The Persnickety Historian Vs. The History Channel

Ah yes, our old friend. The "History Channel."

At one point, I seem to remember them doing stuff on history. I also remember TLC doing educational programming. Television is a vast wasteland of entertainment and education-- call it edutainment-- and . The most infamous example of this, at least in the States, is History Channel. At one point it seemed so saturated with WWII it was jokingly called "The Hitler Channel" and today it's the home of the 100% most incredibly accurate and trustworthy show on television, Ancient Aliens. So it's unsurprising that there is a serious lack of credibility and accountability in anything they say at this point. I just didn't expect to find it in an article about one of my favorite historical figures.
A recent interest (more accurately, obsession) of mine is the 15th century French poet Charles d'Orleans, who briefly appears in Henry V and was far more interesting than Shakespeare let on. He was the nephew of Charles VI, King of France, and became duke at 13 when his father was brutally murdered. He was 21 at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 and was captured and taken to England, where he was held for 25 years. In his copious amounts of free time, Charles learned English and wrote poetry in it as well as French. His life was fraught with heartache, including the deaths of his father in 1407 and mother in 1408, the death in childbirth of his first wife, being part of a civil war, separation from his daughter, everything possible went wrong for him, but I'll talk more about his life as a whole in the rest of this article.

For background, Charles is attributed with writing the first Valentine poem, usually attributed to his years in captivity with his second wife, Bonne d'Armagnac as the recipient. It's pretty miserable as Valentines Day poetry goes.

I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine,
Since for me you were born too late,
And I for you was born too soon.
God forgives him who has estranged
Me from you for the whole year.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine. 

Well might I have suspected
That such a destiny,
Thus would have happened this day,
How much that Love would have commanded.
I am already sick of love,
My very gentle Valentine. (1)

Now that I've talked a little about Charles in general, what's this got to do with the History Channel? An article that somehow managed to get almost everything wrong. History.com, the website of History Channel ran an article this Valentine's Day about Charles and this poem. I honestly have no idea how you can pack so many mistakes into one article, it's simultaneously disappointing and impressive. Here we go.

[Link to article]

1. “As the nephew of King Charles VI of France, also known as Charles the Mad (who was believed to be schizophrenic), he was caught in the crossfire between his father, Louis I, who presided over the House of Orléans, and his uncle’s family, which oversaw the House of Burgundy, in their fight for control of France.” (2)

— Charles VI and Louis I were the nephews of Philip I of Burgundy (brother of their father Charles V). Philip’s son John the Fearless was Louis’s first cousin and therefore Charles d'Orleans’s first cousin once removed. The duchy of Burgundy was more like an independent state at that time, its ruling family being part of the Valois family (the dynasty then ruling France, so Charles VI was Charles of Valois) but not of the royal primogenitor line, rather a cousin branch, the House of Valois-Burgundy. For these reasons Charles VI had no control over Burgundy. However, the Duke of Burgundy John the Fearless (the king’s first cousin) was regent for the king during periods of his illness, during which time he and Louis jockeyed for power through control over the king.
Note also the use of "was believed to be schizophrenic," which is grammatically anachronistic. That indicates people thought that in his own time.

2. “Charles and his brothers vowed revenge on their first cousin John the Fearless, the Duke of Burgundy, whom they accused of murdering their father in a power grab, intensifying the family civil war.”

— The civil war began after Louis’s assassination in 1407 (the article does not state the year) and as stated above, John the Fearless was Charles’s first cousin once removed. They also didn't even have to make the accusation, as Burgundy confessed to ordering Louis's death soon after. Despite the confession and the brutal nature of the murder and the fact it was the King's brother who'd been killed, Charles and his family had to forgive Burgundy, who defended his actions as killing a tyrant.

3. “It also put the young duke in his father-in-law’s Armagnac camp in the years-long French civil war between the Armagnacs and the Burgundians.”

— The Orleanist party had no leader after Louis’s death, until Bernard VII took control after Charles and Bonne were married. The party was renamed after Armagnac, so in reality Armagnac technically joined Charles’s side.

 4. “As battle after battle dragged on between the rival factions, Charles was captured and imprisoned by the Burgundians in 1415. While held prisoner in the Tower of London, he penned a poem to his wife the same year that he was captured at the Battle of Agincourt.”

— Charles was not taken prisoner by the Burgundians, he was captured by the English at the Battle of Agincourt as stated, which is why he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was imprisoned and kept imprisoned for years by King Henry V, most likely since he would be seen as a major threat to Henry's already shaky claim to the French throne.

5. “Beyond the Valentine he sent to Isabella, Charles wrote hundreds of other poems while in prison—many about love and nobility.” 

 — The recipient was Bonne d'Armagnac, his second wife. In all, Charles would be married three times: first to Isabelle d'Valois, daughter of the King (therefore Charles's cousin) and widow of King Richard II of England; second to Bonne d'Armagnac, daughter of the new head of the party Bernard VII Armagnac; and finally to Marie de Cleves in part of the end of the Burgundian-Armagnac Civil War (interestingly, she was the grandaughter of Burgundy. Yes, that Burgundy.). He and Marie would have three children, including the future King Louis XII of France.

There are also multiple omissions of things that'd be good to note, like who Isabelle was first married to, Richard II; the years of some of these events, and most disappointingly that Charles's mother was named Valentine! The most annoying omission is any form of bibliography. There are no citations, no further reading. This undermines any credibility and leaves the reader stranded. All of this information can be found in the encyclopedia.

If you're interested in Charles and his times and want a well-researched historical novel to get lost in, check out Hella S. Haasse's In a Dark Wood Wandering. I highly recommend it.

(If anything is wrong here, please contact me so I can correct it).

1“A Farewell to Love,” Wikisource, last modified November 2, 2016, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:A_Farewell_to_Love.

2“Thad Morgan, History’s Oldest-Known Valentine Was Written in Prison,” History Channel, last modified February 14, 2018, https://www.history.com/news/historys-oldest-known-valentine-was-written-in-prison.

Persnickety Historian Review - Victoria ITV

ITV's Victoria wrapped up its second season here in the States a couple of weeks ago. It ended with some bombshells-- okay, the revelation of bombshells we the audience already knew about, only now to other characters. We get another heaping of sumptuous settings, pretty costumes, and the lovely Jenna Coleman. Joining the cast this season is Diana Rigg as the Duchess of Buccleuch, playing the same character she does on Game of Thrones, and adding a lot of old-lady sass and wisdom. I love this woman. So, does Victoria reign supreme? Why am I resorting to reviewer cliches? I'll answer one of those in this review, which is more about the series as a whole but most examples are from the recent season.

First, the show as just a show. Every historical drama now has to measure up to Downton Abbey, which, let's face it, isn't going to happen. Victoria definitely succeeds in the sheer gorgeousness of the setting and costuming, bringing to life the early Victorian period (when you think "Victorian," you're probably thinking of Sherlock Holmes era, some forty years after this show). It truly is some eye candy, especially when they visit locations outside of London. Unfortunately storywise, there isn't much to hold my attention.

To put it bluntly, Victoria fails to have the dramatic and emotional depth to be more than another period piece. It tries desperately for a fictional downstairs story, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me and I can't remember any of the servants' names, except for Mr. Penge (also, is it just me or does Buckingham have far too few servants?). The same goes for the upstairs-- even with the Queen I find it hard to become invested in the fictional plotlines. The trouble, I think, comes from there not being an overarching plot with a single goal in mind to connect episodes and make a meaningful season finale (think the "myth arc" vs. the "monster of the week" formula from The X-Files-- some episodes form a series-spanning plot, others are just one-offs). I was very excited to have Ada Lovelace and Isambard Kingdom Brunell guest star, but I felt like this was something special, rather than just other historical figures in a show about history.

Acting-wise, it's a bit hit-or-miss, especially considering historical portrayal. The first season was graced with Rufus Sewell, who is missed, and this season has the wonderful Diana Rigg, who's worth watching the show for alone. Jenna Coleman continues to be a sweet, energetic Queen, but she doesn't reflect Victoria's forceful personality in its more flawed sense. There never seems to be anything really negative from her, she's just a high-spirited monarch here, despite her historical serious temper and obstinateness. Granted, Queen Victoria was a remarkable figure and I'm not sure she ever truly could be fully emulated. Jenna is still enjoyable though, and I don't fault her too much, just the writing. On the other hand, Tom Hughes, Jenna's real-life boyfriend, is a boring and frustrating Albert. Like his portrayal of the Duke of Aumerle in The Hollow Crown version of Richard II (2012), he seems blank at best and sometimes zoned-out. His ongoing borderline power struggle with Victoria and the inaccurate portrayal of their relationship initially being testy rather than love-at-first-sight as it was historically leave them seeming to not be a good match.

Now for the history.

This show is frustrating. Daisy Goodwin, series creator and head writer brags about balancing history and fiction, but I don't think she's done that at all. Historical fiction can be an awesome genre when done well, but to make it so requires attention to detail and the understanding that history is exciting enough on its own and doesn't need embellishment. Goodwin alters things, saying "My rule is that I can change the odd date, move people around here and there, so long as I am faithful to the emotional truth of the characters."¹ She goes far beyond that-- she does everything from change the ages of figures, like the Duchess of Bucchleuch (who was actually in her thirties at the time) to creating whole new relationships, as with Alfred Paget and Edward Drummond, who weren't actually in one-- which was disappointing, since they were one of the best parts of the season. The decision to include queer characters was great, if only Goodwin had invented them, or better yet found some in history rather than making up a relationship.

Rather unsurprisingly, some things are made a little more positive or palatable to modern viewers, like the episode on An Gorta Mór--  the Irish Famine. Queen Victoria is portrayed as caring a lot about Ireland, whereas in history she wasn't all that concerned-- she certainly isn't appreciated in Irish history, being called "The Famine Queen." However inaccurate the portrayal is, I do see something good came out of the episode as a whole. British viewers were shocked at the depiction of the Famine, having not been taught much about it.²  This is called a difficult encounter in public history, and it forces us to face something we don't want to think about, and I have to praise the show for doing that, even if Victoria's reaction is sanitized (which is still an issue).

I was, however, surprised to find out that some of the stuff that sounded made-up to me (my specialty isn't this period so I've been doing a lot of fact checking) actually do have basis in fact, like the rumor that Albert is actually a bastard, which did exist. In the show, Uncle Leopold claims he believes he is actually Albert's father. This particular paternity claim, made by David Duff (1972) is iffy at best, but works for the show since Uncle Leopold continues to be the Cigarette Smoking Man of the series. On a more verifiable front, this was the first time I'd heard of Sarah Forbes Bonetta, and I learned more about her after looking her up. That's part of the fun of good historical media, learning about the real thing and maybe being introduced to something new in the process.

Victoria isn't perfect, though it has promise. It's held back by its lack of narrative direction, and more seriously it's marred by Goodwin freely admitting she makes things up but still remains true to the history, not to mention inaccurate portrayals of some serious things, like the Queen's reaction to the Famine. However, it's had some great non-political figures appear, like Ada Lovelace, and it's been the first exposure many people have had to some of the period's more difficult topics. It also has prompted me to research more of this period, if just to know the background. Goodwin says season 3 will explore more "sexual tension" between Victoria and Albert, which I can only guess means Tom Hughes will learn to make some facial expressions, but if it means that there will be a more accurate portrayal of this love story, that'd be worth it. Let's just hope Goodwin, who's based the show more or less off of Victoria's copious personal diaries, will let her subject herself tell the story more in the future.

¹ Daisy Goodwin, "Victoria writer Daisy Goodwin: how I struck a balance between drama and historical accuracy," RadioTimes, accessed March 6, 2018, http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-03-03/victoria-season-2-finale-itv/.

2“British TV viewers shocked by Famine scenes in Victoria,” Raidió Teilifís Éireann, accessed March 8, 2018, https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/1003/909290-british-tv-viewers-shocked-by-famine-scenes-in-victoria/.

Sonnet 116 - I Want to Know What Love Is

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O, no! it is an ever-fixed mark,
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

  Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 is part of the Fair Youth sequence addressed to an anonymous young man. This sonnet does not mention its recipient, instead focusing on a general theme of the nature of love. This theme is divided into four themes, one for each quatrain and the couplet. Quatrain 1 is a list of things love will not do, quatrain 2 uses nautical imagery to describe the constancy of love, and quatrain 3 is on the passage of time. The couplet finishes the sonnet with a challenge to the reader to prove the author wrong in his assessment. All of these reticulate and refer back to each other.
Quatrain 1 begins this study of what love is with a list of the things that should not happen with love. “Let me not the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments” (116.1-2) is a direct reference to legal barriers to marriage but can be taken in a more general sense to mean an obstacle. “Love is not love / Which alters when it alteration finds” (116.2-3), meaning love does not try to change the perceived faults of the person who is loved. If it does, then it is not love. It also does not bend “with the remover to remove.” The other will still be loved through hardship and will not be changed by the remover, time (116.4). Time’s role in love will be expanded upon in quatrain 3.

 Quatrain 2’s description of love’s characteristics employs nautical imagery. It is “an ever-fixed mark” (116.5), bringing to mind a landmark such as a lighthouse or some other stationary landmark to guide sailors even during storms. Likewise, love is constant, even in the face of figurative “tempests” (116.6), and like the stars used to navigate, love is the “start to every wand’ring bark. It can be measured, like the stars, but its true value is “unknown” (116.7-8).

 Quatrain 3 expands upon love against the “remover” time as mentioned in line 4. “Love’s not time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks / Within his bending sickle’s compass come” (116.9-10). The physical world, especially the human body is under the control of time, but as said in the first quatrain love does not “bend” or change with time. The “compass” in line 10 is both a description of the scythe carried by Time personified and a callback to the nautical navigational imagery of the previous quatrain. Another callback occurs in line 11, “Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks” (116.11)  returning to lines 2 and 3 in the first quatrain, “Love is not love / Which alters when it alteration finds” (116.2-3). Ultimately, love lasts to “the edge of doom”-- doomsday, or the end of time (116.12).

 The ending couplet is a challenge to the reader to in turn challenge the poet. “If this be error and upon me proved / I never write, nor no man ever loved” (116.13-14). If he is wrong in his description of love, then he has never written anything and love is not real, just as he said in lines 1 and 2 to not let him “admit impediments” to the “marriage of true minds.” His claim that if he is in error he has never written is bold, especially considering the previous 115 sonnets he has just written to a fair youth.