(no subject)

[ricardienne]

I think I need to resign myself to being cranky whenever we start a new era in music history. It isn't so much the over-generalizations or dubious comments on things that bother me so much, like implying that everyone involved in the Wars of the Roses was named Henry,* as it is with the things that are JUST PLAIN WRONG. Like that Henry Tudor became Henry VIII. I suppose it's better that he's given incorrect information about things that aren't actually relevant to the class at all, but in that case, why does he even bother? (And a further NB to the professor: it isn't pronounced "GLOCK-es-ter.)



*I mean, isn't it more like 1/2 Henry, 1/4 Edward, 1/4 Richard, or maybe, 3/7, 2/7, 2/7? Or maybe 3/8, 1/4, 1/4, and 1/8 for people not actually named Henry, Edward, or Richard. I wonder what the proportions actually are, among the major Wars of the Roses players? Or in the Shakespeare plays.

Comments

[angevin2.livejournal.com]

I suppose too that it depends on where you consider the Wars of the Roses to start: are we talking about the actual out-and-out civil war in the 1450s-70s, or the whole Tudor uber-narrative that goes from Richard II to Richard III? Because that affects the ratios considerably (e.g., if you start back at Richard II there are a lot more Henries)... ;)

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Also, a quick check of the Shakespeare plays (before I decided that a thorough investigation was too much effort) reveals that among the people who weren't either kings or major king-wannabes, there are more Thomases and Johns than anyone takes into account.

[existentialgoat.livejournal.com]

GLOCK-es-ter??

That is cringeworthy. Very cringeworthy.

As for the Henry-Richard-Edward ratio, why did neither of us use that for our statistics project way back when?

Edward III had seven sons, my Lord...

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

Well, according to this family tree I made to explain everything to the people in bardcamp one, when we did the eight main histories, the scores are as follows.

[Note I start with Edward III and include everyone in the history plays whose relationship to him I can trace, plus other important historical people, plus some other people mentioned in the plays, plus all their spouses. I was annoyed there wasn't room for Chaucer.]

Richard: 9
Margaret, Henry and Edmund: 8
Edward: 7
John: 6
Elizabeth: 5
Thomas: 4
Joan and Anne:3
Katherine: 2.5*
Ralph, Phillipa, Owen, Isabella, and Eleanor: 2
Alice: 1.5*
Roger, Mary, Lionel, Humphrey, George, Cecily, Blanche and Anthony: 1


* There is apparently historical doubt over the name of Glendower's daughter / Mortimer's wife.

Re: Edward III had seven sons, my Lord...

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

everyone in the history plays whose relationship to him I can trace

Well, OK, trace and fit onto a piece of A1 paper. It's not perfect.

Re: Edward III had seven sons, my Lord...

[ricardienne.livejournal.com]

Oh, thanks!

So it's more like:

Richard: 9/83 ~.11
Margaret, Henry, Edmund: 8/83 ~.10
Edward: 7/83 ~.08
John: 6/83 ~.07
Elizabeth: 5/83 ~.06
Thomas: 4/83 ~.05
Joan, Anne: 3/83 ~.04
Katherine: 2.5/83 ~.03
Ralph, Phillipa, Owen, Isabella, Eleanor: 2/83 ~.02
Alice: 1.5/83 ~.02
Robert, Mary, Lionel, Humphrey, George, Cecily, Blanche, Anthony: 1/83 ~.01

[17catherines.livejournal.com]

Ouch. Sounds like your Prof is a Lancastrian, and a poorly-educated one at that.

And that would drive me nuts, too.

love

Catherine