MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Inventing History : forgery: a great British tradition (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 149, 150, 151  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

But back in 1666 they didn’t have experts telling people that the most effective way of coping with a fire was to stay in your house and wait for the authorities to save you. People didn’t expect anyone to help them so they took care of themselves. Interesting that the evidence from most disasters seems to be that those who run away first are the ones who survive.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
Interesting that the evidence from most disasters seems to be that those who run away first are the ones who survive.


Do the corollaries matter?

One might be the evidence (or lack of) from the disasters that did happen and those that didn't run away. See Lot's Wife.

Another might be the evidence (or the computer modelling) from the disasters that didn't happen and those that did run away, screaming "the sky is going to fall down". See Prof. Ferguson.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

1666.

Nope. Nothing suspicious about that date.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Pepys wrote:
"For the whole year the population of London had a great sense of foreboding, because the year had the number of the devil in it - 666. There was just this sense that something appalling was going to happen."


It did.

Divination is the mother of history.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Paradise Lost first publication 1667.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
Paradise Lost first publication 1667.


Wow!

Curiouser and curiouser.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I once thought John Milton might have had a hand in the writing of Shakespeare---until I realized that John Milton didn't have a hand in the writing of John Milton.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But back in 1666 they didn’t have experts telling people that the most effective way of coping with a fire was to stay in your house and wait for the authorities to save you.

I must protest at this. There is only one situation in which experts have ever told people 'to stay in their burning homes' and that is in modern high-rise blocks. It has been found in thousands of cases that fire spreads so slowly it is better for residents to stay (other than in the actual burning flat itself) while firemen do the business. In only one case, Grenfell, was this advice found to be wrong.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
But back in 1666 they didn’t have experts telling people that the most effective way of coping with a fire was to stay in your house and wait for the authorities to save you. People didn’t expect anyone to help them so they took care of themselves. Interesting that the evidence from most disasters seems to be that those who run away first are the ones who survive.


After 1666 the King decided, presumably after taking expert advice, such was the devastation, that in future all buildings would be built in brick. That no houses would be built close to the river, and there would be no lanes and alleys unless totally needed.

The great fire of Southwark (Suthwark)1212 death toll estimated at 3000. Would treat with caution.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The National Portrait Gallery has a painting of Elizabeth Pepys, Samuel's wife. It is 'after John Hayls' they say, as per an entry dated 1666 in Pepys' Diary.

NPG lists the painting as

Elizabeth Pepys

by James Thomson (Thompson), published by Henry Colburn, after John Hayls, stipple engraving, published May 1825


The original painting no longer exists...

This print records the painting by John Hayls that Pepys commissioned of his wife in February 1666. The portrait probably hung as a pendant to Pepys' own portrait by Halys shown here and the posture was designed to show Elizabeth in the role of St. Catherine. The painting was destroyed in the nineteenth century.

but never mind, the NPG has four identical versions of the 1825 portrait and Elizabeth Pepys is listed accordingly as 'sitter for 4 portraits'.

The last Elizabeth Pepys portrait was from the Macdonnell collection, which turns out to be a set of 9,755 portrait prints made to accompany biographies a la Granger, bought by the NPG in 1966

Dictionary of National Biography re-bound in 73 folio volumes, extra-illustrated throughout with 7,000 engraved portraits, plus 10 boxes of additional engravings. The collection is particularly rich in 18th and 19th century prints. The volumes also contain a number of drawings, some of them original portraits of some consequence.

The collection was compiled by the 20th century print collector J.H. MacDonnell and his manuscript index of sitters is bound in a separate volume.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
1212


Nope. Nothing suspicious about that date.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On the subject of diaries, we might want to direct some skepticism toward the one recorded by Queen Victoria.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't quite know what to make of Jan van Belcamp. Variously written as...

Belcamp, Jan van
Belcamp, John
Belchamp, Jan van
Belchamp, John
Belcom, Jan van
Belcom, John
Belkamp, John van


...he seems to have been an 'under copier', a term I've not heard before and not come across anywhere else

He was born in Antwerp but spent most of his career in England, where he was employed making copies of pictures in the Royal Collection. According to his contemporary, Richard Symonds, "this Belcamp was an under copier to another Dutchman, that did fondly keep the king's pictures and whenever any nobleman desired a copy, he directed them to Belcamp."

Who was that 'another Dutchman'? Anyway this practice sounds completely above board but, more worryingly, not only was Belcamp Charles I's under-copier, he was also put in charge of cataloguing and appraising the royal collection

In 1649, following the execution of Charles I, Belcamp was appointed to the commission set up to sell the king's goods.

Charles I was famous for amassing a world-class collection, the 'Lost Collection', sold off in 1649. Only about a third of the art has been traced to public and private collections though it might be hard to prove how many paintings were Belcamp copies.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What an undercopier does, if this account is true, is to take his place in the orthodox theory that royals have their portraits done for propaganda purposes, so their subjects can share in their majesty etc etc. When you ask, "And where are all the copies of Cod-Pieced Hal and Gloriana and Equestrian Charles?" and you get the answer, "...er... they all seem to have disappeared," you arrive at the boring old conclusion that monarchs have their portraits done for exactly the same reason everyone else has their portrait done, so they can look at them and say, "Ooh, you sexy thing."

As you say, the truth is that Belcamp invented his own legend so he could pass off his own fakes with an appropriate provenance. Charles I would have confirmed the whole thing except, whoops, he's gone and died. Shades of Diana's butler.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Modern Royal Forgeries?

Let's all wish Martin Bashir a speedy recovery. It can't be pleasant being seriously off-sick with Covid, and then the world drops out your bottom.

Charles Spencer has demanded an independent inquiry into how one of the BBC’s most prominent reporters used fake documents to obtain a landmark interview with his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.

What for?

The reporter had ordered a BBC graphic designer to mock up fake bank statements that gave the impression people close to the Spencer family were selling stories to newspapers

But the BBC clearly thought there was nothing to see here.

Bashir was cleared of wrongdoing after a 1996 internal investigation led by the then head of news, Tony Hall, who later became the the corporation’s director general. He concluded that the reporter “wasn’t thinking” when he asked the graphic designer to produce the fake bank statements. According to the documents, Hall concluded: “I believe he is, even with his lapse, honest and an honourable man. He is contrite.”

Move along please. Nothing wrong with a little bit of unthinking forgery.

Interest in the circumstances of the interview – which took place 25 years ago this week – has been reawakened by a Channel 4 documentary into how Bashir got the story. It revealed that Matt Wiessler, the graphic designer who mocked up the bank statements under direction from Bashir, left the corporation soon after the incident.

How ungrateful.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/04/diana-brother-earl-spencer-demands-inquiry-deceit-bbc-interview
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 149, 150, 151  Next

Jump to:  
Page 150 of 151

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group