Alison Weir’s Innocent Traitor

I know it seems a little late to look at a book that was published last year, but I finished reading Alison Weir’s novel, Innocent Traitor a few weeks ago and loved it! I definitely think that its one of those books you just can’t put down and even though I knew that the novel would end with the execution Lady Jane Grey, Weir still makes it incredibly poignant. I did read it from the perspective of someone who didn’t really know the details of this period – I knew the story of her nine days reign after the death of Edward VI and her subsequent execution, but that’s about it. Perhaps it’s a bad idea to read a novel to fill in these details as it can be hard to distinguish between the fact and the fiction, but I really think it is a great read from both a historical and a non-historical perspective and it definitely encouraged me to look up the lives of the figures involved.

As I was reading it, I did feel that John Dudley Duke of Northumberland did come across as the basic villain of the story, the cause of Jane’s death, as the chapters accounting the story from his perspective seem quite narrative and don’t seem to give much insight into his thoughts and feelings about his actions. To some extent, of course, this is justified, as the story is clearly sympathetic to Lady Jane Grey due to her innocence and so to her, Northumberland may have appeared the villain. Again this villain-like ruthlessness is apparent in Jane’s mother, , who is cruel to Jane throughout. However, Weir allows us to see some humanity in Frances Brandon when she reveals some real sadness at the prospect of her daughter’s execution and I think this touch seems to complete her character.

I lie here punishing myself with remorse. I have been a harsh mother, when I could have been kinder and more understanding. I can see it now, with the benefit of hindsight and the clarity that follows misfortune and grief. What crucifies me especially is the knowledge that there is no way in way in which I can make reparation to my daughter, no way that she will ever be able to extend to me the forgiveness that I crave. I can only pray for god’s mercy.

Another figure I thought was wonderfully portrayed was Catherine Parr, with her strength of character and intelligence, feeling real fondness for and supporting King Henry viii in his final days, narrowly escaping his anger at her religious views, her love and support for Lady Jane Grey and her actions on discovering her husband’s secret seduction of Princess Elizabeth. I found her character fascinating and I’m planning to read more about her, so far beginning with Antonia Fraser’s The Six wives of Henry VIII.

The final aspect of this book that interested me was the suggestion that Lady Jane’s solid Protestant faith caused her to accept her fate of execution even though Queen Mary gave her chances to convert to Catholicism and so be pardoned. This portrays her less so as a poor innocent naïve young girl who was forced to become queen and then ruthlessly executed, but more as a martyr for her faith who understood the dangers that Mary’s becoming queen would create for Protestants throughout the country. I did like this interpretation as I’ve always worried that our sympathy for her fate at such a young age blinds us to her true intentions and beliefs.

I really enjoyed the novel and I highly recommend it and now I’m just waiting to read her next novel, The Lady Elizabeth.

Russell Crowe and Sienna Miller in Robin Hood remake

It seems all of my favorite literary figures are being remade into films at the moment! My two top characters for historical entertainment are Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood and now, it was announced today that Sienna Miller is to star as Maid Marian in a remake of Robin Hood, called Nottingham. She said:

It’s happening. I just found out. It’s the most exciting news in the world. It’s ridiculous. But there’s this looming actor’s strike, so it’s not 100% sure that it’s going to be made, but it’s looking pretty certain.

She will star alongside Russell Crowe as the Sheriff of Nottingham and the film will be directed by Sir Ridley Scott, who worked with Crowe on Gladiator, so the film does have its share of big names. It’s apparently going to be from the sheriff’s perspective, focusing on a love triangle between Maid Marian, Robin Hood and the Sheriff, and casting Robin himself as the villain. I think this is an interesting take on it, that doesn’t just stick to the stereotype that’s been remade over and over again and so far it looks like it’s got a little more promise than the Sherlock Holmes film. Although that’s probably just because Sherlock Holmes seems sacred once you’ve actually read the stories as opposed to Robin Hood who’s origins are open to interpretation.

Again, I’ll try to reserve judgment till its out, but its looking good so far!

Tony Robinson’s Crime and Punishment

I thought I’d highlight a good history series I’ve been enjoying on channel 4, Tony Robinson’s Crime and Punishment, which is on at 7pm on Sundays. The series deals with the laws of Great Britain, how they were made and how they were enforced. He doesn’t go into huge depth on every issue he covers and, being Tony Robinson, he does present the show in a pretty quirky way, being prepared to dress up and act out the points he’s making. Clearly, if you don’t really like Tony Robinson as a presenter, his antics might be irritating, but generally I think he makes it quite entertaining. I also generally like this type of programme, dealing with a big issue and tracking it through history, instead of just focusing on one period in depth, and this gives the viewer a broader picture.

I also like the links that he makes between events and themes in history and current affairs, which I particularly noticed on last Sunday’s episode, prompting me to write this post. These links really made me realise the extent to which the themes and ideas that caused laws to be made in the past, are reflected in modern society, sometimes very vividly and because links are made to events we are familiar with, it encouraged me to start looking up the events mentioned. I’ll give a few examples of these links.

Dealing with the Tudor and Stuart periods, an interesting link was made between the work of Thomas More in promoting the concept of free speech and how free speech has triumphed in British society today. However, the point was also made that our political freedom seems to have taken a step backwards when the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was passed, banning all unlicensed protests in parliament square, which so affected anti-war protester Brian Haw who has been living in his peace camp permanently protesting since 2001. Tony Robinson does make clear his opinions on this subject and certainly doesn’t hold a neutral view, but he does open some interesting questions on how free we perceive our society to be.

He also takes the catholic extremism of Guy Fawkes and other conspirators in trying to blow up parliament in the gunpowder plot of 1605 and makes the link between this and the recent problems of Islamic extremism, specifically the London 7/7 bombings. The point is made that as in both these cases, the state of national emergency can cause groups of society to be under suspicion and civil liberties to be lost. After both of these cases of terrorism, oppressive laws were passed, in 1603, to further persecute Catholics, and in 2005, to give the police more power to control the population. In this way it is argued that national emergency can cause human rights to be eroded and people to be alienated, and this alienation can cause extremism to thrive.

In a democratic country, a balance needs to be established between protecting people and giving them their freedom, although in reality this balance is never really fixed. It’s much more like a pendulum wildly swinging between freedom and protection as events change. I don’t think there’s much doubt that most people in this country today would think of themselves as on the free side of the pendulum but the laws that were passed after the events of 9/11 and 7/7 did change things. But was this just a brief and temporary adjustment of the pendulum or the start of something much more sinister.

The swinging of this pendulum slightly too far away from freedom towards protection, when we’re not in a state of national emergency, is particularly relevant to us now, as last week the maximum time police can hold terror suspects was increased to 42 days, after a commons vote. This triggered the resignation of David Davis from Parliament who said, ‘we’ll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days…In truth, 42 days is just one – perhaps the most salient example – of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.’

Another interesting link was made between the trial and execution of King Charles I after the English Civil War and the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein as a result of the War in Iraq. The King refused to accept the authority of those prosecuting him and refused to plead, saying ‘I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority…?’ So did Saddam Hussein, ‘I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect to its people, and I retain my constitutional right as the president of Iraq. Neither do I recognize the body that has designated and authorized you, nor the aggression because all that has been built on false basis is false.’ This all links back to the question of who has the right to rule, a subject that could be debated forever.

I definitely recommend the programme – although it doesn’t go into great depth, it touches on interesting subjects and makes good links, which encourages a bit of extra historical googling – and of course Tony Robinson makes it pretty entertaining anyway.

Food of the 1970s at its best

‘The Supersizers go…1970s’ was great fun and made a big change from the previous programmes which have mostly dealt with pretty tasteless, meaty, unhealthy food. Quite the opposite was the problem this week as Giles and Sue conclude that the 70s was a decade of unnecessary meddling with food and drink. It was probably more of a nostalgia episode for a lot of people, but was still fascinating for those of us who didn’t experience the 70s.

The first thing that strikes you when they survey their ingredients for the week is that there is practically nothing fresh – everything’s tinned, boil in the bag or dehydrated as they describe:

The 70s was the decade when our post war belief in the power of science and technology to improve our quality of life reached new levels.
With 57 percent of former housewives at work, a boom in convenience foods led scientists to use increasingly synthetic ingredients as Britain fell in love with the TV dinner.

First meal together

• Boil in the bag fish
• Faggots
• Crispy pancakes
• Smash
• tinned vegetables
• Butterscotch Angel Delight
• Banana custard
• Arctic roll

The idea that technology could solve everything, with the popularity of devices such as the sodastream and the teasmade, did last of rhte next few decades. It only seems ot be in the last ten years that everyone has turned to the other extreme, loving only organic fresh and natural ingredients. The dangers of additives and preservatives didn’t seem to be recognised in the 70s as is demonstrated hilariously when Giles and Sue go to a sweet shop to experience what kids were eating at the time.

1 in 4 children were at risk of false teeth by the time they were 20.
Long before 20th century killjoys suggested that chocolate fags might encourage smoking, 70s kids could spark up in peace.

The two end the week with a cocktail party and some of Fanny Cradock’s recipes are used, demonstrating how complex, strange and disgusting 70s party food could be. Some of the food is nice however – as health and fat content were not issues, everything is full-blown, high-fat, high-sugar and full of flavour. The cocktails are also large, colourful and very very alcoholic. Giles is guided by Len Deighton’s Action Cook Book, which recommends the host to allow enough alcohol for each guest to drink half a bottle of spirits in two hours and three quarters of a bottle for each subsequent two hours ‘as drinking will increase if they haven’t gone home by then’.

Party food

• Twiglets
• Ritz cracker Hors D’oeuvres
• Cheese and pineapple
• Coronation chicken vol-au-vents
• Avocado and prawns
• Swedish birds nest (herbs, capers, raw onion, anchovy fillets and cold potatoes topped with raw eggs)
• Steak tartare
• Haddock mousse
• Fish sandwich cake
• Roast chicken with green mash potato
• Salmon and cucumber mould with Liebfraumilch jelly

Dessert

• Black forest gateau
• Cheesecake
• Cheese board
• Baked Alaska

There was an interesting conclusion at the end of the programme as it is clear that there was something exciting and interesting about 70s food as it was so full-on, excessive, colourful and stimulating. I completely agree, as I think a lot of people are quite fed up with the culture nowadays of sipping skinny soy lattés and nibbling on low-fat, whole grain, sugar-free cereal bars. Giles sums it up perfectly and puts in a nutshell the attitude to food in the 1970s compared to today.

Restaurants now are so restrained and minimalist and elegant and everyone drinks water and has the odd little glass of wine and they don’t really bother with pudding and everything’s very small…
Oh, come on! Let’s have a huge Liebfraumilch spritzer with blue Curacao in it and a massive cake! Let’s set the main course on fire! I don’t want sushi, I want to slosh it in brandy, set light to it and throw it across the room – wear a massive pair of flares, smoke a fat cigar and have a huge cocktail!

St Paul’s Cathedral bomb and the George Cross

Today I visited the Imperial War Museum London, where I looked around most of the exhibits but I specifically looked through the Victoria Cross and George Cross gallery, which is a small section of the museum that is often missed by visitors. Although it doesn’t boast any large exciting weaponry exhibits, it consists of a large collection of the many Victoria and George crosses given to people throughout the wars of the late 19th century and 20th century and fascinating accounts of the bravery that earned people these crosses.

The centrepiece of the display is the 13-pounder ‘Nery’ gun and the three VC’s won by its crew during the Battle of Mons. The stories of Boy First Class Jack Cornwell, Lieutenant J D Smyth (later Brigadier the Rt Hon Sir John Smyth), Corporal Charles Garforth, Group Captain Leonard Cheshire and other First and Second World War VC’s are told.
Among the George Crosses are those won by resistance hero Wing Commander FF Yeo-Thomas, the ‘White Rabbit’, and by Lieutenant Robert Davies, who saved St. Paul’s Cathedral by defusing a bomb which fell close by during the Blitz.
Related exhibits include a telescope used by Lieutenant Augustus Agar VC and a beret belonging to Colonel ‘H’ Jones VC.

The story of the defusing of a bomb that almost destroyed St Paul’s cathedral in 1940 was something I had never read about before and so I wanted to find out more. Lieutenant Robert Davies was born in Cornwall in 1900 and immigrated to Canada during the First World War, serving in the Canadian army. He returned to England in 1940, joining the Royal Engineers and it was on September 12th 1940 that he showed great courage diffusing a bomb that had fallen during the night in the vicinity of St Paul’s cathedral. The bomb took several days to dig up as it was lodged thirty feet deep in Deans yard and a fractured gas line made this even more dangerous. George Cameron Wylie was another member of the team that diffused the bomb and he was also awarded the George Cross. From the London Gazette 27th September 1940:

Lieutenant Davies was the officer in charge of the party detailed to recover the bomb which fell in the vicinity of St. Paul’s Cathedral.
So conscious was this officer of the imminent danger to the Cathedral that regardless of personal risk he spared neither himself nor his men in their efforts to locate the bomb. After unremitting effort, during which all ranks knew that an explosion might occur at any moment, the bomb was successfully extricated.
In order to shield his men from further danger, Lieutenant Davies himself drove the vehicle in which the bomb was removed and personally carried out its disposal.

The bomb was removed and finally detonated in the Hackney Marshes where it left a crater 100 feet wide so it is clear how close the cathedral came to complete destruction. The fact that this monumental building survived the blitz caused it to become an icon to inspire the determination of the people of London during the war. From the cathedral website:

St Paul’s Cathedral became an inspiration to the British people during the Second World War. The general population were subjected to the might of the German airforce’s ’Blitzkrieg’ attack on major cities across the UK. Throughout the ’Blitz’, St Paul’s miraculously escaped major bomb damage whilst buildings in the surrounding areas were reduced to rubble. Images of St Paul’s framed by the smoke and fire caused by the bombing became a symbol of the nation’s indomitable spirit.

I also found a fascinating first hand account from John Lindsay Thomas who was at St Paul’s cathedral the morning after the bombing on the BBC WW2 people’s war archive.

But not long after I had sat there, munching my sandwiches, when I suddenly noticed an approaching figure in the shape of a London “bobby” who was making swiftly in my direction!
“What are you doing here, sir?”, he said. “Didn’t you see the barrier tapes?”
“Yes”, I admitted, “but nothing seemed to be happening and so I thought it was just some kind of leftover.”
“Well, he said, you could call it that.” “Actually it’s a 2,000-pound unexploded bomb and you are almost sitting on top of it.” “If it goes up, it’ll take most of the Cathedral with it – as well as you !”
Needless to say, I thanked him roundly, apologised and left.
Within just a few hours afterwards, that same “UXB” had been partially defused and winched to the surface by either an Army or Naval Bomb Disposal unit, from its deep position alongside the Cathedral foundations. It was then driven, I believe by a solitary driver, on the back of a truck, through The City
and East End of London and out to Hackney Marshes where it was “blown up”. Sheer nerve and outright dedication come no higher in my esteem than that!

I think it’s sometimes more powerful to read true stories about real people and see real artefacts connected to them instead of just viewing objects from some unknown time and place during the wars. Also the sheer volume of accounts in this exhibit is incredible, considering these are only people whose bravery was actually recognised with a Victoria or a George cross – think how many more there must have been! There are many fascinating and moving accounts of extreme bravery to be read in this exhibit – almost too many to read all of them – so if you do visit the imperial war museum, this section mustn’t be missed.

The British Curry

Here’s another post sparked by the brilliance of last Tuesday’s ‘The Supersizers go… Victorian’, where Giles and Sue were transformed into a wealthy middle class couple, with Giles’ thriving manufacturing business, to test the diet of the time. Again it was a very meaty and fatty diet, but not on last week’s scale and the two did explore other aspects of Victorian life such as Darwin’s diet, a gentlemen’s club, a dinner party, where again Sue got quite drunk, a soup kitchen, cycling, pub life and the temperance movement. Their last day of the week was a simulated Christmas, showing how the Victorian era created the traditional Christmas we still have today.

One of the things that interested me this week was when Giles goes for 3 hour lunch at a the Oriental gentlemen’s club, established in 1824 for returning servants of the empire. Here he tastes the curry that would have been served at the time. However, it is said to be pretty disgusting as the only thing that was done to make it curry rather than just stew, was to add raw curry paste and powder. The meal was based on the recipes of Richard Terry, who was chef de cuisine at the club but had never been to India. It’s clear that this curry didn’t really do the trick and it took some years for British chefs to get the hang of it.

The menu:

• Beef curry
• Rabbit curry
• Vegetable curry
• Club claret
• Bakewell pudding

The spicy dishes discovered by the British in India became known as curry and increased in popularity spreading throughout Britain. The earliest reference to the Indian curry was in ‘The Art of Cookery’ by Hannah Glasse published in 1747 reflecting how British tastes, following those of the employees of the East India Company, had developed over these years to welcome the spicier flavours of the empire.

At the height of the empire, the popularity of foreign foods like curry was encouraged and so spread, until curry (if not perfect) was being served in gentlemen’s clubs as experienced by Giles. He describes how

Queen Victoria hated all things spicy, but as empress of India she is said to have insisted that the royal kitchen prepare a curry every day of the year in case visiting Orientals should drop by.

Nevertheless it did take some years before curry became the national dish it is today, especially with the increase in immigration from the Indian subcontinent to Britain in the 20th century, the flourishing curry houses and the adaptation of recipes to suit British growing appetite for spicy food. The creation of coronation chicken in 1953 to celebrate the crowning of Elizabeth II was another step in extending curry to the wider population and now curry seems to have reached its height in the British diet with the popularity of Chicken Tikka Masala – a dish unlike anything found in India.

Again, this programme is available on iPlayer and the next programme is at 9pm on BBC2 on Tuesday and this week it’s the 1970s so I’m wondering whether this one will be enjoyed more by those who lived through that decade. We’ll have to see.

Guy Ritchie to direct new Sherlock Holmes film

As an avid fan of Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, I was really excited to read about the upcoming film adaptation, to be directed by Guy Ritchie. It’s planned to be released in 2010 and apparently is not going to be based on any of Conan Doyle’s stories, but on a currently unreleased comic book by Lionel Wigram. There isn’t much information about this yet but the film is described as removing some of Holmes” “Victorian stuffiness,” and “including playing up his skills as a bare-knuckle boxer and expert swordsman.” It’s clear they want to update Sherlock Holmes and make him more ‘adventuresome’ for a more action-packed movie.

Now I don’t want to rubbish the idea without giving it a chance (I just can’t help myself), but I do wonder whether what makes Sherlock Holmes so popular is his inherent Englishness, witty dialogue and deductive skills. And I think we’ve got to remember that the popular perception of Holmes as a stuffy Victorian gentleman isn’t quite true as there are countless gripping and exciting moments in the stories. And these moments of action contrasted with long periods of thought and uncertainty and also Holmes’ loyal and meaningful friendship with Doctor Watson, make them even more enthralling than if the stories were just long explosion-filled shootouts, sword fights and handsome cab chases. I mean the man does wrestle with his arch enemy, Professor Moriarty, push him off the edge of the Reichenbach Falls making Dr Watson believe Holmes is dead in “The Final Problem” and then return in disguise three years later, making Dr Watson faint in “The Empty House”. Isn’t that enough action?

 

 What I don’t want them to lose in this adaptation is the sort of things that make me love Sherlock Holmes so much. He seems a cold hard man but has a strong underlying friendship with Dr Watson and in ‘The Adventure of the Three Garridebs’, he believes Watson has been shot and nearly panics, showing his emotion for the first time and when he realises Watson isn’t badly hurt, says “If you had killed Watson, you would not have got out of this room alive.”. Watson writes afterwards,

It was worth a wound—it was worth many wounds—to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation.

It is this poignant depth of character alongside just the right amount of action that makes Conan Doyle’s stories so remarkable and popular and I just really hope this isn’t lost.

I know it probably seems like I want to keep the character of Sherlock Holmes the same as the one I know and love, but I just hope they can add action and excitement to the film, introducing the stories to a wider audience, while retaining Conan Doyle’s beautifully original depth of character. I reckon this might be one of those films that’s enjoyed more by people who haven’t read all the books so I’ll try to reserve judgment till I get more information. Anyway, it’s nice to see someone taking up the Sherlock Holmes character again and I’m almost surprised that nobody’s thought of doing it before.

John Evelyn and the Restoration diet

I thought I’d write something about a great programme I saw last week on BBC 2, ‘The Supersizers go…Restoration’, where Giles Coren and Sue Perkins go back to the 17th century to experience the typical diet of the time. They did go ‘wartime’ the week before, but I thought last week’s was particularly good as they experience a little-known period in history and the programme brought up loads of fascinating information about British culinary history.

We see Giles and Sue eat huge amounts of meat, including heart, coxcombs, tongue, caul (the amniotic sack of a calf) and plenty of other bits of animal, hardly any vegetables and no water. Water in London at the time was undrinkable so people just drank beer and wine all day. For this reason the programme mainly consists of watching the two get pretty drunk, which is hilarious anyway, but there were a couple of things touched upon that really interested me.

Feeling very ill from all the meat, Giles and Sue are finally able to consume some vitamins when they go to Covent Garden to have a vegetarian meal. It’s said that vegetables generally were distrusted in the 17th century as they were thought indigestible and ‘even the poor preferred bread and sold their turnips for cattle feed’. I also think it’s pretty likely, judging from the meaty diet of the rich shown in the programme, that these wealthy households wanted to display their wealth and so only served the most expensive meats possible. Vegetables, being cheap and widely available by all, were certainly not fit for the rich. However, the health benefits of vegetables slowly began to be acknowledged due to the work of famous writer, gardener and diarist, John Evelyn. Born in 1620, he began to write vegetarian recipe books to try to educate people about the dangers of a vegetable-free diet, and the meal eaten by Giles and Sue is taken from these books.

The menu consisted of:

• A city sallet
• 1 hour boiled mushrooms
• Pickled samphire
• Carrot pudding
• Lettuce

Which is breath of fresh air from their other menus, for example:

• Hash (ground beef)
• Tongue pie
• Lobsters
• Buttered Crab
• Snowe Cream (whipped egg white)
• Larded Pigeon
• Mince Pies
• Peas (with cockscomb)

Interestingly, Evelyn wrote the first salad book ever written in the English language, ‘Acetaria: A Discourse of Sallets’, published in 1699, in which he defines salad as 

A particular Composition of certain Crude and fresh herbs, such as usually are, or may safely be eaten with some Acetous Juice, Oyl, Salt, &c. to give them a grateful Gust and Vehicle.

If you’re interested in old recipes, this book can be downloaded or read online here.

John Evelyn believed that his wife’s unhealthy diet caused her early death and he was probably right as when Giles goes to the clinic to check how the week’s diet as effected his health, he is told that eating such a high intake of fat and protein for a long period of time would make the risk of cancer much higher. So the work of John Evelyn in promoting a vegetarian diet made a great improvement in people’s health and knowledge of nutrition and the increasingly thriving vegetable market at Covent Garden must validate his work. Of course, there are other factors that contributed to the acknowledgement of the health benefits of vegetables, with other writers such as Thomas Tryon, and I also found some interesting information about how religious sects to dislike the idea of killing animals for food and vegetarianism as a life choice began to gain popularity.

I find it fascinating that such a huge necessity in the human diet could have been dismissed as unhealthy for such a long time, and also how quickly these ideas were turned around with the realisations of men such as John Evelyn.
‘The Supersizers go…Restoration’ can still be viewed on BBC iPlayer, but only for a few more days. The next programme in the series, which deals with the diet of the Victorian era, is on tonight at 9pm on BBC 2. As well as being historically fascinating, these programmes are also hilarious and I highly recommend them.