MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
British History? You needn't bother (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Turns out it's all made up or twisted about at best. All the way from Henry Tudor right up to George III!!! Yes. That late! This is my tentative conclusion reached after conducting an in-depth survey of the history of this entire period.

It is my current hypothesis that history was not invented until the rise of Napoleon. There simply were no history books prior to the 19th century. Most of those that were written in that century were filled with straight-up lies. The rest with distortions---often purposeful distortions.

It appears to me that, prior to the 19th century, there simply was no way of "remembering" the past except through living memory. The past was not something people thought of as WORTH remembering. Genealogies and inheritances and claims to property mattered, but events beyond the lifetime of a man did not matter. Not anymore. And what was remembered even within a man's lifetime of course was limited to those events and decisions to which they themselves had been witness.

My evidence for these claims is lengthy. I've been compiling it over years though I've not yet assembled it. Of course, my case is easier to believe the farther back in time we go. But I myself desperately wished to find a point in time at which I could be certain that British history was, at last, something fixed and immovable. That time simply doesn't arise until the age of Napoleon, at the earliest.

How could history consist of so much fakery to so late a date? It seems impossible. And I cannot myself explain it. I am prepared and eager to push the date of history's beginning backward if I can. I hope in coming years we can examine the evidence together. I have a great deal of material to present.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

BELIEVE IT OR NOT...

The practice of History began as a cover-up operation. There were no historians until very recently -- when someone needed to record a lie.

A big lie.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That's better. All that theory!
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The practice of history began when scribes saw the advantage of merging chronicling and divination. Divination was not just a imperfect predictor of new events, it was a useful explanation of how the past became the present. These fuzzy explanations were, and still are, history.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't have the guts to post this stuff. I know it's absolute madness.

But you can start with this question...

When did George the III go mad?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Please, Sir! Me, Sir! 1788, Sir.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Anything about that date that sparks your imagination?

Really just curious if anyone else might twist an ankle in the same rabbit hole.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

US Constitution goes into effect and Americans can start carrying guns.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
I don't have the guts to post this stuff. I know it's absolute madness.

I recently discovered some information relating to George III that inspired some thoughts that could be deemed a little wacky. Namely the many parallels between George III and George Washington.
    Both had reddish hair which they powdered white

    Both were of a similar age - Washington born 1732, G.III born 1738

    Both were famous for being farmers - G.III was nicknamed "Farmer George" and Washington was famously said to have stated "I had rather be on my farm than be emperor of the world"

    Both were associated with White Houses. G.III lived and was imprisoned during his bouts of madness at the now demolished White House at Kew. Washington obviously the famous White House (which he never actually lived at) and also the White House Plantation were he courted Martha Washington

That made me question whether the two were one and the same, which is obviously quite mad.

I did have a brief look for evidence that Washington actually existed. He had no children (though Martha Washington did have children to her previous husband). So no direct heirs. I also had a look at James Gillray cartoons, thinking there would be plenty of depictions of Washington, but couldn't find any. It reminded me a little of the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa discovers that the story of town founder Jebediah Springfield is completely bogus. In that story Jebediah Springfield was said to have had a silver prosthetic tongue. Not too dissimilar to the stories of George Washington having wooden teeth.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well it's true you never saw them on the same continent together but I think you're forgetting that everybody active in politics at the time

1. Powdered their hair white
2. Were born in the 1730's
3. Were landed gentry
4. Lived in whitewashed houses
5. Had wooden teeth
6. Watched the eighteenth century equivalent of the Simpsons, Gillray cartoons.

But I didn't know they had prosthetic tongues.The OED says that's the origin of the phrase 'silver tongued' though both were famously inarticulate.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
Both were associated with White Houses. G.III lived and was imprisoned during his bouts of madness at the now demolished White House at Kew.


I'd never heard this. I'm willing to bet it's significant. That the house was demolished is a huge tell.

BTW - George III didn't have "bouts" of madness. He went mad at the end of his life, as many old men do. Other than that, he had only one temporary onset of madness.

That made me question whether the two were one and the same, which is obviously quite mad.


I've had the same thought.

But how about this one....

"George" just means King. Therefore, the struggle in America was one between two kings.

I did have a brief look for evidence that Washington actually existed. He had no children....I also had a look at James Gillray cartoons, thinking there would be plenty of depictions of Washington, but couldn't find any.


Fascinating!
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"George" just means King.


Are you sure? Maybe Raj at the end?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Despite his madness, and his by the standards of today, unorthodox treatments, George always got well again, (until the end) normally after a few weeks. It seems that his much maligned physician was much more successful than your moderns who practise pill popping and cognitive behaviour therapy.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When investigating the Goring Gap we learned George means earthworker, i.e. farmer
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

i.e. megalith builder, I think you mean.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

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