History as she iz rememberized

On the school run I get to listen (oh joy) to our local commercial radio station Heart FM, the replacement for the sadly missed GWR. (That's on the way to school - on the way back I can flip over to the Today programme on Radio 4.)

For all Heart's faults (do they really buy bulk rights to certain tracks cheap? they always seem to play the same 10 songs for weeks at a time), they have a quite entertaining breakfast duo in the matey sounding Jez and Roo, inherited from GWR. This pair have a good line in banter, but this morning demonstrated a worrying lack of grasp of history.

They were celebrating the fact that the Tatler magazine is apparently 300 years old, and wondering about the contents of the first edition. This would make it 1709, remember. Amongst the suggestions were that the latest fashion accessory would be a crossbow, and that hot celebrities would include Napoleon and the subjects of assorted witch burnings.

Napoleon wasn't born until 1769, so that would be prescient indeed. The crossbow had long been replaced by guns. And the last execution for witchcraft in England (where witches were hanged, not burned) was in the 17th century. All in all, they couldn't have got it more wrong if they'd tried. Now, okay, it was just a bit of fun, but what saddens me is that they couldn't invest five minutes effort into researching what was around in 1709 - something any teenager could do with Google without breaking a sweat - which would have enabled them to come up with equally amusing but chronologically sensible suggestions. It's lazy and pig ignorant.

However, one thing I did like. They suggested each magazine came with a free peasant on the cover, which I find a rather delightful concept.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog