Nice People Thread No. 15, a Cyber Summer

Pyxis

vivatifosi wrote: »

I love Lucy Worsley, her series on the Tudors was ace. And Mary Beard is my other favourite. I'd love to be able to wander round Rome or Pompeii and read all the inscriptions.

Ooh yes! Mary Beard! I'd forgotten her! Yes she is good!

ivyleaf

Another Mary Beard fan here!

I love social history - how people lived, what they wore, what the ate, etc.

PasturesNew

I liked the Victorian/Edwardian stuff.

Lucy Worsley's "a bit odd" too. Nice, but odd smile and odd voice.

Neil Oliver's the most annoying bloke EVER.... his accent's annoying, his speed of word delivery is annoying, his ridiculous "build up to drama/excitement" is a real turn off... and he's got a strange tone of voice that treats viewers like idiots.

Although sometimes annoying, some of Baldrick's programmes have been good. Walking through History. Wish I could remember his real name, it'll come to me in a minute.

While Kings/Queens spent their time poncing about, starting wars and spending money on loose women/song .... it's more interesting to see how the common peasant in his field and hovel had their lives changed.

There's too much focus on toffs, knights and warmongers in history for me. I like to know how people lived, what they had/used, injustices and disasters (plague, droughts, migrations).

Kings always lived in their castles, but why did a village depopulate or explode ... who came, who left - and where they were from/went to that was so much better/worse.

I watched something the other night though that had a King and a Queen - and the question was which one was rightfully the next one. The Queen was beheaded by the King. They looked at the document from the last King to see what he'd wanted and he said he wanted the Queen to succeed him.

Can't remember their names... I think an Edward was the dying one ...

The question was also whether that Queen should now be called a Queen - and they decided that even though she wasn't crowned, she was declared a Queen and so therefore should have carried the title. Might've been Lady Jane Grey?

No good at history, as you can see.... but I can remember the stories.

PasturesNew

zagubov wrote: »

... PhD ...

Posh alert!!

zagubov wrote: »

... post was created for an internal candidate who was given it after what was really a sham interview procedure....

This happens a LOT, but is denied by many people. Those people who have seen it happen and know either stay quiet as they benefitted, or they speak out and are shot down saying they were just obviously not as good as the other candidate.

It's an argument you can never win as people will either not speak out, or have not been there so refuse to admit it occurs.

chris_m

PasturesNew wrote: »

Neil Oliver's the most annoying bloke EVER.... his accent's annoying, his speed of word delivery is annoying, his ridiculous "build up to drama/excitement" is a real turn off... and he's got a strange tone of voice that treats viewers like idiots.

Now, he is one I like.
Another, although more to do with geology, is Iain Stewart.
The one that annoys me is Brian Cox, who always looks disgustingly young to me - his documentaries are good though.

I watched something the other night though that had a King and a Queen - and the question was which one was rightfully the next one. The Queen was beheaded by the King. They looked at the document from the last King to see what he'd wanted and he said he wanted the Queen to succeed him.
Can't remember their names... I think an Edward was the dying one ...
The question was also whether that Queen should now be called a Queen - and they decided that even though she wasn't crowned, she was declared a Queen and so therefore should have carried the title. Might've been Lady Jane Grey?

That's correct, it was Lady Jane Grey, great-granddaughter of Henry VII and first cousin once removed of Edward VI.
Edward VI died at 15 so, unsurprisingly, left no issue but named Lady Jane Grey as his successor in his will. Although the Third Succession Act of 1544 had restored Henry VIII's daughters, Mary and Elizabeth (Edward's half-sisters), to the line of succession, they were still regarded as illegitimate and, furthermore, Mary was Catholic. Hence Edward's nomination of Jane as his heir.

However, the Privy Council changed sides, denounced Jane and declared Mary the rightful Queen. Jane was charged with high treason and later given an extremely short haircut - right down to the neck.

PasturesNew

Just started right now, More4 channel (freeview 14)

Tony Robinson - Down Under.

In Australia, doing a wander around, talking about their history to random people.

If I were to do the "Historian/similar on telly" job it'd be Tony's career. Second choice would be to be one of the Victorian/Edwardian crowd that moved in and lived it.

I have a direct connection back to Cook's first landing in Australia.

GDB2222

First Fleeter - never heard that term. It's a bit like being on the Mayflower, but to Australia.

zagubov

I finished that book I was reading last year, Bill Bryson's "At Home" where he goes room by room through his old house and uses it as an excuse to talk about the history of tea, modern medicine, parks, cutlery, you name it.

It's a bit chaotic but it's the most enjoyable history book I've ever read.

LydiaJ

I like Lucy Worsley too. Not sure whether I've seen the other TV historians you're all mentioning, though.

That thing about the railways changing the way people lived reminded me about a friend of my dad's. He did loads of research into his family tree, going back ages. Up to a certain date, all the people married people who lived in the same village, or one or two villages away. Then the railway came, and after that, people married people who came from miles and miles away. Dramatic change, very sudden, and completely permanent.

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

Up to a certain date, all the people married people who lived in the same village, or one or two villages away. Then the railway came, and after that, people married people who came from miles and miles away. Dramatic change, very sudden, and completely permanent.

We all have a "starter place" where we start our research and if our people stayed there you get to know it quite well.

The village where my lot were turned out to be affected by two events:
- the railway coming right on the edge of their village, bringing transport to them and a new influx of workers for the brick pits that were then viable.
- a general downturn in agriculture etc in the late 1800s that saw most of the village either moving to the nearest town, or, for a few, going to Canada/America/Aus for a new life.

Once you know what people are doing/why you can start to find those that "disappear" and they quite often turn up in groups elsewhere in the country, having moved there as a group. That's why it's important to also know all their friends/neighbours names, who everybody married and what those families were up to. In short, you end up knowing the entire village

For me, I greatly benefitted from having grown up in the area, so I could look at placenames and instinctively know if they were close by, or nowhere near - and how different villages would've gravitated naturally in different directions as their nearest towns were different... if that makes sense. e.g. if it looked like they went "the wrong way" for natural movement, it'd make me triple check.

Most just hopped on the train though and went to the town.

Some hopped on a cart and headed east to Lincs. There were Hiring Fairs where Ag Labs would turn up and stand in a line and hope to be picked. This lot were picked by a "good boss" who always laid on transport and housing for his workers when he went out hiring. They moved and stayed in their new place from about 1870-1880 - even today there will be descendants there.