack the Ripper murders. Therefore, set in Victorian London. If you haven't caught any of this show yet, you can catch it on Amazon Prime. You'll have to do a lot of binge watching, as there are 30 episodes of Ripper Street before season 4 commences! There are other historical shows scheduled for 2016. Though, there are no set dates. Therefore, could also begin in Autumn.
The Last Kingdom is a drama about the Saxon era. There are eight episodes of season 1. And it is scheduled for season 2 later this year.
The Man in the High Castle is historically related, but, it is more of a 'what if' type of historical drama. In this drama the Nazis were not defeated during World War Two, but won WW2.
Therefore, if you like historical history, then you should watch this. There are ten episodes in the first season. And there is no date set yet for a second.
Vikings needs no explanation. It is as you would expect, a drama about vikings.
Richard I or Richard the Lion Heart as he is also known, is one of our best known monarchs. Despite this king being well known, he actually spent very little of his time on his home soil.
For most of King Richard I reign, he was in battle. In the middle east. His ten year reign was spent battling it out in the third crusade. Early Life Richard was born in Oxford, England on the 8th of September 1157. He was the son of the earlier king, Henry II. He was intelligent. Specifically when it came to politics and military power. That is also where his strength and interest lied. Revolt against Henry II Richard, along with his brothers and mother, led a revolt against king Henry II. The revolt did not last very long, 18 months. To which the rebels backed down. The revolt was quite extensive, stretching from Scotland to Brittany in France. There were at least 20 castles which were demolished at the time of the revolt. The revolt also saw many towns being completely destroyed and people being killed. At the time Henry was not even in England, he was in France. This shows how loyal his soldiers were to the king. The revolt lasted from 1173 - 1174 Becoming King Richard I It wasn't until around 13 years after the revolt that Richard was to become king of England. He was crowned king at Westminster Abbey on September 3rd, 1189. Richard had barred all Jews and women from his investiture. But, he later went further. He planned for the murdered of Jews to be killed in England. The people became alert to this, and, the people of London attacked the Jewish community. However, on the eve before Richard went off to fight in the crusade, he realized that his actions over the Jewish population could quickly destabilize England. As such, he demanded that all those responsible for the rebellions be executed. Time abroad Richards remaining time as king was mostly spent overseas. It was a time spent battling another crusade, the third crusade. The third crusade was motivated by the capture of Saladin in 1187. When Richard learned about this, he joined the 3rd crusade. The holy land, were Saladin had been captured, fell just a month after Richard had landed on it. Afterwards, Richard had many victories. It was only a year later, after Saladin had been captured, that he made peace with him, and began to go home. However, luck wasn't on Richard's side. he was later captured in Venice. Handed over to Henry VI of Germany. He was later released in February 1194. Richard then successfully made it home to England. To be crowned a second time as king of England. Final years of his life His time back in England was not very long. Just a month after his return from the holy land, Richard yet again went abroad. Only this time, to Normandy. This was to be the last time that Richard had ever saw England again. He would never return to his home land. Dying a few years later, on 1199 in battle. Richard was succeeded by his younger brother John |
Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
← Resize me
|