Nobody Cares about History

[Casey Pelous]

Looks more like a list of names for race horses.

It really does, but I'd struggle to place a bet on "Fly-fornication Richardson."

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Fly-debate Trump.

 

[Govi]

From Good Omens: Witchfinder General Thou-Shalt-Not-Commit-Adultery Pulsifer also known as Adultery Pulsifer.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Forget about fake scares about fentanyl in Halloween candy -- a real story of poisoned candy at Halloween

The Halloween sweets that poisoned Bradford

How Victorian Britain - and food - was changed forever by a cost-cutting mix-up at a Bradford pharmacy.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Beebo Brink]

Unusual boxes and 7,000-year-old trove found locked in ice - Big Think

There were containers crafted from birch bark, antler ice picks, tools carved from bones, walking sticks, and even a stitched boot. Among the artifacts discovered were also tools fashioned from obsidian, the black glass created by lava flows. Many others are made from materials such as leather, wood, and bone.

 

[Kokoro Fasching]

Proof that Valheim is real!

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Free]

 

[Free]

The lost ancient practice of communal sleep

Until the mid-19th Century, it was completely normal to share a bed with friends, colleagues and even total strangers. How did people cope? And why did we stop?

www.bbc.com

Until the mid-19th Century, it was completely normal to share a bed with friends, colleagues and even total strangers. How did people cope? And why did we stop?

In 1187, a medieval prince slipped into his grand wooden bed, accompanied by a new companion. With a thick mane of auburn hair and strapping frame, Richard the Lionheart was the ultimate macho warrior, renowned for his formidable leadership on the battlefield and knightly conduct. Now he had formed an unexpected friendship with a former enemy – Philip II, who ruled over France from 1180 to 1223.

Initially, the two royals had forged a purely pragmatic alliance. But after spending more time together, eating at the same table and even out of the same dish, they had become close friends. To cement the special relationship between themselves and their two countries, they agreed to a peace treaty – and slept alongside each other, in the same bed.

Despite the modern connotations of two men sharing a bed, at the time this was entirely unremarkable – appearing almost as a casual aside in a contemporary chronicle on the history of England. Long before the expectation of night-time privacy or more recent ideas about manliness, many historians view the two royals' nightly partnership as a sign of trust and brotherhood.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Free your article reminds me of a movie I watched in a high school class called The Lion in Winter. The movie really made an impression on me for a couple of reasons; firstly, it was the first time I was genuinely entertained by an OLD movie (like VERY old, to me, the movie was made in the 60's), especially just a plain drama. Like most kids older movies were just boring and unexciting to me, and while I never complained about getting to watch a movie in school it was very "meh, whatever" most of the time if it was an older movie like this. But this one was different. The movie stars Katherine Hepburn and Peter O'Toole as Eleanor and Henry II and is about this whole extreme love-hate thing they had going on; there was much scheming and backbiting and insulting going on but they were both so happy to be with each other while doing it, and it was honestly hilarious at times. It was the first time I'd seen that kind of character dynamic and I loved it.

Anyway the plot and all their scheming involve their three sons, Richard, Geoffrey (neglected middle child, lol) and John. The second reason the movie made an impression on me was because I was like, "Wait - is that the eventual Richard and John from the Robin Hood stories?" and the answer is yes!, although that has nothing to do with this movie. And another supporting character in the movie as Phillip II, and this brings up the third reason the movie made an impression - I only vaguely recognized Katherine Hepburn but not really any of the other actors in the movie EXCEPT for Richard and Phillip II, who were played by a very young Anthony Hopkins and Richard Dalton - yes THAT Anthony Hopkins and THAT Richard Dalton, and I definitely recognized them. And I found out that this movie was the first major movie role for both of them!

But yeah anyway, at one point in the movie it's not-merely-suggested that Richard and Phillip II had had a gay moment, at least once. And it isn't just mentioned in passing, like it's a focus of conflict and tension in a couple of scenes. Meh whatever, I don't know enough about the historical basis of any of it; but if your article is right about the incident that it mentions, it kind of makes sense to me that incident was where this whole minor plot point must have come from. The movie was based on a play that was also written in the 1960's, so at least by that point whatever had happened between Richard and Phillip was being perceived as romantic, not platonic. It makes me wonder if this was a debated thing and for how long, or whether it was just the author of that play who thought of the incident that way.

 

[Casey Pelous]

... an OLD movie (like VERY old, to me, the movie was made in the 60's), especially just a plain drama. Like most kids older movies were just boring and unexciting to me, and while I never complained about getting to watch a movie in school it was very "meh, whatever" most of the time if it was an older movie like this.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Hey don't worry, I'm closer than you think to kids starting to describe stuff I grew up to with as old

It's the circle of life!

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Hey don't worry, I'm closer than you think to kids starting to describe stuff I grew up to with as old

It's the circle of life!

 

[Beebo Brink]

Free your article reminds me of a movie I watched in a high school class called The Lion in Winter. The movie really made an impression on me for a couple of reasons; firstly, it was the first time I was genuinely entertained by an OLD movie....

I'll fight the impulse to just quietly drift away on an ice floe (assuming there are any ice floes left these days) and say that high-school Cody had good taste. That's a damn good film.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

I'll fight the impulse to just quietly drift away on an ice floe (assuming there are any ice floes left these days) and say that high-school Cody had good taste. That's a damn good film.

It opened my eyes to the reality that movies made before I was born could be really really good which, in my defense, is something that no young person automatically believes, but has to be taught.

After the day we watched that movie, I didn't just automatically skip past the "old stuff" when channel surfing anymore.

 

[Free]

It opened my eyes to the reality that movies made before I was born could be really really good which, in my defense, is something that no young person automatically believes, but has to be taught.

I'll note this is probably more a thing of time and place. I grew up watching movies on TV, on cable and HBO but before then what I could find on UHF channels out of Chicago and (after a family move) Boston, which programmed a lot of nights and weekends with films from the 30s through the 60s. I remember having discussions with my friends at school after we saw Meet Me in St Louis, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (Badges?), Philadelphia Story, various Errol Flynn and Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant films. All kinds of flicks we now think of as classics, and some not so much so. It's what we had available - my parents certainly didn't object to me watching something late on a Saturday night in black & white. How worried could they be about that?

 

[Soen Eber]

Many of the older films were written for grown ups, before they realized teens would watch a movie umpteen thousand times (like I did with Empire Strikes Back ... the back door of the theater was never locked))..