Grand Howl at the end of cubs in my time -
Chosen cub (usually Akela's favourite Sixer AKA her son)
Calls "DYB DYB DYB"*
All others , having previously wiped shoes on socks, noses on sleeves etc (no coincidence cubs wore green ganseys) in preparation for the most important part of the whole evening (calling at Salt's Fish and Chip Saloon for a 3d cone and a frozen jubbly - a tanner well spent even if you had to claim you had "lost" your subs on the way to the meeting)
"We'll DOB DOB DOB"

As previously - Do Your Best and Do Our Best.

*Usually chosen cub makes a horlicks of it, and actually calls out "We'll DYB DYB DYB".

I wish the media would stop referring to those two hapless re-enactor chappies who accompanied the box, mounted and dressed in full plate armour ... as knights.

A knight, then as now, is a legally defined term referring to a person's rank. Those two guys on horses may indeed be knights (though I rather doubt it) but even if one argues that they are just acting I'm not sure that many late 15th century knights, ie the of the lowest rank of feudal lordship, would have been able to afford such magnificent armour. And that's ignoring the fact that their 'harnass' seems to be made from ferritic stainless steel, which wasn't invented until the late 19th century.

Regardless of who they think they are playing, I feel those two should be called, "mounted men-at-arms". Or am I being too critical?

And news-wise I'm now completely out of the loop since the BBC news website has changed to a new format: more videos, more pictures, less text, very simple sentences in BIG simple writing, everything basically reduced to sound-bites, ... and with my satellite internet connection it now takes twice as long to change pages or scroll down (and you now need to do lots of that ...RSI anyone?). It really is unspeakably dire!

So I'm now scouting around for a good newspaper website where I can actually read, well-written news, articles and comments (and with minimal adverts!).

Any suggestions?

The revamped website is indeed appalling and what the hell are 'explainers' as the section midway down is titled?

One of the armoured outriders (is that OK, MM?) was the curator of arms and armour at the Wallace Collection so presumably that bit was authentic - if little else. Good job he didn't take a tumble and bash his shiny carapace.

The Times perhaps, Meles.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

ferval wrote:

One of the armoured outriders (is that OK, MM?) was the curator of arms and armour at the Wallace Collection so presumably that bit was authentic - if little else. Good job he didn't take a tumble and bash his shiny carapace.

Well if he had taken a tumble ... by the date his stainless steel shell was invented (late 19th century) they'd also invented the can-opener (see 'Three Men in a Boat', first published 1889) ... so they'd have got him out alright. Previously the instructions printed on canned food ... or knights ... was to: "cut around top with hammer and chisel".

And I didn't doubt the authenticity of the (replica) armour ... only that that sort of quality stuff would only have been worn by the higher nobility. At Bosworth I think yer average knight, perhaps in charge of fifty to a hundred or so archers or billmen, was on foot, with a sturdy but battered half-amour inherited mostly from his dad, though possibly with a new helmet (an open faced sallet - not a fully enclosed helm) and maybe a new-ish sword.

Here's Dicky at the Battle of Bosworth. Painting by Graham Turner;

And the End;

Meles meles, not sure why you assume the replica armour was made of stainless steel. Because it was so shiny? Armour can be very shiny indeed.

In the bottom picture Triceratops painted, Richard's standard bearer is in the process of having both legs cut off, poor chap.

I'm not convinced by the fully gilt armour. Though it was undoubtedly within the ability of armourers, I'm not convinced Richard would have worn such an armour in battle - even Henry VIII never seems to have done that! Charles I had a full gilt three-quarter armour, mind you (currently in the Tower of London, and very impressive it is too) but he probably never wore it in action. In contemporary images of him in harness he always seems to be wearing 'white' (polished steel) or 'black' (straight from the forge or - more likely in his case - deliberately blackened) armour.

You could always read the Mail Online, MM.    

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3008671/Richard-III-one-evil-detestable-tyrants-walk-earth.html

I know that seamen's musket barrels were always chemically blackened, and marines had bright iron ones (polishing them kept the Jollies busy), and the black barrels didn't rust as readily as the bright ones. Was the same true of armour?

Yes. Munitions quality armour was often left black because it was more resistant to rust (common soldiers generally not having the opportunity to keep their armour stored in nice dry conditions), but armour was also deliberately blackened. This was to protect and/or for decorative reasons - for example, in the 16th century there was a vogue for German mercenaries to wear 'black and white' half-armour (the 'white' again being polished steel). Armour could also be blued, using chemical and heat treatment to change the steel into various shades including a striking peacock blue, generally combined with gilding. Over time this can darken to black, so often high quality armours which appear black today would have originally been blue. However, I'm not sure if that was done in the Middle Ages.

Well, "blueing" has been around for a long time - basically it is a thin coating of ferrosoferric oxide on the surface, and can be done in a furnace, and I've witnessed it being done by passing steam over heated steel, so I suspect that it probably happened by accident at first, but once the "passivated" property (rust resistance) of oiled blued iron / steel was noticed, it wouldn't be long before the armour makers learned how to do it as a matter of routine.

Anglo-Norman wrote:

Meles meles, not sure why you assume the replica armour was made of stainless steel.  Because it was so shiny?  Armour can be very shiny indeed.

Plain low-carbon steel can indeed be polished very shiny, but it has a slightly different colour/lustre to stainless steel (they absorb and so reflect slightly different wavelengths of light): polished carbon steel has a slight tinge of grey-blue whereas ferritic stainless steel lacks the blue, and austenitic stainless steel has an altogether whiter silvery shine. Furthermore polished carbon steel rapidly develops a patina which dulls the shine and deepens the feint blue-grey hue (and I'm not referring to rusting or to any deliberated applied patinas like blueing, nitriding or lacquering). I admit the differences in reflective hue between different steels are very slight, but to my eye the armour worn by re-enactors often seems suspiciously silvery-white.

A 15th century man-at-arms had a whole team of squires and pages to maintain his armour in good condition and to spend many hours polishing it to a mirror finish should he have so wanted. But I doubt the re-enactors, even if they do work for the Wallace collection, have the time, manpower or resources to do this everytime they put on a display, and so quite sensibly from a practical point of view, their replica armour (and I'm sure they were not wearing museum pieces) is almost certainly made from stainless steel. I may be wrong. I do not know the depths to which re-enactors immerse themselves, but it just seems to me that if you're going to pay a lot of money for a modern replica suit of armour you'd have it made of stainless. I do not have a problem with the appearance of a "high-ranking noble" dressed in shiny armour .... but in the battle re-enactments all the rank and file billmen also all have suspiciously super-shiny tin-hats. Maybe they just love their hobby so much that they happily spend many hours dutifully hand- polishing it with the finest grade of jewellers rouge, but that doesn't really ring true to authenticity in my mind.

Meles meles, interesting, thanks. I believe a modern late medieval harness costs around £2000 (minimum), so you'd certainly want it to last. Accuracy (in terms of materials, not just design) of replicas can vary considerably. I might made some inquiries of some reenactor associates of mine.

Gilgamesh, again interesting. However, I don't recall ever seeing any pre-16th century armour (in real life or contemporary illustrations) that has been blued. I have seen a couple of replica 15th century century armours, though, including one in a book by the aforementioned Wallace Collection curator, so I suppose there may well be precedent.

I'm minded to start a thread on fashion and armour - however, for now I really ought to get to work!

Oh, Philippa L's got a new hat!

Julian Fellows on the discussion panel - how very apt.

Has anyone read this? If so, is it any good?

Anglo-Norman wrote:

Meles meles, interesting, thanks.  I believe a modern late medieval harness costs around £2000 (minimum), so you'd certainly want it to last.  Accuracy (in terms of materials, not just design) of replicas can vary considerably.  I might made some inquiries of some reenactor associates of mine.

I've been browsing around websites of makers and suppliers of replica armour .... and it seems that one can get armour made in mild steel, stainless steel, and even aluminium. Contrary to my expectation low carbon steel does actually account for most of the stuff for the serious re-enactors as it looks authentic and of course these are often treated with modern techniques to give them some degree of rust-proofing. But some suits are made in stainless steel, especially for the hands-on 'sport' re-enactors - that is those that actually biff each other with sword and mace (thereby damaging the rust-proofing), or joust and so frequently get knocked off their horse into the mud. Stainless is also often preferred for theatrical use, where the props people have enough to do without having to spend hours cleaning armour. Aluminium usually only gets used for making mail - it's principal advantages being that it's lighter on the shoulders than steel, and it won't rust (cleaning and de-rusting plain carbon steel mail has always been difficult and even now the preferred method is still basically to tumble it an a barrel with sand). But again for the purist re-enactors aluminium is rather shunned. (And some of the re-enactors really do seem to be obsessed with authenticity ... I've seen the website of one armour maker who guarantees to tan the leather for the straps using only organic vegetable dyes and his own urine!).

What I hadn't considered is that low carbon steel is a lot easier to work ... both austenitic stainless steel and aluminium have high work-hardening rates so need to be repeatedly annealed to avoid cracking while hammering to shape... and this puts the price up (bearing in mind the price of an armour is principally a reflection of the labour cost, whether its made from cheap carbon steel, or from more expensive stainless steel of aluminium.

So I take it back, those two men-at-arms escorting Dicky's box were probably clad in authentic low carbon steel, hand burnished (but then chemically treated to give some rust resistance). But I still reckon those period soldiers who were employed to stand 'guard' over the hole in the carpark, for the photo shoots, TV news and documentaries, were probably actors kitted out in the costume department's easy-clean, stainless steel.

Meles meles wrote:

I wish the media would stop referring to those two hapless re-enactor chappies who accompanied the box, mounted and dressed in full plate armour ... as knights.

A knight, then as now, is a legally defined term referring to a person's rank. Those two guys on horses may indeed be knights (though I rather doubt it) but even if one argues that they are just acting I'm not sure that many late 15th century knights, ie the of the lowest rank of feudal lordship, would have been able to afford such magnificent armour. And that's ignoring the fact that their 'harnass' seems to be made from ferritic stainless steel, which wasn't invented until the late 19th century.

Regardless of who they think they are playing, I feel those two should be called, "mounted men-at-arms". Or am I being too critical?

Don't know about the rest of the media, but to be fair to Channel 4, I only heard presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy refer to them as "mounted guards".

With regard to the low carbon steel/ stainless steel / aluminum debate, then from what I saw, there seems to have been some mixing and matching going on. For example the armour of one of the riders seemed to be silvery-white while the other's had a grey-blue tinge. Yet the horse of the rider in the silvery-white armour had a grey-blue shaffron over its face and a grey-blue crinet down its neck, while the horse of the other grey-blue armour clad rider had a silvery-white shaffron and crinet.

Some interesting developments in armour research! Thank you!
Incidentally, regarding the description of the mounted escorts as "knights", it doesn't surprise me. Show an average person a picture of a man in armour and the chances are they'll describe him as a knight. I've even seen armours of kings described as knights. Perhaps worst of all I once overheard a woman refer to a model of a Roman legionary in his lorica segmentata as "a knight in shining armour"!

Having watched the service of re-interment of Richard I must admit I found it rather moving. From watching his antics, though, I have finally concluded that John Ashdown-Hill is not so much a respectable academic as an inflated pipsqueak.

I completely agree, AN, with your last observation. As one of Temp's favourite historians (though not mine) Mr D. McCullough once remarked - when one hears of someone being described as a respected revisionist historian one is normally listening to someone who is missing the whole point describing someone who has already missed it before them.

I am looking forward to the pageantry surrounding the disinterment when the time comes to bury the horse trough myself. Will the "knights" have to ride backwards on their mounts?

The final honour for the King who has provoked so much interesting discussion here: the University of Leicester is, from 2016, to be known as King Richard University.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/richard-iii-the-university-of-leicester-expected-to-change-name-to-king-richard-university-10147577.html


A university source revealed: “Our research shows that up to 10 per cent of people in some countries aren’t aware that it was the University of Leicester which found the skeleton of Richard III. Changing the name of the university is the natural next step.”

Damn silly idea!

I think it's a great idea. I don't understand your objections, MM. But some people have to object to anything positive about Richard III. It really gets rather tedious.

Silly but so plausible .... je suis le poisson d'avril            

et voila ma cherie, c'est fait

Bum yourself. Stop being so bloody childish.

I'm getting sick of this.

Oh you've changed your post again! Deleted "bum". Now my reply doesn't make sense. Oh bum. Are we having an April 1st row or not? See PM.

This could have been good. We could have dragged everyone into a massive row, hurling abuse at one another willy-nilly. What a lost opportunity.

Too early in the morning for this ... I need a drink

And something stronger than Earl Grey!

"My kingdom, my kingdon for a g'n't"

Can't find any Richard III tea, MM, but  here's a nice Richard II soothing chamomile/white pear/marigold herbal brew. Golden, delicate, floral and sweet, Richard is subtle in his opulence. Low caffeine.  

Temperance wrote:

Can't find any Richard III tea, MM,

I bet they sell it at the University of Leicester


But it's not the tea I'm after but the 'G'    .... something like the old queen's favourite tipple, Bombay Sapphire:

They do a Prince Hal tea too:



Here is a review of it:

“In the bag it smells strongly of lemon with ginger undertones, slightly sweet. The scent mellows when brewed and the flavour is also mild when unadorned. I added a little honey and it right perked up. ”

Ah - right perked up. Obviously a northerner.

I don't know what herby stuff you'd put in a Richard III (or Unknown Nun) tea bag. Nothing too musty or bitter. Perhaps Holy Basil with a dash of Skullcap. The posh name for a herbal tea is tisane - nobody ever uses that word now.

Temperance wrote:

The posh name for a herbal tea is tisane - nobody ever uses that word now.

They do in France where, contrary to many English assumptions, teas/tisanes of all types are very popular and fashionable. All my teas are either Twinings of London, or Mariage Frères of Paris (to try and look a bit classy like):



Tea for tu .... ?

REPLICA TUDOR CODPIECE (UNISEX) LIMITED EDITION EXCLUSIVE
Wolf Hall Codpiece by Gladys WimplespokeWolf Hall Codpiece
Our price: £49.99

Size option: Henry VIII, Henry IX, Henry XXL

Wolf Hall Codpiece 5 Star Review

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
This Limited Edition replica Tudor Codpiece is a specially numbered collectors pack' BBC Shop exclusive and only available for a very limited period of time. If you wish to release your hidden Blackadder in the Boardroom or channel your inner Henry on Highgate High Street, act quickly. Don't delay, find out more today!

Inspired by the blockbusting BBC series "Wolf Hall" and Costume Designer Joanna Eatwell's painstakingly researched and historically accurate period costumes, we are delighted to bring you our take on one of fashion's more curious of curios. Ripe for a comeback and debonair enough for our modern age, our Replica Tudor Codpiece (unisex) would make a great addition to anyone's wardrobe.

We have worked with Gladys Wimplespoke, the well respected founder and former leader of Lower Borchester's Historical Rambling and Pastry Association to create this unique, striking, yet subtly modernised version of the staple of Henry VIII's attire. Gladys’ research was tireless and she was particularly keen to reference modern day equivalents of the venerable codpiece, although some may feel her inclusion of an insulated sandwich compartment, that she euphemistically refers to as ‘The Sprinter’, is an evolution of the form that is perhaps a stride too far. It does however provide the fashion conscious wearer somewhere handy to store their lunch.

Available in three sizes, Henry VIII, Henry IX and Henry XXL, the Replica Tudor Codpiece (unisex) is fashioned from highest quality faux leather and linen, with breathable padding material plus metal trimmings (dry clean only). The multiway adjustable strapping is designed to provide superior fit and comfort for both lady and gentleman wearers. Gladys felt quite strongly that when a codpiece is this good, it would be a travesty to and we quote "let the chaps have all the fun".

http://www.bbcshop.com/page/invtcod1

Why so expensive? £49.99 for a faux leather codpiece ... it's half that for a real leather one if you buy direct from CloneZone .... though I don't think theirs are unisex - nor authentic Tudor!



Sorry ... lowering the tone again.

Deleted - I thought the picture link didn't work but it does now - ooh er!

Honestly, you two. I come back from Bible Study Group to find this on our Richard III thread.

Whatever next?

Dammit, wrong thread. Should have been on 'Bodies'. Sorry.

Nobody "comes back" from Bible Study Group. That much I know!

It has finally been announced by Leicester University that the expected article for peer review concerning the DNA analysis will not now be published. They waited until April 1st. Things are looking black for our good sister.

MM, selfies are SO last year. Honestly!

I was in the library today and saw this;



not exactly my cup of tea, but may be interest to others.

Someone may well have already mentioned this, but I see Philippa Langley is now off to Reading in search of Henry I, who may be buried under the carpark of a school built over the remains of Reading abbey. Seeing as he supposedly died of a surfeit of lampreys, I wonder what are the chances she'll have another attack of the cold fishy shivers?

The Grauniad - King Henry I, like Richard III, could be buried in a car park, say archaeologists


I bet Reading town council and the the local education authority (I hope the school's not a privately owned acadamy) are already rubbing their hands together with gleeful anticipation of TV documentaries, media coverage, a visitor centre, Henry I tea-towels, Henry I biscuits, Henry I lamprey pies ... all that and more, even if they don't find him!

They knew accurately how old Richard III was when he died, so they were able to check the age of his skeleton matched the age they knew about, whereas histories of Henry I are ambiguous about his date of birth, suggesting 1068 or 1069.

Oh fior heavens's sake, it's archaeology not CSI where they would probably tell you not only the precise date of birth of any old bones but the hour, minute and what his mother had for breakfast. And anyway, with his penchant for fishy things, that would allow fiddling of the c14 dating, just like they did with our poor old nun
If I remember correctly, GPR was pretty useless in Leicester anyway..

Has there been anything more published recently about the alleged Alfred the Great British Baker yet?

ferval wrote:

And anyway, with his penchant for fishy things, that would allow fiddling of the c14 dating, just like they did with our poor old nun ...

Well quite ... though wasnt Henry I buried in a bloody great solid silver casket? If they find that then even I may believe it to really be him.

Henry who?

No one's going to come over all shivery about some geezer who stuffed himself full of fish pie and then expired.

Hardly Bosworth.


PS Useful fact: the lamprey is also the subject of a rude joke by Jacobean playwright Webster in The Duchess of Malfi .

Temperance wrote:

PS Useful fact: the lamprey is also the subject of a rude joke by Jacobean playwright Webster in The Duchess of Malfi .

Oooo smutty Jacobean fish puns .... do tell.

Or was that just a red herring?

Thought that would wake you all up.



I'm dying to post something - not rude -  on the St. Peter thread about St. Paul, but I'm afraid of being intimidating and putting people off.  

I doubt anyone of great importance and/or delicate sensibilities is around to be put off ... it's been very quiet here all weekend. I haven't even seen El Gordo for several days.

Meles meles wrote:

I doubt anyone of great importance and/or delicate sensibilities is around to be put off ... it's been very quiet here all weekend. I haven't even seen El Gordo for several days.

I know - I was only joking. It's just that someone who shall be nameless ( ) told me my arguments ( ) with El Gordo ( ) could put people off joining Res Historica. I thought that was hilarious. Ursa Major might terrify people, but I certainly don't.

Being introduced to Game of Thrones in a minute: I must be the only person in the UK who hasn't watched it. I've been told it's War of the Roses meets The Sopranos all together in Middle Earth. Love the War of the Roses and The Sopranos - not that keen on Middle Earth. Can't be doing with stupid dragons, elves and things.

How odd, my ears feel jolly hot.

I saw part of part one of Game of Thrones, didn't fancy it so gave up. Perhaps I should have persevered, I have nothing against dragons and elves, so I look forward to your review (in simple words please, I'm easily intimidated).

At Christmas I bought Les Rois Maudits - The Accursed Kings, by Maurice Druon. It's about the French monarchy during the later middle ages and is widely acknowledged, even by George Martin himself, as being a major inspiration for Game of Thrones. Les Rois Maudits has been a classic of French literature for over 30 years but has only just been translated into English, and since I was buying to read for pleasure, I chose to buy this English translation. Terrible idea ... the translation reads like it was done by a bored teenager with a just-scraped pass in GCSE French and no idea of composition. If the English really is a true translation from the French I could have easily read it myself, though I'm actually sure the original French is a lot better written. It just reads as incredibly dumbed down ... but then maybe I should have been wary as soon as I saw it advertised on Amazon as "the amazing true story that gave us Game of Thrones".

Sadly I bought the entire series of novels. I've read the first chapter of the first book ... and frankly cannot face any more. So I think for next Christmas I'll get myself the books, or at least the first one, in the original French. It might prove a bit more heavy going, but at least it might also improve my languange.

Temperance wrote:

Being introduced to Game of Thrones in a minute: I must be the only person in the UK who hasn't watched it.

What is "Game of Thrones" when it is at home? Or this?

In a particular small country, there was a king. He was much beloved of the people, and so they built for him a castle. But they were poor people and could only afford to build it out of grass. So they worked for weeks, and finally completed a lovely woven grass castle for him. And the king was pleased.
Another country, significantly richer than the first, presented a peace offering of an ornate throne. The king accepted this gift graciously and was most pleased. The only trouble was, the throne was very uncomfortable. So the king got himself a more comfortable chair and kept the massive throne in the attic. Naturally, it fell through the floor and killed him.
The moral of this story: People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

I borrowed that one and posted it in Historum, Gil.