Hilarious History Lessons

Browsing The Washington Post this morning, I found an article on a hilarious You Tube Channel that uses music to teach history lessons. The History Teachers' Channel uses a combination of songs from old and new artists and video clips from famous movies on the topics cut together with live action video of actors singing a song parody. It’s pretty funny, although some desperately need to be redone and made modern.

Click here to see hits like

* The French Revolution set to Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance
* Cleopatra taught to Fergalicious
* The Black Death is done with Hollaback Girl by Gwen Stefani

The bummer is that the Tudor videos are all older with songs that kids today will NOT know.

* Anne Boleyn is put to “Girl” by the Beatles (and very hokey with the dancing girl in an odd headdress.)
* Henry VIII is set to an ABBA song I’ve never heard
* Elizabeth I is done with She’s Not There by The Zombies
* Mary Queen of Scots to Jenny from the Block by JLo

They’re entertaining, but I do think they should update them because kids will be more interested and learn better if it’s music they can relate to!

Pick a View and Stick to it!

As any full-time or amateur historian will tell you, pinpointing the dates of events in Tudor history is a very frustrating proposition.

Besides the fact that we are missing simple information, like birth dates for many--especially women--born between 1480 and 1603, a great deal of information has been lost over the centuries to fires and other disasters. This is not even to mention the many during the reign of Elizabeth I (and later Victorians) who tried to vindicate those beloved by their sovereign or create history where they found none.

As I read Alison Weir's latest, The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn, I am frustrated by the amount of speculation required to piece together events. To a degree, I suppose that historians are happy that there are such holes in story's fabric, as new speculations sell books.

I avoided this book at first, as other reviewers pointed out what I have now read for myself: Weir's conclusion is that Anne Boleyn--while perhaps not guilty of the laundry list of offenses on which she was indicted--was guilty of something, and thus made her own bed.

What was not stated by reviewers was that a chapter or two later, Weir writes the sentence, "In a word, Anne Boleyn was framed."

This is where I begin to be angry and confused by Tudor historians. I may not agree with your theory, but I can only respect it if you choose one and stick with it!
I am not a fan of those who publicize one stance to get me to buy a book, but then hedge their bets.

I have already decided to go back and read those chapters again. Perhaps it's me and I misunderstood her meaning.

It's funny, I knew I wouldn't like this book--but was way of on the reason why.

(Bloody) Mary

Good Morning! I always did like starting a Saturday morning with a Bloody Mary! (Okay, not the drink this time) I finally finished reading The Children of Henry VIII last night and like most of Alison Weir's books I thoroughly enjoyed it. The book I read just before it, Six WIves by David Starkey, was a bit dry and repetitive in comparison. As much as I love reading about the wives, Starkey's style left me wanting so I turned back to Weir.

I admit, I have little interest in Henry VIII's son by Jane Seymour, Edward VI, but I am still curious about Mary and Lady Jane Grey. Weir's book chronicled Lady Jane's pathetic 9 days as queen but didn't delve very deeply into her abusive family life or her relationship with her husband, Guilford Dudley. Clearly, I must now buy the books on Jane. However, Weir did go into great detail on the reign of Mary I.

Certainly, I will have to read accounts by other historians, but I was left with such a terrible dislike of Mary. Now, I wasn't the most objective reader to begin - being such a fan of Anne Boleyn - but I was open to learning about Mary's good qualities or noble deeds as Queen of England. I was to be disappointed. Perhaps it is not right for me to judge a woman's devotion to her religion especially more than 400 years ago. But as I read about other women of the time who seem to be able to weigh their faith with common sense I can't help but feel that Mary was weak and used her Catholicism not as a comfort, but as a crutch. By the end of her life, she was attending mass nine times a day! How can you get anything else done?

According to Weir, with each tragedy that befell her and her country (phantom pregnancy, famine, etc...) she stepped up the burning of heretics (Protestants). The number of burnings in her short reign in comparison to the rest of the Tudor Dynasty is staggering. But Mary continually felt that G-d was showing his displeasure on her because she was not doing enough to root-out heresy. Even when she was advised to be more merciful by her husband Philip II, Pole and Gardiner she refused to listen. When it came to G-d and Catholicism, she was fanatical.

I must say that I was disappointed that Mary showed little of the strength of her mother or her father. She was descended from two of the bravest lines of princes in the history of the world and she couldn't pluck up the strength to properly reign over England when her husband left the country?!?! I may not be a big fan of hers, but I expected to read about her tenacity, not her pathetic weeping and inability to function without a man who neither loved her nor wanted to even be near her or her country.
Perhaps I seem harsh, but this is a woman who didn't marry until she was nearly 40 years old. More than that, this is a queen! She knew that this was her calling but seemed to shrink from the task.

To be fair, I will read further and perhaps I will find something to like about Mary Tudor.