I have never been entirely sure about where the Hanoverians came in.  Then I read this today, and suddenly it is clear!  Not entirely sure I think that William of Orange and Mary being first cousins a good idea, but I guess I can’t really comment. 

William, Mary, Anne and the Germans are finally clear!  This is a very momentous day for me.

I read this yesterday and today.  It’s by John Bailey, and is the other book that VATE sent me to review. It’s a mix of talking about what Louisiana was like before the Civil War, and the true story of a trial to try and prove that one Sally Miller, a slave, was actually Salome Muller, a German immigrant.  It’s very scary, in terms of the racism it shows as being completely endemic and accepted as natural.  They had a list of terms for people depending on the degree of ‘blackness’ in their blood.  Lots of people – up to and including legislators and judges – accepted that slavery was the ‘natural’ lot of Africans, and that black people could only be happy and productive as slaves; a free black man or woman was still not nearly the equal of the lowest white person.  I just don’t understand how people could think like that – I guess that’s because I too am a product of my society.  It’s a good book; I’ll be able to use it in Human Rights, which will be good.

At last, I have finished this book, by David Carpenter!  I have been reading it for what seems like months… I think it might actually have been months. 

It is good.  At last I have something of an overview of the first few generations of British kings, which is a good thing.  And the overview of the Irish/Welsh/Scots relationships was very useful.

Basically, it was good. Hopefully it will have some influence on my teaching of the period, but I’m not really sure how, except for in talking about castles.

We went to see Mission Impossible 3 the other day.  In Director’s Lounge, no less, which was incredibly (ridiculously) fun.

It was OK.  Personally I thought there was too much blah-blah romance, but there was a goodly amount of explosions and adventure too.  Cruise is pretty good; Ving Rhames isn’t in it nearly enough.  Neither is Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  I think that, just like in no.2, the movie doesn’t actually spend enough time establishing the villain.  The goody is obviously the goody, and always is, but the villain needs some sort of reason to be a baddy, I think.

Anyway, it was fun.

I am so pleased that the miners finally got rescued the other day.  Because I am frankly sick of all the media attention it’s been getting.  You know what?  They are not heroes.  They did nothing heroic.  They survived – they are survivors – and that’s good in itself. They did not, however, doing anything heroic.  Argh.

The other thing that has narked me in the news recently is that soldier she got killed in Baghdad.  First, he wasn’t the first Aussie to die in Iraq – there was an Aussie on that Blackhawk helicopter that went down a while ago.  The other thing is that for Johnny H and whoever important else to got to the funeral is just dumb.  Will they do that for the next Aussie soldier who dies over there?  And did anyone bother to do that for the 600-odd Aussie soldiers who died during Vietnam?

Turns out he was a Kurd!  And born in the same city as Saddam Hussein!  History really does serve up some lovely ironies, doesn’t it?

I got that info from a TV programme on the ABC last Sunday, Holy Warriors, about Richard and Saladin.  I was taping it, and watching Stargate… and then at 8.15, the tape rewound (the show finished at 8.25).  Having finally watched it today, I think I pretty much would have got all of it IF I had started the tape at the start of the show, rather than believing the TV programme (I got the news at the start), and if those pesky miners hadn’t been found to be alive and necessitated a ‘Breaking News’ event in the middle.

Anyway.  He was a Kurd!  Brilliant!

Having just finished watching this with the kiddies (comparison between the movie and the myth, don’t you know), I am struck once again by the differences between Akhilles and Hektor.  I am sure people have made these observations before, but they are so different…

Akhilles: the extreme.  The greatest warrior, the immortal, the orphan (basically).  Extreme in grief, ignoring the gods, disrespectful to rulers.  Fights by himself, in front of everyone else, not waiting for them.

Hektor:  the moderate.  Good father, good husband, good son.  Excellent warrior, but also a responsible leader – he doesn’t leave his army.  Respects the gods and his ruler.

Yes, I know that I am probably muddling up the movie with the myths, but eh; tis all grist for the mill.

And Akhilles is “Greek”, Hektor Trojan – yet Hektor seems to embody all the values of the polis… maybe it’s a hero-generation thing; Akhilles is the old-style, outside-the-city-hero, vs Hektor the city-hero.

Think I might have to read Iliad again.