|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Jul 16, 2011 14:09:39 GMT -5
Historically, the labels 'Hero' or 'Villain' can rarely be applied or defended. They're necessarily subjective for one thing: one person's or culture's darling is another's devil incarnate. Nevertheless, there's a bit of pantomime in all of us when we're in front of a crowd. So: I was wondering do any of you play the villain in front of an audience? What I'd also like to ask is if your characters incorporate elements - like personality traits - of your historical 'heroes' or 'villains'; and who are they?
I've based on of my characters, Templar Brother-Knight Reynald, on Brain de Jay (although only slightly) and Heinrich von Plauen. De Jay could certainly be considered a villain; but one must remember that the stories about him all post-date his death; so it's hard to say if they're accurate. But I've made my persona a man of, at times, uncertain loyalties; and someone who is not programmed to obey: hence he has been 'put out of the way' at the preceptory of Montaigle - not your usual Templar property, which resembled a manorial estate, but a remote and inaccessible fortress of uncertain date and origin (itself partly based on Montsegur).
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on Jul 17, 2011 1:14:04 GMT -5
Well for hero or villain, Sir Didymous is based loosely on King Edward I. Whether he was a hero or a villain, a heathen or a devout, the accounts are mixed. With movies like "Braveheart" his image has received a black eye. He was known as a warlord by many, but if researched most of his campaigns have some political basis. He was asked to oversee the ascension of the Scottish throne, and he saw John Balliol get the crown. Pre-dating that he was selected as Lord Superior of Scotland. If the treaty of Paris wouldn't have allied the Scotch militarily with the French (and we know how well England and France got along back then), Edward wouldn't have declared war. After the surrender at Montrose and the pledges made by the Scotch nobility, King Edward had legitimate claim to Scotland. And everything that happened after that was rebellion and betrayal.
Sir Didymous, like his King, has no ill will toward those that remained loyal to England, but has a disdain for all who break oaths and rebel with out cause. Bearing in mind that the whole "prima-nocta" thing was complete tripe. He also believes strongly in the use of the parliament, which is yet another shared trait. A minor note is that I and Edward are both 6 foot 2 inches.
If I remember correctly, before becoming King, he went to stand against the non-Christians after a treaty had already been made, just because he saw it an affront to Christianity. This shows a strong (but perhaps misguided) devotion to his faith.
At various events Sir Didymous has made more than a few enemies with his ill temper which was supposedly present in good old Ed also. His more historical, and English (historically speaking), view on the events of the Scotch rebellion, combined with his opinionated nature really throw sparks on the straw of "Celtic days" at renfairs.
I am currently trying to get a kit together to portray King Edward. I would love to have the opportunity to show an accurate version of him to the "Braveheart" polluted masses. Until then I will have to simply annoy the want-to-be highlanders my marching my troupe under the red banner with three lions.
NOTE: I am descended of the Clan Ferguson and hold no disdain for the Scottish. I just like to show that the English, of whom I am also descended, are not always the "bad guys".
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Jul 17, 2011 2:03:55 GMT -5
I knew someone who re-created King Edward I, and he went as far as to mimic his drooping left eyelid and lisp, and he also wore a beautiful jewelled surcoat. He was really the chap who got me into re-enacting. Have you read Edward's recent biography 'A Great and Terrible King' by Marc Morris, ISBN978-0-09-948175-1?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on Jul 17, 2011 20:23:05 GMT -5
I haven't had the chance, but I hear it is very well written.
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Jul 18, 2011 5:01:26 GMT -5
It's ceratinly a good read, and one I'd recommend.
I had one interesting experience as a 'villain'. At one show, the master of the lists started making a song and dance about what a rotten lot the Templars were. This is something that has been bandied around for ages. Some of the chroniclers do cast the Knights in a very poor light, but they were all clergymen, and the clergy wasn't too keen on the Templars because they resented the Knights special privileges. Hence they were only too happy to play up their mistakes and the conflicts that sometimes arose with the Hospitallers. And, just recently, Ridley Scott was criticised by historians such as Jonathan Riley-Smith for presenting the Templars in a bad way. Now I didn't mind the character assassination that this chap was attempting. Nor was I bothered about the booing: in fact I went along with it for the sake of appearances. However, as Living Historians, the public do take on board what we say; and this fellow was going a bit too far and he was presenting a false and misleading impression of the Templars. It all backfired though. On returning to camp, I had crowds around me wanting to talk to me; and I was able to go some way to setting the record straight.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on May 23, 2012 18:01:50 GMT -5
At a faire some years back something similar happened to me. Over here much of what people think they know of Medieval England is based on Hollywood. At the time of the fair, I portrayed a (slightly less accurate) English Baron. Among a crowed of Scottish want-to-be's, one of them started speaking ill of "the Longshanks". I normally try to avoid conflict, Sir Didymous however, revels in it. I stood up holding my (soda filled) tankard high and shouted "God save King Edward! And all those who speak treachery of their true King be fed to the swine. If the pigs can stomach them." Those who were there (lunch time in the larger pavillion), sat quietly for a moment untill one kilt wearing gentileman in the back yelled "Go hang thyself, and your King too!" I replied with "At least we English know who our King is." It all ended in laughter, and most of the casual faire goers just thought we worked there.
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Aug 26, 2012 6:09:09 GMT -5
Someone who could fall into the category of either hero or villain is King Richard III of England. He remains a figure surrounded by controversy, and as I'm a member of Bosworth Battlefield's resident re-enactment group, Les Routiers de Rouen, I'm closely involved with a lot of the debate about his reputation; and indeed, there are those who fiercely defend his good name to this day.
On Friday Richard was back in the news again. Part of the mystery that surrounds him is what happened to his body. After his death at Bosworth (and even the site of the battle is controversial) he was taken to Leicester and displayed naked in the market square. Later he was buried in the abbey of the Greyfriars in the city, and some years afterwards, Henry Tudor paid out a meagre sum for an alabaster tomb to be placed over his grave. There Richard remained until the Reformation, when Greyfrairs was demolished. According to tradition, Richard's tomb was smashed up and his remains were thrown from Old Bow Bridge into the River Soar that runs through Leicester; but no-one really knows the truth. A team from the University has now been granted permission to dig -up Greyfriars car park that now occupies the site of the vanished abbey to see if any trace of Richard's tomb remains under the tarmac, and a descendant of his sister has been located so that any bones that are discovered can be checked against his DNA.
I hope to be able to post more on this story as things develop.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on Aug 31, 2012 0:19:29 GMT -5
Please do, I love this kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Aug 31, 2012 11:53:10 GMT -5
The latest news is that the remains of substantial walls and a tiled pavement have been uncovered, which has been interpreted as belonging to the lost abbey of the Greyfriars. Further trenches are in the process of being dug to try to locate any burials.
A few years back a stone coffin was recovered from a garden in Earl Shilton (a Leicestershire village not far from Bosworth) that some believe could have belonged to King Richard III, although some think that it might date back to the Roman period. It's now displayed at the Battlefield Visitor Centre. There are local traditions that the grave of the last of the Plantagenets is in fact known, but naturally it's a guarded secret. A few skulls have been dredged up from the River Soar over the years, near to the spot where Richard's remains are said to have been cast in; one of which local lore claims bore signs of injury (Richard most likely died from a halberd blow to the head); but their present whereabouts are unknown
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Sept 12, 2012 12:36:18 GMT -5
There have been exciting developments with this story over the past couple of days. The notion that King Richard was ever buried in a stone coffin has been dismissed as highly unlikely by the excavation team and several prominent historians associated with the dig. Thus the story that his remains were thrown into the Soar and his coffin was used as a horse trough, then a cellar step, and finally a garden feature has been discredited. It is more probable that he had a wooden or a lead coffin, if he had one at all. Furthermore, the archeological evidence indicates that Greyfriars was not demolished by rampaging Tudor thugs during the Reformation, but methodically dismantled by teams of builders over a longer period who then re-used the material in other projects around the city. It is unlikely that they would have bothered to disturb any remains; and this is indicated by the monument that Alderman Herrick erected in his garden. Herrick became the owner of the site once it was cleared of the former abbey, and he erected a pillar in his new manor garden which was inscribed ' Here lies Richard Plantagenet, Sometime King of England'. Crucially, he used the present tense; which would indicate that Richard's burial was still intact. This inscription was recorded by Christopher Wren, father to the famous architect, in the early 17th century. Wren recorded that this pillar lay at the end of an undulating path; and such a path has been uncovered by the archeologists. Today, press releases have been issued which confirm that a skeleton has been removed for tests. The remains bear signs of ante-mortem trauma consistent with the injuries traditionally suffered by Richard at Bosworth. The skeleton also shows signs of a curvature of the spine. DNA tests will take about 12 weeks to confirm the identity of the remains.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on Sept 13, 2012 1:42:23 GMT -5
Fingers crossed as I wait in a state of crazed anticipation.
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Oct 2, 2012 9:13:21 GMT -5
The forensics team and Channel 4 are now co-ordinating their efforts with Les Routiers to try and analyse the injuries that the supposed skeleton of King Richard has suffered (DNA results are still not forthcoming, but are expected nearer to Christmas). This will be for a documentary in which we'll be attempting to reconstruct his last moments. Over the past few weekends, the dig site has been open to the public and Les Routiers have been in attendance to talk about Ricardian history and we were allowed to take some soil from his grave as a keepsake.
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Feb 4, 2013 7:13:08 GMT -5
At 10.00 AM GMT, the Leicester University team behind the car park excavation to locate the grave site of King Richard III held a press conference in the city.
The assembled experts each explained the conclusions of his or her particular area of research. The skeleton uncovered, it was finally revealed, was that of a gracile male, aged in his mid thirties. Carbon dating placed him as living in the mid to late 15th century. He had suffered a total of ten injuries consistent with death on a medieval battlefield. Most blows were from bladed weapons and were aimed at the victim's head. There was some evidence that a number of these blows were inflicted to humiliate the individual in the moments immediately after his death. The grave itself was crudely cut and it was too small for the body. From the position of the arms, it may be that his wrists were bound. He would have been around 5feet 8ins tall, but he would have seemed shorter because of the curvature of his spine.
All these factors are consistent with the skeleton being that of King Richard. The team then announced the results of the DNA testing. There is a match between the mitochondrial DNA of living relatives of Richard III and the sample taken from the skeleton.
The conclusion is that, beyond all reasonable doubt, the remains are that of King Richard III.
Loyaute Me Lie!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Didymous LaRoth on Feb 5, 2013 20:30:20 GMT -5
I suspect that there will be a new found interest in reenactment of that period. At least that's whatI'm hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by Frere Reynald de Pensax on Feb 21, 2013 3:55:02 GMT -5
It sure looks that way! The Wars of the Roses is already the most popular era within the medieval period in British re-enacting, but the interest that the discovery of King Richard's remains has caused has got visitors queuing round the block at the city centre exhibition in all weathers and they're flocking to the battlefield in their thousands. Attached is a photo of His Grace, the Duke of Norfolk and His Lordship, the Earl of Surrey atop Ambion Hill, with the Whyte Boare in the background. Attachments:
|
|