Saturday and Sundry Drama Series

During the past few evenings we've been time travelling - in mind only - as we watched two drama series, set in 17th and 18th century England.

Amazon Prime enticed us to watch, first, three seasons of the 2015 version of Poldark currently on offer, which I supplemented with a DVD of season 4. Season 5 (said to be the last) is still in production.

Poldark is set in the late 1700s, after the end of the American War of Independence, from which our hero, Ross Poldark returns as the tale begins. Ross Poldark is played by Aidan Turner with just the right blend of swashbuckling sweetness and a touch of the enigmatic. The setting is beautiful Cornwall, near Truro, in the far south-west of England. The series' female lead, playing Demelza, in true "My Fair Lady" tradition, is Eleanor Tomlinson.

I've been so taken with the story that I've now started on Winston Graham's set of Poldark novels, upon which this TV series, as well as an earlier one in the mid-1970s, were based.

The series has romance, politics, everyday life in 18th century Cornwall and London, human foibles and enigmas, with intervals of action and adventure. There's a satisfyingly evil villain of the tale, wonderfully played by Jack Farthing as George Warleggan. Coincidentally, we'd just watched Jack Farthing in a really whacky comedy series, Blandings, in a role which could hardly have been more different from that of George Warleggan. For an excellent example of a truly versatile actor, just take a look at Jack's performances in an episode of both Blandings and Poldark!

 Jack Farthing as George Warleggan

 Jack Farthing as upper-class twit Freddie

I suppose Poldark could be seen as a very well-done, well-acted and well-presented historical soap opera but really, it's much more than that.

The older 1975 series sounds, from what I've read of it, to be a little different in tone and detail from this more recent version. Perhaps in some ways it was nearer to the novel, but perhaps in some other ways not as true to the novel's basic intent and flavour. I won't know this until I find a way to watch the older version, and have read several of the novels. I intend to do both.

After we finished Poldark, I spied a dramatised version, aired in 2000/2001, of Lorna Doone at Amazon Prime. There had been an earlier version of this story too, in the mid-1970s.

I'd had a vague, and mistaken, idea that the story is set in Scotland ("Ye banks and braes o' bonny Doon...."). It isn't, it's set in the Devonshire/Somerset area of south-west England, a little to the north and east of Poldark's Cornwall. It is an adaptation of a novel by Richard D. Blackmore, published in 1869. There is a link to Scotland but one that isn't explored in this short (3 episode) TV series. Any link to Scotland relates to a time before the Lorna Doone plot begins, when the once aristocratic Doone family, were stripped of their ancient Scottish lands and heritage. Reasons are left untold, but I'd like to know! The Doones moved to an area of Devonshire near Exmoor which became known as Doone Valley. The clan turned into outlaws, frightening, pillaging, burning and killing local farmers and villagers. Our hero and narrator, in Lorna Doone is John Ridd, a yeoman farmer, whose father was killed by the dreaded Doone gang. When both were children, John met Lorna without knowing her family background....Romeo, Juliet an' all that! But there's more, with a bit of 17th century British history thrown in!

Lorna Doone is a much shorter series, and therefore the tale is more rushed than Poldark's, more detailed and leisurely telling, but it's still a worthwhile watch. It could well serve as an introduction to a classic British novel. Lorna Doone was originally shown as a 3 hour TV film, now arranged into 3 episodes for Amazon Prime. Here's the starry cast list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorna_Doone_(2001_film)

I'd recommend both series as good ways to leave behind the cares of 2019, Trump, Brexit et al and do a bit of mental time travelling. It serves to remind us that though we do have problems in 2019, they are not nearly as severe as those many of our ancestors had to face.

Happy Birthday L.A. !

Los Angeles, California, was founded on September 4, 1781, by Spanish governor Felipe de Neve, so - Happy Birthday to L.A.! The city will be 237 years old today. It became a part of Mexico in 1821 following the Mexican War of Independence. In 1848, at the end of the Mexican–American War, Los Angeles and the rest of California were purchased as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, thereby becoming part of the United States. Los Angeles was incorporated as a municipality on April 4, 1850, five months before California achieved statehood.

L.A. is the second-most populous city in the United States, after New York City, and the most populous city in the Western United States. With an estimated population of four million. (Wikipedia.)

Once upon a time though, it looked like this:




More recently:










While Sun in Virgo doesn't immediately say "Los Angeles", Neptune conjunct Venus in the Venus-ruled sign of Libra does...it fits it to a "T"! Neptune = dreams, creativity, film-making. Venus = the arts. Could there be any more appropriate signature for L.A./Hollywood? The USA can be criticised on many fronts, but the country has led the way in film-making, and has given us a treasure trove of iconic movies. Also, astrologically, with Pluto in Aquarius in harmonious trine to Neptune/Venus in Libra new ideas and novel approaches were always destined to emerge in this city's future.

Saturday and Sundry Thoughts on the Outlander TV series, & on Two Battles

I recently bought a used set of DVDs, as a change from Netflix etc. These cover season 1, volumes 1 and 2, of the TV series Outlander. Any tale with time travel embedded, for us, is always worth a look!

So far we've watched only volume 1 of season 1 - and in black and white. The new TV set we had to buy when ours decided to go awry, has yet to be fully sorted out for use of our older DVD player. I do believe that, as I type, the husband has managed to do this, so volume 2 will probably be viewed in colour. I actually enjoy black and white movies, and lack of colour in volume 1 of Outlander didn't bother me at all - in fact I thought it rather enhanced the mysterious side of the time travel involved.
From the Wikipedia link above:

Outlander is a television drama series based on the historical time travel Outlander series of novels by Diana Gabaldon. Developed by Ronald D. Moore and produced by Sony Pictures Television and Left Bank Pictures for Starz, the show premiered on August 9, 2014. It stars Caitriona Balfe as Claire Randall, a married World War II nurse who in 1945 finds herself transported back to the Scotland of 1743, where she encounters the dashing Highland warrior Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan) and becomes embroiled in the Jacobite risings.

The second season, based on the novel Dragonfly in Amber, awaits - if we decide to continue.
We are enjoying the beginnings of this tall tale of time travel with a side of steamy romance, and background of history, fairly honestly reflected, so far. As we left volume 1 of season 1 the the epic Battle of Culloden was on the far horizon. Mention of the Battle of Culloden sparked my interest.

My maiden name was Scott, though I have not found any direct link to Scotland in my genealogy, and the Scotts in question were based in Suffolk, way down in the south-east of England. There are several theories as to how a Scott family (or even more than one Scott family) arrived so far south back in the 17th and 18th centuries, or earlier. One, among other theories I've come across, is that some prisoners from various battles, including the Battle of Culloden, were sent to Norfolk, in England, to work on draining the marshes there. Norfolk is a county bordering Suffolk. People of Scottish background, away from their homeland, were often referred to as, for instance,
James the Scot then, eventually, just James (or whatever) Scot(t).

My husband, aka anyjazz, in researching his family history, found that the earliest known ancestor on his mother's side was one Sander (short for Alexander) Milleson, who arrived in Massachusetts USA on a ship carrying prisoners, the majority of whom were Scottish, taken during the Battle of Worcester in 1650. Sander's name appears in the ship's list of prisoners, he is #178 on the 'John and Sarah' passenger list. He can be linked to other known members of husband's maternal family members. These prisoners were put into indentured labour for a number of years, and later released. Husband's relatives moved, eventually, into Pennsylvania, then into Kansas.

How erm...'cool' would it be if my ancestor and my husband's ancestor were Scottish prisoners from battles a century apart, sent off in different directions, one to the New World and one southward to England then, centuries later, courtesy of the internet, two of their distant relatives met and married?

Pluto in Capricorn In Earlier Eras - What Happened Then?

A decade ago, or more, astrologer Neil Giles wrote a two-part article on Pluto and its then imminent entry into Capricorn.
https://www.astrologycom.com/plutocapricorn1.html

https://www.astrologycom.com/plutocapricorn2.html

On Jan 26th 2008, a new measure begins here with life on earth as Pluto, lord of the underworld returns to the sign of Capricorn for the first time since 1778. Looming at the outer reaches of our solar system lies Pluto, dark and mysterious.....

Some excerpts from the article follow, relating to a few of Pluto's earlier transits through Capricorn. These are worth a look, now that we are have experienced a good deal of the current transit - we are in a position to compare - or contrast. It has to be borne in mind, though, that the position of other outer planets, in each era, will have varied greatly, and will have "coloured" things slightly - or even vastly - differently with each transit.

The whole of Mr Giles' 2-part piece is an excellent read - do go take a look!

Excerpts

The coming cycle of Pluto in Capricorn is the ninth since the beginning of the modern era and the years AD. The first of those came in 42 AD as the unlikely figure of Claudius came out of the shadows of a speech defect and a seeming intellectual handicap to transform from the least capable contender in the dynasty of the Caesars into the Emperor of Rome.

Claudius proved an able administrator and ruler as he reformed the Senate, restored Roman social order, expanded the boundaries of the Empire, especially with the conquest of Britain, and embarked on a major program of public works. The hidden power in Claudius was revealed through this test of elevation to authority and so the Empire flourished under his guiding hand. In the years ahead of us now, those who've had to wait their turn may come to power late in life and find accomplishment, as the dark lord hovers in the sign of age, delays and time's measure.

An even clearer illustration comes with Pluto's next entry into Capricorn in 287 AD when Diocletian ruled in Rome. This vigorous, practical soldier rose through the ranks to become a general and was, on the assassination of his predecessor, elected by troops on the battlefield to take the office of Imperator. He fought his way across the empire, subduing rebellious tribes and reuniting a divided realm till there was a stability not known for fifty years. He re-established the tradition of divinity for the head of state and named himself Dominus et Deus.

He solved the dilemma of succession and, recognizing that the Empire was now too large to be governed by one man, divided it on the line of East and West, also dividing the rulership among the four members of a Tetrarchy, two senior emperors (of which he was one) and two junior emperors. This began what is now called the second phase of the Roman Empire and, by 395, on the foundation of these reforms, the Empire was permanently partitioned, writing a new chapter its history.

It was in 532 AD that Pluto entered Capricorn again. His journey was grim and marked with the suffering, restriction and blight to which the sign of the Goat will sometimes condemn us. 536 AD saw the Mediterranean freezing under a cloud of dust, born in a volcanic eruption in the Southern Hemisphere that brought a nuclear winter to the North. Wars and political instability set their mark on Europe and the East as they foundered in the changing tides of aggression and ill-fated campaigns. Buddhism found the Japanese, Christianity found the Welsh, the Toltecs found the Yucatan Peninsula and plague ravaged Europe, shutting down agricultural activity, causing widespread food shortages and reaching all the way to England. Ironically, in 549 AD, Rome was in the hands of the Ostrogoths and the last ever games were held, these cruel and savage spectacles ended by a people the Romans called barbaric.

It is wise to realize that Capricorn is the sign of midwinter [northern hemisphere, of course – ed.]. If we have had a fruitful summer then our winter stores will see us through in comfort. However, if we have wasted our resources or been tested by harsh conditions, we may find ourselves living a life ruled by necessity. Under Pluto in Capricorn, we may pass through the midwinter test and there will be rules and regulations to order our lives in accordance with requirement or restriction. Prevailing conditions may test us where food supplies and simple domestic resources are concerned. Whatever name we like to give to the current instability in our climate, Pluto in the sign of the Goat will create conditions we will have to live with. With Pluto entering Capricorn as Saturn is retrograde in Virgo, the sign of health and work, ill-health or difficulties with employment that affect us at a mass level may alter the structure and order of our social operations.

1762 brought Pluto to Capricorn for the dark lord's last journey there. It was then that a disparate band of colonists in the New World broke with the Mother Country, England, over issues of taxation, over-regulation and colonial control. The American Congress sat, fought a war against imperialism, issued a declaration of rights and laid the foundations for the birth of the American Republic. Now, more than ever as Pluto returns to its natal place in the chart of the USA, it will be timely to examine the path by which a revolutionary democracy became a global superpower that has left footprints and spent shells in so many foreign lands.

After some general predictions for the current Pluto in Capricorn era :

In such a pressure-cooker as this coming cycle, it may eventually occur to us as a species that we cannot continue trying to solve our problems with a bullying thrust of violent intervention. Just as we will have to look to alternative energy sources, we must also realize that we cannot keep building roads to the future by blowing up everything that gets in the way of our intended path. Obstacles to our desires are there to teach us, not frustrate us. It is time we learned that salutary lesson from Pluto. The sign of Capricorn teaches the proper sense of organization and responsibility required for effective social contribution. With Pluto in Capricorn in the coming era, the imperative is to learn how to make one, how to put aside the power-mongering and the drama and do something that works. The destiny that is written in the stars is also in our hands.

War & Human History

 From 2001 A Space Odyssey

Humans have been making war since...for ever. Early on it was mainly a matter of raiding to obtain access to more of everything - plunder, pillage and rape, rather than any effort to change societies or cultures. Later, things changed - or did they?

In a piece from two years ago David Covucci wrote:
The Oldest Instance Ever Of Humans Doing War On Each Other Was Just Unearthed

When was the first war, though, the first time humans saw other humans and were like, chilling with those dudes would be cool, but bashing their heads in with sticks would be even chiller?

The answer is 8,000 BCE, according to scientists at Cambridge University. Skeletal remains of a group of foragers massacred around 10,000 years ago on the shores of a lagoon is unique evidence of a violent encounter between clashing groups of ancient hunter-gatherers, and suggests the “presence of warfare” in late Stone Age foraging societies.

The fossilised bones of a group of prehistoric hunter-gatherers who were massacred around 10,000 years ago have been unearthed 30 km west of Lake Turkana, Kenya, at a place called Nataruk.

Good stuff, humans. Kill everybody. All the time. As hard as you can.

I'm not often given to writing about war, as a topic, but a question at Quora the other day had caught my eye.
What was the most important war ever fought in human history?

Predictably several answers to the question offered up World Wars 1 and 2. I was interested in some other ideas though, ideas about wars from further back in time, and the likely outcome for human history had victory gone the other way.

Matt Le Page suggested the undeclared Anglo-Spanish war of 1585–1604, specifically the English defeat of the Spanish armada in 1588.

If the English lost, the Spanish would have likely landed an invasion force and succeeded in overthrowing Elizabeth I, thus obliterating the Anglican church. Rather than becoming the most formidable sea power in Europe and, thus, being able to project that sea power, England would have become a Spanish vassal, making it much easier for Spain to “rub out” Protestantism in the rest of Europe. Furthermore, the notion of “Great Britain” would be strangled in its bassinet.

In alignment with this, England most certainly would never have been able to colonize areas in the New World, chiefly around what is now the United States’ east coast. Spain would have colonized the coast from St. Augustine northward, discovering and settling the eventual cash-cow of Virginia, as well as the strategic New York harbor/lower Hudson River region. There also most likely would never be a “New England” and subsequent “Great Migration” to British North America. It would also mean no “New Netherland” as the nominally Protestant United Provinces would be absorbed into the Spanish-Hapsburg network, their autonomy and naval forces neutered.
In essence, what we would see is Spanish empire from the Tierra del Fuego to Greenland. Let’s also not pretend the Spanish would let there be a “New France”, either. The massacre at Fort Caroline is evidence of this.

So, we’re talking about a world with no United States or Canada. Seems like this would have rewritten history completely.

Eric Zimmermann argued for the Battle of Thermopylae.

The Battle of Thermopylae was fought between an alliance of Greek city-states, led by King Leonidas of Sparta, and the Persian Empire of Xerxes I over the course of three days, during the second Persian invasion of Greece..................Had not the Spartans, Thespians, and Thebans held the pass and allowed the other Greek forces the ability to muster a defense against the invading Persians it is entirely likely that Alexander the Great would never have had Aristotle as his tutor, and never have spread Hellenization to the known world resulting in the rise of classical culture and the offshoots it created.

All of Western civilization depended on this one band of Greeks holding the pass to Thermopylae and they did it successfully.

Further back in time still, others suggested the 8th century Umayyad invasion of Gaul - had the Umayyads won this war, most of Europe would be eventually conquered, Islamified and would be speaking Arabic. Or, The Second Punic War (218–201 BCE), one of the deadliest wars in European history, led to the end of the small scale republic and formation of the Roman Empire whose cultural impact is still existing.

It's a fascinating thread of answers!

Saturday and Sundry Thoughts on Neptune, Halfway Through a Transit of Pisces

Mysterious Neptune is currently around halfway through its transit of Pisces, its home sign in modern astrology. When Neptune entered Pisces, in the spring of 2011, I was wondering whether, during its sojourn, we might see a revival or "re-working" of something even more mysterious than we're accustomed to experiencing (which is mysterious enough, at any given time!)

Neptune, astrologically, has keywords attached relating to aspects of its name: the sea, water, liquids, oil, then, for some reason, illusion, creativity, film, photography , and delusion, fog, mist, mystery - maybe because the sea sometimes brings fogs and mists to its coastlines; fog or mist can cloud judgment, lead to some type of addiction, or illusion.
During the 1960s, for the whole decade Neptune was transiting Scorpio, one of the three Water signs where Neptune is said to "feel most at home". What happened then? Neptune's "influence" was made clear in the prevalence of hippie culture and fairly widespread ingestion of mind-altering substances among members of the young generation. Some iconic music came forth from that decade, and that's no coincidence I feel sure.

In Pisces Neptune will be feeling even more "at home", this transit will last until early 2025. With Pluto travelling through Capricorn and Uranus in Aries the outer planetary "atmosphere" is different now from the way it was in the 1960s..

Pisces, the zodiac sign ruled by Neptune in modern astrology - I think of it as gentle, non-threatening, sweet rather than bitter, sensitive but not clingy, emotional but not paranoid. That's a stripped down version, various possibilities and potentialities are there. Keywords such as spiritual or religious, dreamy, prone to addiction, creative.....on and on have been attached to Pisces the sign.

What, to date, in Neptune's journey through Pisces has become significantly related to this Watery, foggy transit? It will not become perfectly clear until there's benefit of full hindsight, but it's worth taking stock at this half-way mark of the transit. "Fake News" is a definite candidate! What else? Underhand dealings inherent in the 2016 presidential primaries and general election. Suspicions of Russian meddling in the run-up to the election. The result of the election, though a shocking surprise to many is hardly Neptunian - more Uranian - unexpected, eccentric, and not in a good way! Investigations, currently undertaken by Robert Mueller, in the hope of uncovering secret Neptunian-type dealings, past or present, of POTUS and/or members of his administration. Though Pluto in Capricorn could be seen as a better reflection of that investigation, suspected past Neptunian doings are the reasons driving it.

Perhaps ever-growing concern about the oceans is in line with Neptune in Pisces. Encroachment on land due to rise of sea level consequent on climate change; increasing worries about plastics and other garbage fouling up sea and shores, poisoning fish; destruction of coral reefs. The ongoing mystery of lost flight MH370 - still no sign of the crashed plane thought to be on the seabed of the Indian ocean.

Heightened concern about drugs (very Neptunian) - not new this, it never abates. Currently the "opioid epidemic" is being labelled "the most perilous drug crisis ever". In the United States, the epicenter of the opioid epidemic, overdose deaths have quadrupled since 1999, killing 91 people every day. Pharmaceutical pain relief is an essential clinical tool, but with physicians writing some 240 million opioid prescriptions to Americans every year, the potential for addiction is enormous.(See HERE)

Neptune's earlier transits through Pisces have been investigated by several writers online. A reliable source of such data is astrologer Steven Forrest's website here:
Timeline of dates and notable events under the transit of Neptune in the sign Pisces. Though interesting, I'm undecided as to how much of astrological use can be gleaned from this. During each of Neptune's trips through Pisces other patterns, made by the slow-moving outer planets, would have been different and would have to be factored in to any conclusions reached about Neptune-in-Pisces-related events.

During Neptune's previous transit of Pisces, 1847-1862, not long after the planet was discovered, there was a surge of interest in spiritualism in Britain and Europe.

Spiritualist churches were founded, and spiritualism's attendant mysteries were on the the minds of many. At that time Uranus and Pluto were either in, or about to move into, Taurus. Though Taurus and Pisces are quite different "flavours", both have a strong creative side; Neptune in Pisces would not have been overly watered down by the other outer planets' transits.

 Looking back

The Neptune-Pisces transit before 1847-62 was during 1664-1698. Neptune was undiscovered at this time, but the planet was there! Though we have dry, factual history books to guide us, we can't imagine quite as clearly the general atmosphere of those times. I don't see that religious wars and expulsion of Hugenots relate to Neptune in Pisces. Religious wars had been more or less continuous for centuries. Witch trials seem to relate to the opposite of Neptune in Pisces. The other two outer planets during mid to late-17th century moved: Taurus and Cancer were quite friendly to Pisces; Gemini and Leo, less friendly to Pisces. Perhaps the witch trials reflected the tone of those moves?

One more step back in time: 1520 - 1534: Factually: Martin Luther condemned as heretic, excommunicated...Henry 8th cutting ties with church of Rome...Religious Peace of Nuremburg...Calvin's Protestant movement in France...etc. All religion all the time! Religion is traditionally Pisces territory, though I'd have said more linked to Pisces' traditional ruler, Jupiter than to Neptune. But religion is...well... something of a mystery itself isn't it, and therefore overseen by Neptune also! During that 16th century span the other two outer planets were in Taurus and Capricorn in the early stage, and had moved to Cancer and very early Aquarius by the end of the transit. Neptune's Pisces position didn't blend at all well with Pluto in logical Capricorn and early Aquarius, but got along reasonably well with Uranus in Taurus and Cancer (though not as well while Uranus traversed Gemini). So religion and its mysteries won some and lost some!

Beyond that time, I believe Neptunian mists become much too dense, and Neptunian mysteries too "far out", to allow translation into 21st century language.

Stonehenge

I got nuttin' today, so I'll post an answer I wrote to a question on Quora a few days ago. Someone had asked "What is the historical relevance of Stonehenge?" I thought it an interesting question, and, after a quick look at a couple of information pieces online said:

The historical relevance of Stonehenge, famous megalithic monument in Wiltshire, England, is its connection to the Neolithic age during which there was transition from the hunter gatherer lifestyle to farming. The gradual spread of agriculture to Europe, from the Near East led to great cultural change. Climate in Britain was not always helpful to early agricultural efforts, the seasons and their turning points would have taken on extra significance.

Stonehenge is aligned northeast-southwest, it has been speculated that its builders placed significance on the winter and summer solstices, and the equinox points. The monument was built so that at midsummer the sun rose close to its Heel Stone, the sun's rays directly hitting the monument's centre - this cannot have been accidental. Stonehenge was built, using enormous amounts of energy, over lengthy periods of time, as a kind of clock or calendar to accurately mark the turning of seasons and possibly, over time, of solar and lunar eclipses. No doubt also there was spiritual significance to the monument, with some form of worship involved - of the sun - or of other, now uncertain, gods. Any leader able to announce or predict the return of warmth, and the growing season would have had recognition and powerful influence.

So, in a nutshell, the historical relevance of Stonehenge is in allowing us a peek into the Neolithic world of our distant ancestors.

Two other posts of mine, from the archives might be of interest:
From 2011
SOLSTICE
and
Ley Lines and Stonehenge Apocalypse

Solstice at Stonehenge panorama via Stonehenge News and Information.

To "plough and to sow, to reap and to mow..."

As indicated at the end of yesterday's post, a little about the life styles of English farm workers - "agricultural labourers" of the past. Many of my own ancestors were part of this group, in Yorkshire and in the south-east and south-west of England. Information following comes from writings of someone who must be a distant relative of mine, in Yorkshire, her website is HERE. (Illustrations added by me).

Until the middle of the nineteenth century, farm service was a common, perhaps the most common, way of dealing with rural youngsters when they reached working age and became too big and too hungry to fit into the crowded cottage of the agricultural worker. Children of farmers often went into service, so it was not only an institution catering for the labouring poor. The youngsters benefited from being housed and fed by the farmer whilst learning the skills needed to carry them through their working lives. They gained freedom from parental control and were able to broaden their horizons and mix with other workers within the system; they also received an annual wage from which the thrifty would save towards the future and marriage and which the not-so-thrifty would spend on beer and tobacco. They might, in their time as servants, work on several farms, usually within a radius of 10 or 15 miles of home.

Farm servants were different from other agricultural workers in that they were hired for a year at a time. These workers found employment through the annual hiring fairs, which were held in the market towns of East Yorkshire during Martinmas week at the end of November. Hiring fairs were held in places like Beverley, Bridlington, Driffield, Hedon, Hornsea, Howden, Hull, Malton, Patrington, Pocklington, and York. Here the agricultural servants – male as well as female – would gather in order to bargain with prospective employers and, hopefully, secure a position for the coming year. If a bargain was struck, the farmer would seal the transaction by giving the hired lad or man fest, or fastening, money – a small sum – in recognition of the hiring. In the late nineteenth century the amount was usually 5s[hillings] for a wagoner and 2s[hillings]& 6d[pence] for other workers. Once the fest had changed hands, a legal contract had been entered into.

Local newspapers reported on these colourful and sometimes rowdy gatherings.

The Driffield Times, 15 November 1873:

Early in the morning the great stream of humanity rolled into the town, conveyed thither in every conceivable appliance that could be obtained for the occasion; but conspicuous among the rest were the heavy wagons with their living freight, which were deposited amid the greetings of those who had chanced to outstrip them in the drive to town. Other vehicles, from heavy wagons to the humble donkey and cart were to be seen threading their way through the streets to their several destinations. The railway Company, too, brought hundreds into the town by special and regular trains, which were literally packed. At nine o’clock the bustle was commenced in earnest, for by that time most of the servants had congregated …
One former Farm Servant described the fair -
"We lined ourselves up on one side of t’road and farmers on t’other. They looked you over, talked to one another, and asked each other if they knew you and what you were like. They’d discuss you among themselves. Then they’d come across and say, “Noo, lad, dos’t thoo want takin’ on?”"

This tradition continued right through into the 19th century. The hirelings lived with the farmer or farm foreman, whose wife looked after them and on whose cooking skills, care and consideration their well-being depended. Living conditions were basic and on the rough and ready side; sleeping in crowded attic rooms, sweltering in summer and waking to frozen-stiff clothes in winter, they had no bath or washing facilities except a cold tap in the yard outside the kitchen door

An old rhyme about Martinmas:

"Come all ye dames arise
and let the maids lie still
They've risen all the year
It was against their will"

“Martinmas" [Note from Twilight: pronounced in East Yorkshire as "Mart'mas"] on the twenty-first of November, was when the farm servants would go to the Hiring Fairs in places like York and get hired by a new farmer if they didn’t want to remain with the farmer they were with. If they were "stopping on" they had to stay at home and do a days work. I remember hearing the workers talk about Martinmas.
"Is 'ta stopping on Jack?"
"Nay. I've packed me box. I'm off to the hiring's tomorrow. Bert."
"If you get taken on Jack, don't spend your fest all at once. Tha could get drunk for a shilling!"

The fest refers to when a man was taken on by a farmer, he was given a shilling to seal the bargain. The fest was probably a corruption of feast -a chance to go and treat yourself.”

Resistance - 14th Century Style

When The People as a whole feel sufficiently oppressed, reach that mystical thing called the "tipping point" they act. Famous examples of this phenomenon leap out from pages of history books - here's an early example:

Backtracking a century or six:
The Peasants' Revolt in England.

Without the aid of Twitter, Facebook, the Royal Mail, telephone or cellphone, tens of thousands of peasants in England managed to achieve solidarity sufficient to rebel against their noblemen masters, march on England's capital city and cause chaos.

The Black Death, a devastating pandemic, had ravaged England and Europe in 1348/9 greatly reducing the labour force available to the Lords of the Manors and other noblemen of feudal England. Labourers, who were little more than slaves, began to demand improved terms and conditions: higher wages, fewer hours. Some even asked for their freedom from serfdom. The government attempted to curb this by pegging wages and restricting the mobility of labour. Additional cause of resentment was the poll tax ("poll" in this context meant "head") every person was subject to this taxation. The then monarch King Richard II, only 14 years old, was largely "under the thumb" of a corrupt group of officials, possibly the crux of the problem - or maybe not, we have no way of knowing.

Uprisings began in the south and east of England. In early summer of 1381 leaders emerged: Wat Tyler, John Ball and Jack Straw. They led a march of tens of thousands on London arriving on 12 June.

The rebels stormed the Tower of London and executed the Lord Chancellor, Archbishop Simon Sudbury, and the Lord Treasurer. Peasants looted the city and set fire to numerous buildings. Wat Tyler was stabbed to death by the Lord Mayor William Walworth in a confrontation at Smithfield, thus ending the revolt. Nobles quickly re-established their control with the help of a hastily organised militia of 7000. Most other leaders were captured and executed, including John Ball and Jack Straw, who was beheaded.

The Peasants' Revolt did not succeed in its aims, but it did show the nobles that the peasants were dissatisfied and quite capable of wreaking havoc. The Revolt was, eventually, instrumental in bringing an end to serfdom, and in the even longer term, helped to form a radical tradition in British politics.

Wondering about the astrology of it all - a snip from the ephemeris for June 1381:



It's interesting that on 12 June 1381 Moon (representing The People) was in late Aquarius - sign of rebellion; Mars (anger, aggression)was in communicative Gemini, and in harmony with Aquarius Moon.

Final thought from Carl Sandburg's "The People, Yes" (Chapter 75)

Hunger and only hunger changes worlds?
The dictate of the belly
that gnawing under the navel,
this alone is the builder and the pathfinder
sending man into danger and fire
and death by struggle?

Yes and no, no and yes.
The strong win against the weak,
The strong lose against the stronger.

And across the bitter years and the howling winters
the deathless dream will be the stronger,
the dream of equity will win.
There are shadows and bones shot with lights
too strong to be lost.......

Untold history -"Always the historian sees as in a mirror darkly, the reds and the golds rendered drab by the shadows of time"

 From a strip by Bill Watterson: Calvin & Hobbes

At a loose end one afternoon this festive season, I turned to Netflix, began watching Oliver Stone's documentary series The Untold History of the United States, recently added to the Netflix menu. I didn't realise until some time afterwards, while searching my tags for something else, that I had mentioned Oliver Stone's series in the past - in Feb. 2013 - when the series was originally aired, on Showtime.

Here's what I wrote in 2013:

Revisionist history has to be treated with the utmost caution - heck, in my opinion all historical narrative has to be treated with caution.

What brought this on? A reading of reviews and articles about Oliver Stone's Showtime TV series The Untold History of the United States. I've neither seen the series nor read the book, so am really not in a position to comment on Mr Stone's views in particular. From threads of comment here and there I picked up the idea that Stone has views about World War 2 that conflict with mine. I could be barking up the wrong tree, however. Commenters may be the real culprits. There's quite a bit of the: "Greatest Generation?" That's rubbish!" kind of attitude slung around; I was happy to note, also some intelligent counter argument.

Anyway, thinking again on this issue which has always irked me: historians, even the most fastidious of 'em, can only view events of the past from the perspective of their own time. It is impossible to walk in the shoes of those who made decisions, carried out orders, lived within the situations in the time in question. And this is the kicker: historians always know the end of a story. That makes an enormous difference. Those characters being written about, and oft critcised, did not know how their story would end. Added to that factor, even contemporary with the event there would always have been multiple perspectives of what was occurring and why. There's no single answer to any question about an event in history.

In the case of revisionist history writers the situation for the reader gets worse. Added to the above, revisionists almost always have axes to grind, their own agenda be it political, religious, financial/attention seeking or other. Such authors will tweak and massage, in insidious ways, what has become accepted history - which is already unlikely to be 100% accurate for reasons offered above.

After typing these few lines and mentioning the topic to my husband, he handed me the day's local newspaper and pointed to a half-page article headed Abe Lincoln's Conflicting Views by Walter Williams. In the first paragraph there is mention of the recent Lincoln movie, a book by Thomas Di Lorenzo, said to expose the Lincoln myth: Lincoln Unmasked, and another book, Lincoln Uncensored by Joseph Fallon. The last mentioned author is said to have examined 10 volumes of Lincoln's writings and speeches. "We don't have to rely on anyone's interpretation", says Walter Williams. No, we have to rely on anyone's cherry-picking of items to match their agenda - don't we, Mr Williams?

Having now seen three or four episodes of Mr Stone's series, as far as the cold war period, I've yet to decide whether to continue. There wasn't anything presented that I hadn't seen or read before, and more than once - nothing really "untold". Emphasis by Mr Stone and his co-writer American University historian Peter J. Kuznick, is more focused on Henry Wallace (how different would things have been had Wallace been FDR's Vice-president, and president on FDR"s demise?) Also, there's some strong emphasis on Russian involvement in World War II without which, outcomes and the present as we know it, could have been very different.

So far, Messrs Stone and Kuznick aren't revising as much as simply re-focusing historical detail, of which most viewers will already be aware. The facts have long been available, just not emphasised in exactly this way, at least not often.

On two or three occasions in the early episodes, I noticed some jabs at The British Empire and felt a wee bit of antagonism creeping in. Back in the time of British Empire-building, that was "the thing to do" - build empires - every European country was having a go at it! It's altogether wrong to look at events and aims critically through 21st century eyes without taking into consideration the atmosphere of those times. Britain itself had been occupied by, and had been part of, the Roman Empire. In 1066, William of Normandy conquered England. During the reign of Henry II, England was part of the Angevin empire, which included Ireland and most of western France....Some good bite-size historical information on the British Empire is here: at The British Empire Through Time.

The empire-building bug infected certain sectors of the human race almost from Day One - it does still! I suspect that Americans like to point the finger at the wrongs of British Empire builders and colonialists (and admittedly there were many wrongs) to allow themselves to feel a tad better: "We are bad but THEY were worse!"

If I can get myself in the right mood to continue watching the rest of this series, more on the topic could well be posted in due course.

Today's post title, by the way, came from this quote:

No one can really know the life of his own day, let alone that of times long past. Always the historian sees as in a mirror darkly, the reds and the golds rendered drab by the shadows of time.
~Earl R. Beck, On Teaching History in Colleges and Universities

Postscript:
My archived blog-post on Oliver Stone himself (and his almost astro-twin) is HERE.

History Ablaze

Following yesterday's pattern, another historical theme surfaces today: 350 years ago this weekend The Great Fire of London consumed a large part of that famous capital city.

From The Book of Days website
SNIP:

THE GREAT FIRE OF LONDON

London was only a few months freed from a desolating pestilence, it was suffering, with the country generally, under a most imprudent and ill-conducted war with Holland, when, on the evening of the 2nd of September 1666, a fire commenced by which about two-thirds of it were burned down, including the cathedral, the Royal Exchange, about a hundred parish churches, and a vast number of other public buildings. The conflagration commenced in the house of a baker named Farryner, at Pudding Lane, near the Tower, and, being favoured by a high wind, it continued for three nights and days, spreading gradually eastward, till it ended at a spot called Pye Corner, in Giltspur Street. Mr. John Evelyn has left us a very interesting description of the event, from his own observation, as follows:

'Sept. 2, 1666.-This fatal night, about ten, began that deplorable fire near Fish Streete in London.

'Sept. 3.-The fire continuing, after dinner I took coach with my wife and soon, and went to the Bankside in Southwark, where we beheld that dismal spectacle, the whole Citty in dreadful flames neare ye water side; all the houses from the Bridge, all Thames Street, and upwards towards Cheapeside downe to the Three Cranes, were now consum'd...............

Astrologer William Lilly had predicted the Great Fire years before, via one of his mysterious hieroglyphic drawings. A good relevant essay, by Maurice McCann, is at Skyscript


SNIP

Lilly, it was claimed, had successfully predicted the outbreak of the fire fourteen years before when he had published Monarchy or No Monarchy in England a book containing nineteen hieroglyphic drawings giving carefully disguised predictions. As a consequence of one of these, featuring a large fire, Lilly was seriously suspected of causing the fire. It was also thought that he wished to obtain credit for forecasting the event. Being fearful of what might happen to him, Lilly persuaded the committee that his prediction had not been precise and he was allowed to go.

After the fire?
A snip and Conclusion from an article by Dr John Schofield at a BBC website
London After the Great Fire

SNIP

At least 65,000 people had been made homeless by the Fire. At first they camped in the fields outside the walls, but within days had dispersed to surrounding villages or other parts of London. Rents soared in the unburnt area, but somehow accommodation was found for all who needed it. Much merchandise had been destroyed, and there was virtually no fire insurance, so many people were ruined, and some moved away permanently.

Conclusion -
We have perhaps been overimpressed by the Great Fire, and must place it in context - the Fire, destructive though it was, devastated only about one third of the conurbation of London then standing. Within the area of the devastation a new city of brick and occasionally stone arose, but around it a larger area remained timber-framed for generations to come. Inside the City, if we could have walked down a street like Fenchurch Street in 1675, we would have seen an abrupt change from the brick buildings of the new city to the timber and plaster frontages of the pre-Fire city, at the point where the Fire was stopped. This sudden contrast took generations to erase. But it is also true that the Fire created the opportunity to build, in the central area, a city in a new form, which would quickly become the hub of the British Empire in the decades which followed. So the creation of the Empire owes something to the Great Fire of 1666.

The Queen's Beasts (not especially arty farty this Friday!)

Today's topic might be of no great general interest, but is about something I've investigated and want to record, for future reference.

Around a year ago, husband and I were trawling through a couple of antique stores in a town just to the west of Oklahoma City; on our way out of town we spotted a newly opened small store, popped in to take a look around. It was a bit on the junky side. Just one item grabbed my attention: a big, shallow, display box framed and glassed in, containing 10 decorated glass dishes (each around 4.5 inches square), set in two rows on a background of red velvet. The frame had seen better days, scratched and needing repair to one corner. The little dishes had survived in good condition. They made up a full set, depicting what are known as The Queen's Beasts.
The Queen's Beasts portray the genealogy of Queen Elizabeth II in heraldic form.

I found this photograph of a similar set on an old auction website online

How this item had arrived in Oklahoma is anyone's guess! Having always had an interest in heraldry, I was keen to know its price. The store owner stalled when we enquired, saying that, as he didn't know the significance of the item he had asked a friend to investigate, and was not in a position to quote a price. I suspected he already had a buyer in mind, perhaps another, posher, antique store.

Back home I Googled - like ya do - discovered that the glass dish set, produced by a London company called Georama, probably during the 1970s, was very possibly issued ahead of Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee in 1977.

Intrigued, I found that it'd be possible to find at least some of the individual glass trays for sale in either the UK or USA on E-bay or Etsy, not a full set though. Individual prices varied from just a few pounds sterling in the UK to around $20 in the US. Mailing costs for such delicate items, either nationally or internationally makes the deals quite uneconomical. I shall content myself, instead, with this blog post. Maybe one day I'll invest in a single little dish and have it framed. The one shown, left, was for sale at Etsy recently.

So... illustrations of the 10 Queen's Beasts.


For these pics and brief descriptions I owe a hat-tip to this heraldic forum.

The Lion of England

“The crowned golden lion of England has been one of the supporters of the Royal Arms since the accession of James I in 1603. The shield shows the Royal Arms as they have been borne since Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837. In the first and last quarters are the lions of England; the lion and tressure (a double frame) of Scotland appear in the second and the harp of Ireland in the third. Richard Lion-heart, son of Henry II, probably first chose 3 golden lions set one above each on a red field as the Royal Arms of England. Since then, these lions have appeared on the coat of arms of every sovereign of this country.”

The Unicorn of Scotland

“From the end of the 16th century, two unicorns were adopted as the supporters of the Scottish Royal Arms. In 1603, the crown of England passed to James VI of Scotland, who then became James I of England. He took as supporters of his Royal Arms a crowned lion of England and one of his Scottish unicorns. The unicorn holds a shield showing a lion ramping in a royal tressure (a double frame), adorned with fleur-de-lis.”

The Red Dragon of Wales

“The red dragon was used as his badge by Owen Tudor. His grandson, Henry VII, took it as a token of his supposed descent from Cadwalader, the last of the line of Maelgwn, King of Wales. The beast holds a shield bearing a leopard in each quarter; this was the coat of arms of Llewelyn ap Griffith, the last native Prince of Wales.”

The White Lion of Mortimer

“The White Lion of Mortimer descends to the Queen through Edward IV. The shield shows a white rose encircled by a golden sun, known heraldically as a ‘white rose en soleil’ which is really a combination of two distinct badges. Both of these appear on the Great Seals of Edward IV and Richard III, and were used by George VI when Duke of York. Unlike the Lion of England, this beast is uncrowned.”

The White Greyhound of Richmond

“This beast was a badge of John of Gaunt, Earl of Richmond, son of Edward III, but was also used by Henry IV and especially by Henry VII. The Tudor double rose can be seen on the shield, one rose within another, surmounted by a crown, symbolising the union of the Houses of York and Lancaster.”

The White Horse of Hanover

“The White Horse of Hanover” was introduced into the Royal Arms in 1714 when the crown of Great Britain passed to the Elector George of Hanover. This grandson of Elizabeth, sister of Charles I, became George I, King of Britain, France and Ireland. The shield shows the leopards of England and the lion of Scotland in the first quarter, the fleur-de-lis of France in the second and the Irish harp in the third quarter; the fourth quarter shows the arms of Hanover.”

The Black Bull of Clarence

“This beast descended to the Queen through Edward IV. The shield shows the Royal Arms as they were borne not only by Edward IV and his brother Richard III, but by all the Sovereigns of the Houses of Lancaster and Tudor.”

The Yale of Beaufort

“The Yale was a mythical beast, said to be white in colour and covered with gold spots. Its peculiar characteristic was that it could swivel each of its horns independently. It descends to the Queen through Henry VII, who inherited it from his mother, Lady Margaret Beaufort. The shield shows a portcullis surmounted by the arched royal crown. The portcullis (uncrowned) was a Beaufort badge, but was used both crowned and uncrowned by Henry VII.”

The Griffin of Edward III

“The griffin is an ancient mythical beast. It was considered a beneficent creature, signifying courage and strength, combined with guardianship, vigilance, swiftness and keen vision. It was closely associated with Edward III who engraved it on his private seal. The shield shows the Round Tower of Windsor Castle with the Royal Standard flying from the turret (the badge of the present House of Windsor), enclosed by two branches of oak surmounted by the royal crown.”

The Falcon of the Plantagenets

“The falcon was first used by Edward III as his badge. It descended to Edward IV, who took it as his personal badge, the falcon being seated within an open fetterlock or padlock. The slightly open fetterlock (which can be seen on the shield) is supposed to refer to the struggle Edward IV had to ascend the throne - he forced the lock and won the throne.”