Way to go Wreckmaster – teenagers may not know anything but it's good to see the next next generation being properly educated!

BTW – It'll be a stone-cold day in hell before I accept old spice as queen of anything  

When I was at school (not all that long ago) history lessons were rubbish.  I remember learning about Roman roads and Viking longships.  We had the occassional useful school trip too.  And we did have a Tudor and Stuart day, during which we all made pomanders and dressed up.  Still we weren't taught anything in depth, and learned just about enough to get me interested.  I learned loads on my own through the Horrible History books.  Now I've moved on to the proper (and more accurate) biographies.  I can only hope things improve in schools soon, as my daughter starts school this year, though from what I hear it seems it's getting steadily worse.  Of course with both me and her dad being history buffs, she'll probably pick up a bit from us.  I hope so.  And she already recognises portraits of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII.  She's not so good with the other wives yet, but given she's still only four, so I'll let her off

GCSE's to be tightened in 4 key subjects

Exams boards have been ordered to tighten up GCSEs in four key subjects amid fears they are becoming easier to pass.

Exams watchdog Ofqual wants changes to English literature, maths, history and geography GCSEs to ensure students cover the full breadth of the subjects.

Education Secretary Michael Gove has suggested some GCSEs can be passed with too narrow a grasp of the subject.

Sophie1536 said:

A few months ago I started this topic as I was shocked at the lack of history my 11 year old daughter knew and level of almost non existant history being taught here in schools in the UK well I’m thrilled to say that since my daughter has started secondary school a whole lot has changed

My daughter’s history teacher lives and breathes history and is completely passionate in everything he teaches so it looks like finally my daughter is going to get taught some real history, for instance she came home really excited last week as she told me how she walked into class to find her history teacher laying on the desks holding an axe as you can imagine all the kids were completely intrigued this turned out to be a lesson about the Saxons and Normans! This is exactly the type of thing needed, get the kids interested and now they are designing posters about going to war between the Saxons and Normans and from all accounts the kids are loving it. I feel very lucky my daughter is being taught by someone who loves history so much and is more than happy to bring such interesting teaching methods into school.

You make a very valid point here.. You have to make a child want to learn something.. if the teacher is just one of those who chucks a book in front of a kid and says here learn that it makes the subject boring..Bravo on your kids teacher actually giving her something to puzzle about. A few months back the History teacher at my kids school refused to except his history homework on the grounds he had made the story up just because he couldn't be bothered to do any research.. Lets just say I gave him a little help, with his homework.. The teacher asked for his homework to be of someone who was held in the tower,, Well we all know the obvisous prisoners Anne Boleyn Elizabeth 1st etc..even the Kray brothers were held in the Bell tower in the 60's for a few weeks. Anyway one pretty obscure Prisoner called Josef Jacobs, he was shot as a spy in the tower in the second world war.. He was actually captured down here in Kent, by 2 farmers who heard the gunshots from his pistol calling for help, as he broken his ankle after parachuting out of a German plane.

Anyway my lads teacher had to back down a little rapidly was apolgetic and very red faced when I gave her a bit of a dressing down, and gave her the proof. Needless to say she gave my lad a pass mark.

If they employ teachers the teachers should at least have a good grounding in the subject they are teaching.

When I was at school back in the stone age, our history teacher was a pudding, and couldn't teach for toffee, it actually made history very boring etc.. however when he left we had a teacher who not only encouraged us to learn, and brought the history alive, and made us want to learn, we had historical debates much like we have here too.

Sharon said:

We were taught about our revolution, our civil war and the world wars.  Most of it was very general.  We learned dates and places. But there was so much more that was left out of our studies. I think we studied British history in a class called World History, and that was not a very complete picture.  I do remember we learned about King John and the Magna Carta, Runneymede, 1215. (and that’s the way we learned it, by rote.) In fact, I think that is when I started looking into British history.  Either that or it was in English class when we had to read Ivanhoe.  Most people either love history or they hate it.  I wish more people took the time to understand it.  The classroom is just the beginning. 

My first love was Native American history, and believe me their history was not covered very well in the schoolroom when I was there.  Not from their point of view.  It was: America needed to expand and the Indians had to be removed from the land they had lived on and loved for hundreds of years and they had to be sent to a miserable life on a reservation because nobody wanted them to live alongside the new American people. That was it.  Nothing about their culture. Not much about their leaders.  They were in the way and they had to go. 

Teaching may have changed in the 70’s when young Americans started looking into what was done to the Native Americans. What do you mean the Army gave them contaminated blankets (with Cholera and/or Smallpox etc.) and rotten meat to eat? Keep in mind it has been decades since I was in school.  Maybe schools have improved the way they teach. Maybe I’m too old and everything has changed in schools.  That’s just one subject they could have covered more and with a little more truth.

I didn’t know that John might have been poisoned.  Can’t say I blame anyone for doing that. That’s why I love this site. So much to learn.  From what I have read, John was just a horrible creature. I have not read any history about him that is sympathetic.  I mean even Richard III has historians taking a second look at the way he is portrayed.  Whether they are right or wrong, at least they are out there.  If I remember right,  Henry II had a few problems with the pope, too.  It actually amazes me that Rome held onto England for as long as it did. 

Sophie’s daughter is so lucky to have a teacher who is willing to teach in a way that catches the attention of the children.  They will never forget the image of their teacher laying on the desk holding an axe.  That is a powerful way to start a class about Saxon history.

Henry 2nd didn't really have a fracas as such with the Pope it was more to do with Thomas-a-becket, Once apon a time they were good freinds, of course Henry was King and Thomas A becket was Archbishop of Canterbury (which is about half an hours drive from me)

A rift grew between Henry and Becket as the new archbishop resigned his chancellorship and sought to recover and extend the rights of the archbishopric. This led to a series of conflicts with the king, including that over the jurisdiction of secular courts over English clergymen, which accelerated antipathy between Becket and the king. Attempts by King Henry to influence the other bishops against Becket began in Westminster in October 1163, where the King sought approval of the traditional rights of the royal government in regard to the church.  This led to Clarendon, where Becket was officially asked to sign off on the King’s rights or face political repercussions.

One night when Henry was eating his dinner he was overheard to say “who will rid me of this troublesome priest” some of his men took it to mean that he wanted the Archbishop killed, and rode of to Canterbury to do the deed..

This is an account of his death from Wikipedia..

Several contemporary accounts of what happened next exist; of particular note is that of Edward Grim, who was himself wounded in the attack. This is part of the account from Edward Grim:

…The wicked knight leapt suddenly upon him, cutting off the top of the crown which the unction of sacred chrism had dedicated to God. Next he received a second blow on the head, but still he stood firm and immovable. At the third blow he fell on his knees and elbows, offering himself a living sacrifice, and saying in a low voice, 'For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death.' But the third knight inflicted a terrible wound as he lay prostrate. By this stroke, the crown of his head was separated from the head in such a way that the blood white with the brain, and the brain no less red from the blood, dyed the floor of the cathedral. The same clerk who had entered with the knights placed his foot on the neck of the holy priest and precious martyr, and, horrible to relate, scattered the brains and blood about the pavements, crying to the others, 'Let us away, knights; this fellow will arise no more.

Henry was devestated at the death of his one time freind, and told the pope that it was mea culpa (basic translation my fault) and because of the horrific death of the Archbishop the Pope ordered Henry to do penence for the death of his Archbishop. I'm not entirely sure what punishment his penance actually took but I know it was a public Penance in Canterbury Catherdral, it's quite possible the monks of the abbey actually flogged Henry.. I don't know for certain though, so please don't quote me..

King John was an apsolute rotter, His wife Isabella took a lover and when he found out he hung her lover above her bed when she sleeping so when she woke up she saw her lover very mutilated and hanging there..He also had a vile temper, which took the form of lying on the ground kicking out at all who near and stuffing rushes into his mouth and chewing them, One Book I read said that he actually frothed at the mouth when he was in a temper, Isabella and others who were around him soon learned to recognise the signs that he was going to have a paddy and disappeared a bit rapidly and warned others not to go near him for a while..

Sharon said:

Thanks for reminding me what happened, Boleyn.  It was the secular court versus the Church.  If I remember right, a priest had committed murder or some such crime, and Henry wanted the priest tried in the secular courts and the Archbishop said priest are punished by the Church.

 I am reading a novel right now about how Robin Hood may have come about.  In the book, John is accused of beating his nephew Arthur to death and then going into a fit, rolling on the ground and foaming at the mouth.   I had read that about Isabella’s lover.  I didn’t know if that was true.  A harsh act, but was it effective?  What an interesting crew those Plantagenets were.  Truly they were the devil’s brood.

It was such a shame what happened between Beckett and Henry.  They were such good friends.  Beckett took his job seriously. I don’t think Henry expected Beckett to side with the Church.  I think he named him thinking he would have someone from the church on his side.  I have read that Henry walked barefoot to Canterbury, and I wish I could remember what else, but I can’t.  I think he did wear a hair shirt for the rest of his days.  

I rather think you are right I think he did wear a hair shirt.

Robin Hood is one of those Enigmas, that History has a habit of throwing at you. I think he's real name was Robin of Locksley.

Yes i've also read that John actually murdered Arthur, however he had orginally planned to have his eyes put out and castrated in of castle Falaise in France then have him paraded around for all to see, as no one would want a blind and sterile king to rule instead of John. Who was virile as the number of bastards he had would prove that. Although no actual facts of what happened to Arthur after in April 1203,although he was in the castle at Rouen by this time, there are some who have said that Arthur was killed by John, in a fit of rage.

John was supposed to have thrown Arthur against a wall battered him with a chair and then kicked him till he calmed down thinking Arthur was still alive he told him to get up, when he didn't he kicked him again it was then he realised that he was dead, and paniced, thankfully (although not for Arthur) there was a man who worked in the Castle who was dumb, so John told the man to tie a rock around Arthur and throw him in the Seine River.

John threw Arthur's body out of the window where the man did as he was told. King John then put it about that Arthur had tried to eascape and had fallen to his death, and that John had hd his body buried in nearby monastic grounds, that might of been the end of it if a body hadn't washed up on the nearby shores of the Seine, where 2 fishermen found the body of a lad in his early teens, who was very battered and with several broken bones.

This body may or may not of been Arthur's but was buried with all due respect in  Notre Dame Cathedral. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the coffin in the monastic grounds was exhumed and the coffin was found to contain bricks and other rubble. Don't quote me please..

Either way Arthur's death and where he is buried remains a mystery. Arthur's half sister Alix inhereited the title of the Duchess of Brittany. His full sister Eleanor should have inhereited the title but she also disappeared around the same time as Arthur.

Yes you are right about the Plantaganant Kings, they certainly were all hell fire and brimstone, although to be fair perhaps the best of the bunch was Richard 2nd, sure he made mistakes, but at least he wasn't ruthless and cruel like some many of the Plantaganant kings were, and Henry 6th wasn't so bad but I think he would have been happier in a monastry than being on the throne. Now there's a thought, think how different things would be if Henry 6th had renounced his throne to Edward, instead of being involved in the Wars of the Roses. would we have even has a Tudor Dynasty? Hmm that's a good one..

Anyway enjoy your book, if you are reading the one I think you are then it's a good book I've read it, a couple of years ago.. 

Tell your daughter how to remember Henry’s wives is as easy as 123 1 Jane 2 Anne’s and 3 Katherine’s. The last names aren’t important to her yet, but it’s neat that she recognised Anne B. But then for some reason Anne always has stuck out like a sore thumb (and I don’t mean that in a nasty way) When your daughter’s ready you could also teach her, how the wives died, by simply getting her to repeat the rhyme Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived.
Yeah I agree with you totally on just how rubbish history in school was, mind you I was at school during the stone age, and the history teacher himself was a bit of an old fossil himself. Even back then every lesson, and not just history was all about making sure that we taught what they were told to teach us to justify keeping their job, that was my opinion to it anyway. There was never any spontinaty, it was just get on with it so I can get on to teching you the next one. It sounds like that hasn’t changed, which is a shame because it’s our history from right back to the time began that has helped to shape what we are today. For instance freedom of speech first started to come about in Henry’s reign. Thomas More, was very vocal in his opinions about the way things should be done and often told Henry if he felt a decision he was making was wrong. Henry, the nice Henry this is often excepted this advice, and Thomas wasn’t slammed for daring to argue with him.
I can’t remember if we actually had history days, to be honest I think I would have remembered if we had, as history is a passion with me, as it is with all of us on this forum. We went to the odd castle, Ludlow mainly basically because it was the closest to us, Berkeley castle was another, but basically our history consisted of a Open your book at so and so page and then write down the answers in your exercise book, and when you have finished that read chapter so and so, and answer the questions in it for your homework, now buzz off and quit bugging me. Strange thing is that if you ever wanted to ask him a question about something, like who won the battle of Hastings?. He would develop selective to non exsistant hearing. You could say Sir or Mr Robinson Smith a dozen times or more, and nothing, but when you said boggie, he would answer., and it would usually mean a clout round the earhole for inpertinance. Duh well how else are you supposed to get a teacher to answer you if he wouldn’t answer? and he still wouldn’t answer the question you posed, even though he asked you what you wanted. It was a case of well I didn’t now get on with your work. SG said

When I was at school (not all that long ago) history lessons were rubbish.  I remember learning about Roman roads and Viking longships.  We had the occassional useful school trip too.  And we did have a Tudor and Stuart day, during which we all made pomanders and dressed up.  Still we weren’t taught anything in depth, and learned just about enough to get me interested.  I learned loads on my own through the Horrible History books.  Now I’ve moved on to the proper (and more accurate) biographies.  I can only hope things improve in schools soon, as my daughter starts school this year, though from what I hear it seems it’s getting steadily worse.  Of course with both me and her dad being history buffs, she’ll probably pick up a bit from us.  I hope so.  And she already recognises portraits of Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII.  She’s not so good with the other wives yet, but given she’s still only four, so I’ll let her off