GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-01 > 1073324707
From: "William Black" <>
Subject: Re: Britain's Real Monarch
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:45:07 -0000
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <BC1E5430.email@example.com>
"Michael W Cook" <> wrote in message
> I agree, it's piss-poor low-budget history for the masses.
It's not history for the masses, it's archaeology for the masses. That's
> Then they wheel out the local village idiot dressed in what "They" would
> have been wearing at the time.
And as a rule the clothes don't fit, having been borrowed from the
re-enactors that have been hired as craftsmen and suppliers of tentage and
period artefacts, and medieval clothes always seem to have fitted, they
are all made to measure.
> always go down well. Plus a local learned historian is also brought in,
> they usually get ignored all the time and one of the regulars prattles on
> and gets it all wrong.
Nope, usually the county archaeological service, who are invariably
under-funded and tolerated by the council as they have to have one, but they
can't see any point as he never fixes any trips to hot or interesting places
If archaeologists could fix trips to hot places for councillors they'd get
much better funding.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
|Re: Britain's Real Monarch by "William Black" <>|