You may not be a youtube user--if you are you probably have found these videos already. But if not, check out George Suart (a perfect name) who does a bunch of video clips from what seems to be history-as-performance-art. A clever accomplishment indeed!
Warning for sticklers on detail(like myself): his facts don't always seem exactly right on, at least on the surface. I myself usually get what he is saying but some of the commenters on his videos often think they know to second guess him, so I will mention briefly the fine line between accuracy and being boring that every historian probably navigates.
For instance (in the video linked below), Henry's younger sister hadn't exactly 'disappeared across the continent.' She spent a very little time being married to a king of France, was widowed quickly, married her longtime love, and then returned to spend the rest of her life near court as the Duchess of the King's best friend, William Brandon. They established the formidable House of Suffolk--including her granddaughter Jane Grey, the unfortunate '9 days queen' beheaded at age 17 because of just the succession issue he is talking about here.
So even though Mary (called many things including Princess Mary Tudor, the French dowager Queen, Duchess of Suffolk, and most unfortunately 'Margaret' because of Showtime's series that amalgamated her with her other sister) is dead at this time, there were living contenders for the throne alive at the time he talks about that resulted from her.
Perhaps this simplification, even though technically somewhat misleading, is by design. He would probably say that her descendants were so devastated as a combination of Mary and Elizabeth's constantly executing and imprisoning them and that there were only one or two left before James ascended, and that is true.
James himself had to imprison one of the last ones, his cousin, for the rest of her life simply because he too was paranoid that she would wed another distant heir and fortify her claim. But to be technically correct, Queen/Princess/Duchess Mary, Henry VIII's sister and originator of a main royal line that traced back to Henry Tudor (Henry VII), who started the Tudor ball rolling, WAS sill around. Around at least in the form of an heir or two--even though it is a long story, obviously, as history by nature is. When it is accurate history, anyway.
Probably the important thing about Mr. Stuart's (George) stuff is that he knows how to make this information very entertaining because of his firm grasp of how to put a story together. It wouldn't be as good if he had to go into all of this background every time he made a point, and whatever the nitpicking details are, he probably winds up (mostly accurately) informing many of those who wouldn't otherwise be interested.
Here is a good example, which breathlessly covers the immensely complex Tudor period and how it transitions into the Stuart monarchs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AorWq5MoSmY&feature=related
I suspect he didn't actually post these, one of his fans did, so click 'more from this user' and you will see more, though it's not his account.
His own site I am not sure links to these youtube videos, but it also performs a valuable service. He makes accurate historical figurines based on available information (and without some of the legend and myths about a figure's appearance that hang around, perpetuated by among other sources, portraits done generations after a figure's death, etc.)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS228US228&q=george+s+stuart
Thank you Mr. Stuart!
9 comments:
The picture of the Tudor house to the left of your blog is what the houses look like in the town that I come from. I LOVED seeing it! :)
Cool!
I think I am going to expand this into a post on tudor architecture. Toward the begining of the period the post/mortar look was a bit more subtle, and toward the end, which most of the surviving houses represent, it was pretty pronounced. This was toward the more extreme end of things.
Stacey, you might be interested in the video I linnked in this post, he talks about the history of Guy Fawkes day. You may know it all, but us non UK people definitely need the background.
It is definately a cool part of history (although we do have a lot of cool history)and I loved Guy Fawkes night celebrations when I was a kid. The whole burning of the Guy was a little sinister for a holiday but the fireworks made up for it :)
Yeah, is it true that they have all of the school kids make their own effigies and stuff? Very strange! Do they tell the kids why they are making a man to burn him?
Very macabre indeed, and Halloween gets a bad rap!
I don't remember ever making a "guy" but maybe that was my Mum trying to keep things a little normal. It was an old tradition for people to make a "Guy" (think scarecrow) and wheel him around in a wheel barrow shouting "Penny for the guy". People would throw a penny in the wheelbarrow and that money would go towards a charity.
In my neighborhood we would have a bonfire - people would bring out their old crap that they didn't want anymore and they'd burn it. I don't remember ever seeing a "Guy" on top of it but that's probably because it had become an unacceptable sight by that time.
I know,a TOTALLY strange holiday.
I have issues with Halloween. I was so scared of it as a little girl. In the Fall in England it would get dark by 3pm and so I would get home from school in the pitch black and kids would be Trick or Treating already. In England you don't dress up as a fun cartoon character, you dress up as a witch or a ghost or the devil - nice huh? It always freaked me out so I never wanted to do it.
Yeah but the candy makes up for it!
Just kidding, I agree that the macabre elements are over the top and most frustratingly, they aren't necessary. Obviously some of the kids, probably mostly boys of a certain age, like them. That is why that hideous 'Scream' costume was so popular. But there have been some good changes lately, including schools wanting just happy and frienly costumes at their events, so I don't think it is necessary to throw out the whole event. Dressing up and candy on a ritual basis are very good.
And the dressing up element didn't necessarily start from something evil or bad. The 'All Saints Day' connection leaves it one of our only original Christian Holidays, and the point was to dress up as dead reletives to get the treat. There are various holidays amalgamated into one, and thus I think there are good and bad aspects. We have been able to celebrate it without engaging in any of the things we didn't like, at least here in the US. Was probably my favorite holiday as a kid.
Post a Comment