▲ 47 points
back
21 comments
That's pretty cool.
Edward I was the "bad guy" in Braveheart. As always, things tend to be more complex than we want to believe.
My father[0] was a really interesting chap. He was deeply steeped in diplomacy and foreign relations, and would gently correct me, every time I made some absolutist statement ("They should just..."). He'd point out that, in our culture, it's OK for us to say this, but when we say the same thing in their culture, it actually means... etc.
> Edward I was the "bad guy" in Braveheart. As always, things tend to be more complex than we want to believe.
Braveheart was criticized for many historical inaccuracies (my personal favorite is the scene near the end when Isabella of France tells Edward I that the child she will have, who will inherit the English throne, is by Wallace, not Edward's son--which couldn't possibly be true since, first, Edward II didn't even marry Isabella until after his father Edward I was dead, and second, Edward III, who succeeded Edward II, wasn't born until 1312, seven years after William Wallace died). However, it is true that Edward I had William Wallace hanged, drawn, and quartered for treason against England. (Which, since Scotland was a separate kingdom from England at the time, does seem a bit much.)
I think that Longshanks' claim to fame, is that he united a much larger part of the British Isles, than anyone before.
That is usually done with a fair bit of brutality, as anyone that has looked past the rose-colored glasses, at the Roman Empire, can tell you.
Quite true, but it's worth noting that Longshanks did not succeed in unifying Scotland with England. (He did conquer Wales before he invaded Scotland, which was certainly a significant unification.) What eventually unified Scotland with England was dynastic turnover (James VI of Scotland succeeding Elizabeth I to the throne of England), not war. (Although the unification did end up being enforced by war in the 1700s.)
> That is usually done with a fair bit of brutality
Kicking out the Jews as an example. I know you probably know I just feel like it's worth having down in print here.
If I remember, it wasn't the usual Jew hatred thing. I think it was as pedestrian as he owed money.
Oh yeah that was the move at the time: tax and borrow from the Jews. The Jews are not citizens, they are the personal possession of the king not unlike swans and I think deer. Then yeah just kick em out when it's time to pay them back. I have to imagine something similar happened with other moneyed foreigners at some time like your Lombards.
If you like semi-ancient pillars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_and_Holy_Trinity_column...
If you like ancient-ancient pillars:
TIL how "Charing Cross" got its name. I always just thought "Cross" as in crossing - as in lots of streets crossing.
The Charing Cross, erm, cross is marvellous and yet so badly situated, the mind boggles. My ex-girlfriend was a tour guide and filled me in on it about twenty-five years ago and NOTHING has improved.
Look at where it is on the satellite image:
I'm not sure what you mean, but it's not the original location (or design) according to the OP.
It has been there since 1865 though, so if you think it's awkward wrt the infrastructure that's developed since then really it's the other way around and I'm not sure who you expected to do what over the last 25y? Or am I missing a joke?
It’s a replica, for sure, but it is still a commemorative monument, and it was specifically commissioned by the railway company and restored about fifteen years ago, with some bollards added to protect it from cars, but it’s forlorn and feels neglected sat shielded by the railing and then across a car park. I was leaning against it a few months ago waiting for a friend, lamenting that so much of London’s heritage and history gets so much attention and this poor thing is almost designed to be ignored.
Oh I see - I didn't understand that you liked it but thought it would be better appreciated elsewhere from your first comment.
I think I'd argue that's at least partly due to changed attitudes about railway stations. In 1865 I think it would've seemed grander and more prominent, more of a presence while bustling about between horse-drawn and train carriage, calling a porter, etc.; today's stations themselves are not grand, we bustle in broadly the same ways but perhaps more busily, heads in phones, between machinery that moves more quickly, and what was perhaps once a fairly open free for all semi-square is not, from memory, a taxi rank and a road divided by the cross?
Very true, the railway fell from prominence but in the last twenty years, London has been seriously revamping its stations to possibly recapture some of that old, well, prestige and glamour are probably overstating the drive, but certainly to make them more useful, robust, commercial and extract more from every square foot.