|
Post by sprite on Nov 1, 2021 10:09:51 GMT -5
Just finished: Foundation: The History of England from its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors by Peter Ackroyd I don't know if UK education includes going through all of these kings and the machinations and wars and executions, I have a feeling it's very well covered on the children's show HOrrible Histories, but possibly less well in schools. Snowwhite might have some input?
|
|
|
Post by lillielangtry on Nov 1, 2021 10:30:43 GMT -5
Amor Towles has a new book coming out, The Lincoln Highway. I've got it in my e-book queue at the library. Just finished: Foundation: The History of England from its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors by Peter Ackroyd Whoa--talk about a deep dive, this book starts in prehistory and ends in 1509. I don't know if UK education includes going through all of these kings and the machinations and wars and executions, but for the most part it was interesting and it emphasized how little I know of English history. The chapters I found most interesting were on what the regular folk ate during the different centuries, what toys children played with, and the different styles of clothing and how it evolved. I've got volume 2 on hold at the library--we'll see if I plow through all 6 books in the series. The author just finished the final volume which ends in present time. When my parents were at school, history was primarily the Kings and Queens of England, yes. I remember my mum being somewhat shocked I couldn't recite them in order, with dates. But by the time I was at school, it wasn't really about memorising dates, but more about using sources, a lot of stuff about the World Wars, etc.
|
|
|
Post by scrubb on Nov 1, 2021 13:31:08 GMT -5
In Canada in the 1970s we learned a ton of English history. I was able to recite the kings/queens in order from Canute to Elizabeth II, though I didn't have the dates.
A few years ago I read Dickens' "A Child's History of England" and it could have been the basis of my grade 7 social studies class.
|
|
|
Post by snowwhite on Nov 1, 2021 13:51:14 GMT -5
Just finished: Foundation: The History of England from its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors by Peter Ackroyd I don't know if UK education includes going through all of these kings and the machinations and wars and executions, I have a feeling it's very well covered on the children's show HOrrible Histories, but possibly less well in schools. Snowwhite might have some input? Ha ha ha! You might say that. When most children were home from school here last year my first born spent quite a lot of effort learning the Monarachs Song (full version) from HH, but he's mostly forgotten it now.
|
|
|
Post by snowwhite on Nov 1, 2021 14:34:59 GMT -5
Anyway, actually came here to say I recently finished The Guernsey Literary and etc, which I enjoyed, although it felt slightly strange it was written by two people who (from what I could gather) either hadn't been to the island at all, or had only visited once and briefly.
|
|
|
Post by Oweena on Nov 1, 2021 19:23:58 GMT -5
Thanks for the info on the education on the Kings and Queens. Can't imagine trying to keep them all straight, especially with some of them being the monarch for such a short time.
The rules of succession and bizarre branches of who was eventually crowned are very confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Liiisa on Nov 2, 2021 4:53:28 GMT -5
My mom memorized all the US Presidents in school and recites them all the time, but said memorization ends with Truman so I pick up for her after that.
|
|
|
Post by snowwhite on Nov 2, 2021 5:07:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Oweena on Nov 2, 2021 8:39:20 GMT -5
Thanks for that snowwhite. Maybe I should just watch all the Horrible Histories videos and skip the next 5 books in the series.
|
|
|
Post by snowwhite on Nov 2, 2021 13:54:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the info on the education on the Kings and Queens. Can't imagine trying to keep them all straight, especially with some of them being the monarch for such a short time. The rules of succession and bizarre branches of who was eventually crowned are very confusing. Glad you enjoyed the song. I remember explaining the order of succession to MrSnow one time and he found it utterly crazy and said he could only understand it as being like a 'search in depth' type of sorting, apparently. I dunno. It was explained to me as a child so I just sort of accept the logic of it... There was a recent episode of 'Who Do You Think You Are...?' (series featuring celebrities you've actually heard of, rather than a lot of soap actors; not that I've anything against soap actors) where a well-known comedian discovered his antecedents rather destroyed any 'man of the people' credentials he might have had - even though they had to go back to his 8-times great-grandparents (or something) to find out. If you CAN go back that far, an awful lot of people will have royal ancestry I guess, since we're talking thousands and thousands of people, but still interesting to see.
|
|
|
Post by sprite on Nov 2, 2021 15:56:37 GMT -5
I was mentally scrolling through the various families occuypying the throne of England, then Britain. Has there actually been an English one since Harold in 1066?
|
|
|
Post by Queen on Nov 2, 2021 17:39:54 GMT -5
What's hard about the rules of succession?
It's sons that count, if you're out of sons then daughters (although there were ways to skip that quite often), or your brother's sons.
I guess early days it was a bit more by the sword, but by the time we get to Henry VIII it's pretty settled.
|
|
|
Post by Oweena on Nov 2, 2021 18:36:16 GMT -5
What's hard about the rules of succession? It's sons that count, if you're out of sons then daughters (although there were ways to skip that quite often), or your brother's sons. I guess early days it was a bit more by the sword, but by the time we get to Henry VIII it's pretty settled. This first book of the series since it was from the earliest of civilization to Henry VII had quite a bit of 'by the sword' along with third and second cousin once removed, and other dodgy schemes to claim being next in line. It seemed to be quite a stretch for several of those claims.
|
|
|
Post by Liiisa on Nov 2, 2021 19:51:58 GMT -5
Oops moving this to November
|
|
|
Post by Queen on Nov 3, 2021 5:19:47 GMT -5
What's hard about the rules of succession? It's sons that count, if you're out of sons then daughters (although there were ways to skip that quite often), or your brother's sons. I guess early days it was a bit more by the sword, but by the time we get to Henry VIII it's pretty settled. This first book of the series since it was from the earliest of civilization to Henry VII had quite a bit of 'by the sword' along with third and second cousin once removed, and other dodgy schemes to claim being next in line. It seemed to be quite a stretch for several of those claims. Oh yeah, and also claimants through the mother's side and all sorts. It does make you a bit more sympathetic to Henry VIII and his desperation to have a son!
|
|
|
Post by snowwhite on Nov 3, 2021 8:51:19 GMT -5
What's hard about the rules of succession? It's sons that count, if you're out of sons then daughters (although there were ways to skip that quite often), or your brother's sons. I guess early days it was a bit more by the sword, but by the time we get to Henry VIII it's pretty settled. Some people have trouble understanding why (for example) Prince Charles' direct descendants have baked-in precedence over (say) Prince Andrew* I think. If Prince Charles were to pre-decease the present Queen, it could be logical to say the next in line is her next oldest child/son rather than Prince William (as the son of her eldest son). You skip generations, rather than always moving the crown to the next eldest living child. And it can get quite weird if the reigning monarch has no living direct descendants. *although it's just as well, really that they do...
|
|
|
Post by scrubb on Nov 3, 2021 13:20:40 GMT -5
Well, plus the fact that lots of times you have to go back a generation and down 3 to find the connections. The Stuarts were Henry VIII's mother's descendents, I think. Not really very straight forward when there are no brothers or nieces or nephews.
|
|
|
Post by Queen on Nov 4, 2021 12:21:14 GMT -5
What's hard about the rules of succession? It's sons that count, if you're out of sons then daughters (although there were ways to skip that quite often), or your brother's sons. I guess early days it was a bit more by the sword, but by the time we get to Henry VIII it's pretty settled. Some people have trouble understanding why (for example) Prince Charles' direct descendants have baked-in precedence over (say) Prince Andrew* I think. If Prince Charles were to pre-decease the present Queen, it could be logical to say the next in line is her next oldest child/son rather than Prince William (as the son of her eldest son). You skip generations, rather than always moving the crown to the next eldest living child. And it can get quite weird if the reigning monarch has no living direct descendants. *although it's just as well, really that they do... I know at least one Brit who firmly believes that the Queen will leave the crown to William rather than Charles. I mean she can't and she wouldn't, but no amount of eye rolling will convince her.
|
|
|
Post by sprite on Nov 4, 2021 15:17:06 GMT -5
I love how some people just KNOW what the Queen does or doesn't think.
|
|
|
Post by Queen on Nov 6, 2021 11:58:19 GMT -5
same person is sure that the Queen hates Camilla... of course it's possible but how would random mere citizen know???
|
|