Subject: History's Mysteries
Posted by: Cymruambyth
Date: Feb 19 09
There are many unresolved mysteries in history. For instance, who really killed the princes in the Tower (my money is on Henry VII)? What happened to the Roanoke settlers? Where exactly did Judge Crater get to? What would you like to see resolved?
Posted by: Cymruambyth
Date: Feb 19 09
There are many unresolved mysteries in history. For instance, who really killed the princes in the Tower (my money is on Henry VII)? What happened to the Roanoke settlers? Where exactly did Judge Crater get to? What would you like to see resolved?
136 replies. On page 5 of 7 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pagiedamon
|
Rowena, I think I read that book too. Do you recall the title? Sorry if this is becoming a literature thread. Reply #81. Apr 22 09, 6:18 PM |
Rowena8482 
|
I don't Pagie, it was one I picked up in the library when "everything" on the shelves seemed to be stuff I'd read before. I just grabbed at random almost, and enjoyed it, but can't remember the name of the author or the title. It wasn't Phillippa Gregory, but was that sort of thing iirc. Reply #82. Apr 23 09, 2:25 AM |
daver852
|
I think the idea of Elizabeth being able to have a child and keep it a secret is kind of iffy. A much more plausible story, however, is that Mary, Queen of Scots, had a child who died and one of her servant's children was substituted for it, and that child became King James VI and I. Reply #83. Apr 23 09, 8:39 AM |
guitargoddess
|
Rowena, could the novel be "The Queen's Bastard"? Reply #84. Apr 23 09, 12:07 PM |
supersal1
|
I hadn't heard the one about Mary before, but I was aware of the story that the Old Pretender (James Francis Stuart, son of James II) was a replacement baby, being smuggled into Mary of Modena's chamber to replace a stillborn child. There were also rumours that Elizabeth I had borne a child in her teens, by Thomas Seymour. Reply #85. Apr 23 09, 2:04 PM |
Cymruambyth
|
Then again, there was the rumour that QEI never married because she couldn't have a child because she was an hemaphrodite! Reply #86. Apr 24 09, 8:19 AM |
| supersal1
|
Exactly Cym - plus Queen Victoria was illegitimate as there was no previous family history of haemophilia (though I prefer the Doctor Who explanation that she was bitten by a werewolf!). I wonder if the whole baby/hermaphrodite thing with QE1 was to do with the fact that it was, and perhaps still is, inconceivable (sorry!) to some that a woman could rule well and would voluntarily give up the chance of marriage and children to do so! Reply #87. Apr 24 09, 8:38 AM |
| Cymruambyth
|
Sal, there's no 'perhaps' to the notion that there are some who doubt a woman's ability to run things - that's why there are glass ceilings in most corporations! And that's despite the proved ability of women to multi-task better than men. Reply #88. Apr 24 09, 11:02 AM |
trojan11
|
Not quite so, I fear. Various tests, whereby a computer has been placed before an equal number of males and females, all with at least five tasks to do simultaneously on their computer (multi tasking), has shown clearly that males perform better than females. Also, tests conducted where males and females were put to observing what appeared to be a number of totally confusing multi dimensional images and sorting them into order; again males outscore females, quite significantly. Innumerable tests with regard to cognitive thinking (cognitive as opposed to emotional or volitional) again, shows males ahead by quite some distance. Probably all quite meaningless, really. Women have ruled various parts of the world for centuries, as and when they've felt like it. The thing is, as I see it, and I hope that you'll forgive me for saying so, is...if you allow another person to buy your meals in restaurants, your drinks, clothes, etc, human nature, both male and female, gives them a feeling of ownership. To allow someone else to open their wallet and pay your way, means that you have given up sovereignty of yourself; you are, in fact, purchased. Reply #89. Apr 24 09, 1:09 PM |
stuthehistoryguy
|
I won't go as far as the above brother of Paris, but I do feel that the perceived ability of women to multi-task is more a function of traditional female roles, particularly as full-time parent, than any aspect of women's brains. A few months ago I was babysitting my brother's children. Finding myself actively playing with his 5-year-old, policing his 3-year-old with a yen for vandalism, and bouncing his infant girl--all simultaneously out of necessity--I came to an appreciation of how mothers are seen as natural multi-taskers. It's not the gender, folks; it's the circumstances. Reply #90. Apr 24 09, 9:14 PM |
| Cymruambyth
|
trojan, I would imagine that the tests you cite and the results thereof would depend largely on the subjects being tested. I find the cognitive thinking results iffy at best. My experience with testing, surveys, etc. has been that oftentimes the results are predetermined by the very nature of the test. I have no doubt that if these tests were done at a keyboard they may well be skewed to favour males over females. Reply #91. Apr 24 09, 10:19 PM |
| trojan11
|
Cym, the results of such testing depended not largely but entirely upon the subjects being tested, and it is not likely that a bunch of female nincompoops were deliberately chosen to test beside a group of male Einsteins. You make more than a hint of deliberate bias with regard to any test where males outperform females, and yet you propound the unproven theory, stating that it is 'proven', that females are better at multi tasking than males. Now, that may well be so, but the only proof is that of the constant repetition of mundane and familiar tasks as carried out by a housewife. Set in familiar surroundings and repeating the same tasks day in and day out, until they can perform these tasks in their sleep. Taken out of the familiar environment and placed with unfamiliar tasks, their ability to multi task in an adequate fashion is, as yet, totally unproven. Reply #92. Apr 25 09, 4:38 AM |
| Rowena8482
|
It could well have been GG - the child grew up and did find out who his mother was iirc, but I don't think he ever did anything about it - he made his own way in the world I think. Reply #93. Apr 25 09, 7:36 AM |
| hippo22
|
i would like the mystery of OAK ISLAND treasure,situated in nova scotia ,solved. Reply #94. Apr 26 09, 10:55 AM |
GracieGeorge
|
And did "The Man in the Iron Mask" really exist? If so, who was he? What happened to the passengers on the Marie Celeste? What was the true identity of Jack the Ripper? What happened to Amelia Earhart? Where's Jimmy Hoffa? Was Marilyn Monroe murdered? And the list goes on and on and on ... Reply #95. May 22 09, 12:06 PM |
Arpeggionist
|
I thought they found Amelia Aerhardt's body just a few years ago... Reply #96. May 23 09, 8:30 PM |
REDVIKING57
|
I still want to know who shot JR,and why they were such a crap shot? Never thought it was Kristen.She was framed! Reply #97. May 24 09, 10:25 AM |
ArlingtonVA
|
LOL at redviking's post! Reply #98. May 24 09, 2:12 PM |
paco18
|
Who is this "JR" guy/gal? I've come across this before but I am at a loss as to who it is. Somebody help me out here please. I feel like I'm supposed to know but I'm embarrassed that I don't. Reply #99. May 25 09, 12:21 PM |
| Cymruambyth
|
paco, from 1978 to 1991 one opf the hottest shows on American TV was a prime time soap opera called 'Dallas'. It had everything - greed, lust, wealth, big hair, oil...kept thousands of North Americans glued to their screen. J.R. was the villain of the piece, a slimy oil baron who cheated on his wife, his brother, his mother - everyone. The climax of the season finale in 1980 was the shooting of JR. Fans had to wait until the fourth season started in the fall of 1980 to find out whodunnit. Reply #100. May 25 09, 1:42 PM |
136 replies. On page 5 of 7 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: