Series 11 News & Spoilers

[Professor Zoom]

And of course he is somehow both King James the I and the VI, because monarchies are weird

It’s not weird. He was the King of both England and Scotland. They weren’t the same country. He was the 1st King James of England and the 6th King James of Scotland. It’s there in the article.

 

[jaime]

It’s not weird. He was the King of both England and Scotland. They weren’t the same country. He was the 1st King James of England and the 6th King James of Scotland. It’s there in the article.

Personally I think it will great to bring that back into common public knowledge. It really goes against the England Invaded narrative (really it’s the Normans invading bloody everyone, and sets of alliances that through the usual modern thinking, don’t really sit well with separatist narratives for the U.K....) and is gonna be interesting to see how they play his various....hobbies. (Strictly religious, writes books on demons, and was likely homosexual. It’s going to be an interesting hour.)

 

[kirk55555]

It’s not weird. He was the King of both England and Scotland. They weren’t the same country. He was the 1st King James of England and the 6th King James of Scotland. It’s there in the article.

It was just a small joke about how royalty is weird. As an American, I give absolutely no shits about any British monarch, except possibly George III since he was an ass and the one that was in charge when the US gained its independence. Besides that I don't care either way, and I figured there was a good reason for James having two numbers even when I made the comment

 

[Professor Zoom]

It was just a small joke about how royalty is weird. As an American, I give absolutely no shits about any British monarch, except possibly George III since he was an ass and the one that was in charge when the US gained its independence. Besides that I don't care either way, and I figured there was a good reason for James having two numbers even when I made the comment

As an American, I care. Because it’s history. Because it’s knowing how things were relate to how things are.

I wasnt suggesting you need to “give two shits” about a British monarch. I do suggest knowing history is a good thing.

 

[kirk55555]

As an American, I care. Because it’s history. Because it’s knowing how things were relate to how things are.

I wasnt suggesting you need to “give two shits” about a British monarch. I do suggest knowing history is a good thing.

I'd suggest that nobody knows everything, and knowing about English monarchs both doesn't interest me and is fairly useless knowledge. Heck, there is a good 2/3rds of the US presidents that I can tell you absolutely nothing about, and while I consider that knowledge to be about as useless as knowing british monarchy stuff at least its technically more relevant to me.

Some parts of history are important to everyone, some is important in specific situations, and some is just trivia. I doubt the average person in any country really needs to know about King James the 1st/6th.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'd suggest that nobody knows everything,

In this day and age of google and Wikipedia, you don’t have to know everything. It’s incredibly easy to look up information. And quick too.

[/quote]

and knowing about English monarchs both doesn't interest me and is fairly useless knowledge. Heck, there is a good 2/3rds of the US presidents that I can tell you absolutely nothing about, and while I consider that knowledge to be about as useless as knowing british monarchy stuff at least its technically more relevant to me.

Some parts of history are important to everyone, some is important in specific situations, and some is just trivia. I doubt the average person in any country really needs to know about King James the 1st/6th.[/QUOTE]

Sure. But there’s a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance.

And, since he’s the guy that requested a new translation of the Bible, most of the Christians of the world should have a knowledge of the guy, and the decisions made in that translation.

 

[kirk55555]

In this day and age of google and Wikipedia, you don’t have to know everything. It’s incredibly easy to look up information. And quick too.

Yep, and I did that. I actually did it before I made the joke, and when several people explained how James was 1st and 6th I had already read why. That doesn't make royalty not weird I mean, you can find weirder things in royal families. I do find the fact that English kings could just repeatedly murder as many spouses as they like to be...interesting, and I remember a picture of some english king with a Russian Tsar that had them looking like brothers presumably because of all the nobility inbreeding there was (the people in question are George V and Nicholas II, who were cousins but look like siblings).

Sure. But there’s a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance.

I can honestly say that I have put zero effort into being ignorant of the English nobility. It doesn't take any will to not pay attention to a bunch of long dead, powerful rich people from a country an ocean away from mine.

And, since he’s the guy that requested a new translation of the Bible, most of the Christians of the world should have a knowledge of the guy, and the decisions made in that translation.

They might know about the King James bible, I vaguely remember that name, but the number that know which King James it is or why its named after him is probably not high, at least among average people.

Again, I just don't care. This is becoming one of the more ridiculous conversations I've had, especially in a thread about Doctor Who. I'm sure King James was important in his day, whatever. I'm not disputing that. But unless I somehow find myself on Jeopardy I doubt knowing anything about him will ever be useful to me or most people. Someone playing him on Doctor Who is literally the most relevant he's ever been, or ever will be, to me. Plus, I like Alan Cumming, so thats a plus.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Someone playing him on Doctor Who is literally the most relevant he's ever been,

Literally.

or ever will be, to me. Plus, I like Alan Cumming, so thats a plus.

He is invincible.
But does it make James literally more relevant than he’s ever been? Like if Brad Garrett played James would be be a little less more relevant than he has ever been or the same? Is relavance based on just being in Doctor Who or who plays him in Doctor Who?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

It was just a small joke about how royalty is weird. As an American, I give absolutely no shits about any British monarch, except possibly George III since he was an ass and the one that was in charge when the US gained its independence. Besides that I don't care either way, and I figured there was a good reason for James having two numbers even when I made the comment

I say this as an American -- George III's reputation in the United States is wildly overblown. He wasn't the monster that the Continental Congress made him out to be. I can't fault George for wanting to prosecute a war to stamp out a rebellion in his dominions. The colonists' grievances were the doing of Parliament, not the king, and George, on his own, could not have fixed them as the monarch's powers were diminished after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Revolution was avoidable, but that would have required different thinking in London about colonial governance and different Parliamentary leadership. (Had Pitt the Elder not gone to the Lords, a resolution may well have been achieved.) George III may have been mad, but he was no worse than his predecessors or successors.

 

[danellis]

Personally I think it will great to bring that back into common public knowledge. It really goes against the England Invaded narrative (really it’s the Normans invading bloody everyone, and sets of alliances that through the usual modern thinking, don’t really sit well with separatist narratives for the U.K....)

Well, if you're going to take that route - it's more the case that the Vikings invaded EVERYONE (from Greenland; if not the north americas in the west or at least Moscow in the east), the Normans were just another Viking settlement. My joke during the independence reference was to wonder at the Scots voting for independence from their own empire.

and is gonna be interesting to see how they play his various....hobbies. (Strictly religious, writes books on demons, and was likely homosexual. It’s going to be an interesting hour.)

I was to remember whether the homosexuality thing was a combination of it being an MGBGT interview and a general expectation of 17th British nobility....

Given the current political climate, it's likely that this particular "hobby" will be the principle matter of his role. Maybe throwing a couple of witches in for good measure.

Some parts of history are important to everyone, some is important in specific situations, and some is just trivia. I doubt the average person in any country really needs to know about King James the 1st/6th.

In as much as he caused Great Britain to be created as a political entity I'd argue he's a fairly historical significant personality.

I say this as an American -- George III's reputation in the United States is wildly overblown. He wasn't the monster that the Continental Congress made him out to be. I can't fault George for wanting to prosecute a war to stamp out a rebellion in his dominions. The colonists' grievances were the doing of Parliament, not the king, and George, on his own, could not have fixed them as the monarch's powers were diminished after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Revolution was avoidable, but that would have required different thinking in London about colonial governance and different Parliamentary leadership. (Had Pitt the Elder not gone to the Lords, a resolution may well have been achieved.) George III may have been mad, but he was no worse than his predecessors or successors.

By the 18th Century, the British constitution (in as much as it exists, in a strict sense) was a long way down the road of government being by Parliament and only nominally in the name of the Crown. In terms of aupporting the agricultural revolution that preceded and arguably caused the Industrial one, he was probably ahead of at least his two direct predessors and at least one successor.

...I do find the fact that English kings could just repeatedly murder as many spouses as they like to be...interesting

I presume you're reference to Henry VIII? Of his six wives, "only" two were executed, so far from being randomly murdered by the king they were passed through what at the time constituted due process. I COULD be misremembering this, but my memory is that the execution of Anne Boleyn (wife number 2, and mother of Elizabeth I) was due to political manipulation by his courtiers, and probably against his personal wishes; my view is that he was actually quite a weak and easily manipulated monarch.

I'm sure King James was important in his day, whatever. I'm not disputing that. ....Someone playing him on Doctor Who is literally the most relevant he's ever been, or ever will be, TO ME.

(emphasis mine)

Literally.

It's worth putting on record that kirk55555 said that it was to him [kirk555555] that James' importance was limited to his place in Doctor Who.

dJE

 

[kirk55555]

Yeah, to me James I is only relevant because of Doctor Who. I specifically made sure to say it that way. I'm not arguing about historical importance. I'm just saying that if he wasn't on Doctor Who, and played by an actor I like, he wouldn't be a historical figure I'd pay any attention to. As it is I only care about the character as he'll be used in Doctor Who. The same can be said about 90% of the historical figures that The Doctor meets.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

It's worth putting on record that kirk55555 said that it was to him [kirk555555] that James' importance was limited to his place in Doctor Who.

Which is unfortunate, not to mention odd, because James VI/I was historically significant in ways that modern Americans, like Kirk555555 should appreciate.

In James' reign, the permanent English colonization of North America began with Jamestown, plus the Puritans who founded Plymouth in 1620 fled England for the Netherlands and then settled in New England during his reign.

James commissioned the King James Bible, which remains in use today.

Shakespeare wrote Macbeth because of James. (Banquo was the semi-legendary ancestor of the Stuart kings.)

The Gunpowder Plot happened because of James. So, in a way, we have James to thank for Guy Fawkes masks, V for Vendetta, and Anonymous.

Also in James' reign, the Plantation of Ireland -- the settlement of Ulster by Protestants from England and Scotland -- began, and so we can pin the blame for partition of Ireland and the Troubles largely on James.

Off the top of my head, that's five significant events that happened because of James that remain important today.

 

[kirk55555]

Oh god, who cares? I don't find any British history interesting. I don't find early American history interesting (anything pre 1776 just puts me to sleep). I'm not arguing importance, I'm just saying that I don't give a shit.

This is now worse then the time some people on this forum freaked out when I hated Eaters of Light last season (partially because it was based on an obscure, stupid piece of history that was barely relevant to people in the UK, much less the world). At least King james is more relevant then whatever the fuck the Picts were, and will probably be an asset to the story being told. That is my barometer for historical stuff in Doctor Who. if it enhances the story or enables a good story, its good. If it holds back the story or brings it down, like in Eaters of Light, its bad. Actual historical importance dsoesn't factor into it. I love the Agatha christie episode in series 4, but you couldn't pay me to read one of her books.

Some people don't give a shit about British royalty or anything related to it. Probably a lot of people in the UK too, much less in the US. Just accept it, it doesn't hurt you or anything. It doesn't mean the DW episode will be bad. I don't give a crap about Queen Elizabeth (?) either, but I still really liked Day of the Doctor and the scenes with her were funny. I admittedly actually just had to google the episode because I thought she was Queen Victoria, but even stuff like that doesn't effect an episodes quality (seriously though, British royalty needs to know that there are more then 4-5 boy and girl names in existence). The actual history in Doctor Who is almost always second to the story. Except when it comes to those Picts, I'm still a bit irrationally bitter about that episode and its shitty obscure British history fucking up the story. But even then its only because the story was held back by the history.

In the end, history is only important in DW in setting up the backdrop or guest characters. Besides that, its the story thats important, not what historic figure The Doctor is meeting or what historical event The Doctor is seeing/participating in.

 

[jaime]

Oh god, who cares? I don't find any British history interesting. I don't find early American history interesting (anything pre 1776 just puts me to sleep). I'm not arguing importance, I'm just saying that I don't give a shit.

This is now worse then the time some people on this forum freaked out when I hated Eaters of Light last season (partially because it was based on an obscure, stupid piece of history that was barely relevant to people in the UK, much less the world). At least King james is more relevant then whatever the fuck the Picts were, and will probably be an asset to the story being told. That is my barometer for historical stuff in Doctor Who. if it enhances the story or enables a good story, its good. If it holds back the story or brings it down, like in Eaters of Light, its bad. Actual historical importance dsoesn't factor into it. I love the Agatha christie episode in series 4, but you couldn't pay me to read one of her books.

Some people don't give a shit about British royalty or anything related to it. Probably a lot of people in the UK too, much less in the US. Just accept it, it doesn't hurt you or anything. It doesn't mean the DW episode will be bad. I don't give a crap about Queen Elizabeth (?) either, but I still really liked Day of the Doctor and the scenes with her were funny. I admittedly actually just had to google the episode because I thought she was Queen Victoria, but even stuff like that doesn't effect an episodes quality (seriously though, British royalty needs to know that there are more then 4-5 boy and girl names in existence). The actual history in Doctor Who is almost always second to the story. Except when it comes to those Picts, I'm still a bit irrationally bitter about that episode and its shitty obscure British history fucking up the story. But even then its only because the story was held back by the history.

In the end, history is only important in DW in setting up the backdrop or guest characters. Besides that, its the story thats important, not what historic figure The Doctor is meeting or what historical event The Doctor is seeing/participating in.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, or something like that.
Still. Some places have history books, others have sticker albums. (Why is there no decent emoticon for tongue in cheek? I suppose I should stop using the quick replies as there’s probably a Spock with raised eyebrow.)

 

[matthunter]

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, or something like that.

In Kirk555.55recurring's case, those who ignore history are destined to look like an idiot when they proclaim "no-one has heard of the Picts" and then finds out it's actually fairly common knowledge in the UK (and especially the Celtic areas) but doubles down on it because they have to have SOME reason to pick the episode apart, goddamit!

 

[jaime]

In Kirk555.55recurring's case, those who ignore history are destined to look like an idiot when they proclaim "no-one has heard of the Picts" and then finds out it's actually fairly common knowledge in the UK (and especially the Celtic areas) but doubles down on it because they have to have SOME reason to pick the episode apart, goddamit!

It was a fun if mediocre little episode that largely reminded me of the old Look And Read series. It was also something of an antidote to people that seem to think BraveHeart is some form of documentary. (filmed in Ireland, stars an Australian...and is about as historically accurate as that suggests.) Which neatly explains why I prefer the Pictsies of Pratchett, their wee haig.

 

[kirk55555]

In Kirk555.55recurring's case, those who ignore history are destined to look like an idiot when they proclaim "no-one has heard of the Picts" and then finds out it's actually fairly common knowledge in the UK (and especially the Celtic areas) but doubles down on it because they have to have SOME reason to pick the episode apart, goddamit!

I wish I had limitless resources and could just ask 100 random British citizens about the Picts. Most Americans can't remember most history things they learn in school outside of the really big stuff, so even if obscure tribes of England is taught in British schools I think the number of people who know much about them is probably not big. None of that effects the fact that it was a completely moronic thing to have on Doctor Who.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, or something like that.
Still. Some places have history books, others have sticker albums. (Why is there no decent emoticon for tongue in cheek? I suppose I should stop using the quick replies as there’s probably a Spock with raised eyebrow.)

I don't think anyone is doomed to repeat the reign of some random English king.

 

[jaime]

I wish I had limitless resources and could just ask 100 random British citizens about the Picts. Most Americans can't remember most history things they learn in school outside of the really big stuff, so even if obscure tribes of England is taught in British schools I think the number of people who know much about them is probably not big. None of that effects the fact that it was a completely moronic thing to have on Doctor Who.



I don't think anyone is doomed to repeat the reign of some random English king.

Trumps already divorced one hasn’t he? (Checks mnemonic rhyme...if one to rassilons tower would go...oh...wrong one....)
I mean that’s a different king but...

And the Picts are represented in popular culture. There was a big surge in medieval based entertainment in the eighties, following the Fantasy boom. Game Of Thrones is just an echo of it, written by an Anglophile who had a raging love for the War of the Roses era. So that history is still being used today. And as I mentioned, Pratchett gave us the Pictsies, and their mortal fear of lawyers. Usually mortal for the lawyer.
They are far less the equivalent of your pre French Beer history, and in cultural terms are more equivalent to...maybe your Maydlower settlers or something. Yes, they were a native tribe wiped out by a set of invaders of some description, but there’s still a thread in the history of the islands. Problem is, we have rather a lot of history, so we have got better at organising it and writing it down. America is a very young nation, and some bugger went and invented photography around the time it really started getter some traction, so there was never time for good legends, oral history, that sort of thing, to develop in modern America. Granted, the Normans came and wiped most of England’s old stuff out, and the Romans before that (Sundry others weren’t so total in their invading habits...I mean yes, a Welshman is an Irishman who couldn’t swim, but then many Englishmen are Welshmen who couldn’t cope with a steep hill by that logic.) but we got in the habit of writing stuff down, sometimes in the margins, or telling the stories. America has Hollywood, and it sometimes seems Modern American History starts with Gone With The Wind.
When we aren’t being nationalistic twerps about it, history is an amazing tapestry.

 

[kirk55555]

Yeah, I'm not going to lie. I don't get most of that big paragraph. Anyway, I didn't want to start an argument. I only care about King James in that he's going to be a character on Doctor Who played by an actor I like. The Picts are boring shit and I'd prefer to never hear or read the name ever again. That is really all I have to say on those subjects.

 

[Mr Awe]

The Picts are boring shit and I'd prefer to never hear or read the name ever again.

Pict!!

Sorry. (Not.)