History Lesson

I've been doing lots of reading and writing recently. In my reading I'm into a book by Winston Churchill, the second volume of a series about the history of England. The other three volumes I do not have, once all four volumes were my parents, who had a lot of books, I remember them being around when I was young. Starting in volume two, or mid-stream, I'm finding that Churchill refers back to the first volume and is writing assuming the reader knows what he's already said.

I really don't remember much from history in school (about the English or otherwise), so that's no help. What is some help is some more recent reading and movie watching. Last year I read a book set in England that covered the period just before 1688 where Churchill's volume 2 begins. I also remember some things that I picked up from some movies, one in particular being Restoration.

The movie depicts a difficult period in England's history. In the years 1665 and 1666, England suffered the ravages of a plague that killed 100,000 people , followed in September 1666, by a fire that destroyed much of London, but however helped to end the plague. (I just wikipedia'd the numbers and googled the movie.) The movie follows the life a of a doctor, played, I thought, brilliantly by Robert Downey, Jr. Eventually, the doctor is brought into the court of the king, Charles II. The story is long and involved and I won't go into it. I will say that I enjoyed the movie but it does depict lots of debauchery (which was germane to the period of history). The title Restoration is somewhat a play on words in that the period of history was called the Restoration, and the doctor experiences a restoration in his own life.

In the book I mentioned, a king was killed and then some other people were in power and they were oppressively religious people. There was something about the queens and I have such a bad memory!

The cover shows a woman wearing a very elaborate gown and pearls, I can't remember the title, I think it might have had the word pearl in it. (Yes, I did several searches and it took several minutes but I finally found it, the book's title is Circle of Pearls. I also refreshed my memory some about the book. I read some on Amazon. Remembering Julia's name, helped, then Julia and Christopher Wren.)

The story is about Julia, starting from her childhood, the member of a wealthy family that opposes the current government and must hide their true colors. Julia's family are wealthy and live on a large estate. In their home they have hidden a gown that belonged to queen Elizabeth. The elaborately made gown was given to Julia's grandmother by the queen and is mentioned throughout the book. Mainly, I think the gown signifies the repressive nature of their enemies who would destroy it if they found it. Such things are considered too worldly. Christopher Wren, a real person is a main character. I knew the name from somewhere, he was an architect, among other interests. The writer does a good job of weaving fiction into history. She includes lots of interesting details about things like embroidery and lace, things which interest me, (anything to do with textiles), but which may be not that interesting to everyone.

If I keep reading this history and historical stuff eventually maybe I'll be able to remember it better. Another book I read, some time ago, a book centered in Holland is somewhat relevant. It covered part of the period of history when Spain occupied Holland. Many people in Holland suffered greatly under the Spanish. I never remember even hearing about that, although it's possible I had just forgotten. The Protestant Reformation which began in Germany had spread to the Netherlands and they were fighting about religion. All of this does have to do with England's history. In 1688, there is a revolution in England that leads to William of Orange (from the Netherlands) becoming king of England.

I wanted to read more about Dutch history after reading that book but couldn't find anything. My memory of that book is rather vague already. I wouldn't mind rereading the book, if I can remember the name of it! I remember what the cover looked like. This was a library book. (Wow! I got lucky searching for this title which I thought would be really difficult. It was called The Sea Beggars, by Cecelia Holland. I found it with just 3 searches.)

So, my book I'm reading, vol. 2, of Churchill's History of England begins with William of Orange already established as king.

Postscript:
Okay, so I looked it up some more of the stuff I couldn't remember, and scanning several wikipedia articles I found out the following. The "king that was killed" was Charles I, beheaded for treason in 1649. Civil war had been fought (two civil wars, 1642-45 and 1648-49) between the royalists (also called Cavaliers) and the parliamentarians, (aka Roundheads). The Roundheads, "the other people in power who were religiously oppressive," were so called because there were many among their number who were puritans that kept their hair cut short. The term Roundhead was derogatory.

Charles I, was the son of James I of England. James followed Elizabeth I (who died without bearing children). Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry VIII. Before Elizabeth reigned her half-brother, Edward VI, and then half-sister, Mary, I, reigned. ("The queens" that I mentioned).

England was briefly under the rule of Oliver Cromwell 1653-58, and then his son, Richard, 58-59, under the title Lord Protector. Before and after their rule, from 49-53 and 59-60 the country was under the rule of a Council of State. The monarchy was restored in 1660 with Charles' son, Charles II.

Whether the Parliamentarians, or Roundheads, were as oppressive as they are depicted in the book I don't know. It sounds like they were. After the civil wars the old allegiances still continued and the two groups were very at odds with each other, disagreeing on religious and political grounds. In the book, the Roundheads seize many of the estates of the royalists under some pretext I don't remember. I suppose that was based on real life.

I was trying to read wikipedia on The House of Orange. It's too complicated! Maybe I'll get back to that another time. I like the sound of the name, it makes me think of the color and the fruit. I wonder if the color has anything to do with the Irish orange. Yes, in Ireland, the color orange stands for Protestant, and comes from William of Orange. Green stands for Catholic. Google and Wikipedia to the rescue again.

Well, one thing leading to another, and although this only connects to anything I've been talking about by a hair, I include it. It's the Irish song, "The wearing of the green," one version of which follows:

O Paddy dear, an' did ye hear the news that's goin' round?
The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground;
St. Patrick's Day no more we'll keep, his colour can't be seen,
For there's a cruel law agin the wearin' o' the Green.

I met wid Napper Tandy and he took me by the hand,
And he said, "How's dear ould Ireland, and how does she stand?"
She's the most distressful country that ever yet was seen,
For they're hangin' men an' women there for the wearin' o' the Green.

Then since the colour we must wear is England's cruel red,
Sure Ireland's sons will ne'er forget the blood that they have shed,
You may take a shamrock from your hat and cast it on the sod,
It will take root and flourish there though underfoot it's trod.

When law can stop the blades of grass from growin' as they grow,
And when the leaves in summer-time their colour dare not show,
Then will I change the colour, too, I wear in my caubeen
But 'till that day, please God, I'll stick to wearin' o' the Green.

But if at last our colour should be torn from Ireland's heart,
Her sons with shame and sorrow from the dear old isle will part;
I've heard a whisper of a land that lies beyond the sea
Where rich and poor stand equal in the light of freedom's day.

O Erin, must we leave you driven by a tyrant's hand?
Must we ask a mother's blessing from a strange and distant land?
Where the cruel cross of England shall nevermore be seen,
And where, please God, we'll live and die still wearin' o' the green!


The land beyond the sea is America. A caubeen was a hat. People supporting revolution wore shamrocks in their hatbands.

General Rant about Movies

I've rented some lame movies lately. If I mention them by name or even discuss them someone might want to go rent one of them. That would be a waste of time. On the other hand I've read some interesting books. I like both genres, but sometimes I just want to sit back and watch a movie. I guess it's hard for movie makers to constantly and consistently come out with good stuff. I guess. But some of the movies I've seen lately, I don't know why anyone would have wanted to make them.

I've seen a couple of movies that I could describe as good but deeply disturbing also. One of the movies I rented was good in parts but really stupid in parts. I'm afraid the stupid outweighed anything very meaningful. The movies featured actors who I have enjoyed watching in the past, who have acting talent. They did a decent job given the scripts, but their talents seem to be going to waste. I guess I could mention names here but I'm reluctant still.

As for disturbing movies. I think there is a place for them. Sometimes things happen in this world that are very difficult. People make movies about those things. Crimes of all kinds are such a frequent subject. I'm being quite vague intentionally. When you know that a story is based on real life, it's more upsetting. But I wonder if we aren't often jaded by exposure to so much of that.

Curiously, I've watched a whole lot of movies about the holocaust. That's a disturbing subject. But I usually seem to enjoy them. I can't explain it. Maybe its that Jews know how to tell a good story. Not always. I don't think that's it. I could name a really stupid movie here but I won't.

I'm wanting to rent a movie. I've been renting from Red Box, because it's so inexpensive. But the selection, at least at the moment is also limited. And I don't really want to watch another of the sort that I've been describing. Even comedies have been rather disappointing. I can't think when I've found a movie really funny, the kind of movie that caused me to laugh out loud watching.

Sometimes I have enjoyed movies done by Christian film makers. Sometimes I enjoy them. Sometimes not. I saw one in the Red Box and didn't choose it. Later when I decided to give it a try it wasn't there anymore.

I guess I could go read a book.

Movies

I went to see the movie "Billy, the Early Years" today. It's about Billy Graham.

I thought it was a pretty good movie, not great, but good. It is interesting to think of what a young Billy was like. Somehow the way he was portrayed reminded me of some young men I have known. Very high energy, opinionated, eager... a bit "in your face". I think it was worthwhile to see it, and probably better for me than some of the movies I have seen. A bit like eating healthy rather than french fries or something. I have found myself thinking about it, that seems like a good sign when that happens, that I think about it later.

Maybe I always think about movies later, I'm not sure. Garbage in, garbage out, and the opposite it true, too.

Yesterday, I watched "October Sky" on TV. It is a movie about a young man in a small West Virginia coal mining town who dreams of having a better life - how he wins the science fair and gets to go to college. Since my dad is from a small WV coal mining town it interested me just for that reason. I think it's good because you see how a person overcomes other people's low expectations of him, and his father's discouraging words, and achieves his dreams.

Billy, also has that element in it. Several people in the movie tell him that he'll never amount to anything, or that he isn't going anywhere. And he really wasn't trying to be anybody extraordinary...

Super hero - Iron Man

I like movies.

I just went to see Iron Man the other night. I enjoyed it, although I could say that there were some objectionable elements to the storyline. Maybe I should have been more offended. I'm not sure if the story would have been better without the womanizing aspects. At the start, the "hero" of the story is a jaded, womanizing weapons manufacturer following in the footsteps of his father, who founded the company he now runs. Then he is kidnapped and realizes that his weapons might be being used for evil purposes. (Duh?)

We learn that he is a mathematical and scientific genius, and has at least a bit of a tender heart while he invents a means of escape from his captivity.

I loved the bits where the hero uses his invention a suit/machine to fly. I guess it is a common fantasy, to imagine what it would be like to fly, to just jump into the air and go, as fast and far as you wanted. Watching him fly gave me a giddy feeling. And he seems to genuinely want to right the wrongs that have been done by his company/ and his soon to be discovered turncoat employee.

With his change of heart and renewed sense of purpose comes an interest in his female assistant who he apparently has largely taken for granted until now.

The movie has a comic book sensibility, with a bit of James Bond. The comic book hero drama touches on current reality, at the moment our fears about the conflicts in the Middle East, but it does it by moving into a symbolic, fantasy realm. Perhaps the super-hero represents a wish that we have, to just jump in and "fix it", if we could be smart enough and powerful enough.