Since the errors don’t necessarily have to be about the actual history:
It wasn’t a history book per se, rather a representative of the Templar Treasure genre, but it was set c.1940. Two French writers. A lot of it takes part in the Catalan-speaking areas on both sides of the border. Among other bits of stupidity: one key plot point involves a Frenchman who has been living in Spain for several years and whose Spanish is good enough that people think him a native. He claims that “Spanish does not use ‘é’”, to which I can only answer “¿qué?”. Since “Spanish does not use ‘é’”, they deduce that the place they’re looking for and for which they have only a partial name must be in France. Note that Catalan also uses é (along with à, è, í, ó, ò and ú).
In general, any time they wrote something which was supposed to be in Spanish they screwed up, but items such as calling someone “Don [lastname]” weren’t a plot point (in Spanish Don is followed either by the firstname or by the full name). There are also multiple errors about both sides of the Spanish Civil War, about Spanish geography and about the architecture of several monuments but again, they’re not plot points.
Hmm - doubt I would’ve caught the gaffe described in the OP.
When reading novels set in the past, my wife and I often question various colloquialisms or cultural references. Seems pretty common for modern day writers to drop in current - or relatively recent - references, when describing something considerably more distant. Will have us running to google whether the references are time-appropriate. Often surprised editors do not catch more of these.
That was it. George Meade was in command of the American forces at Gettysburg, not Ulysses Grant (who was commanding the American forces at Vicksburg at the time).
I have no issue in general with people not knowing this, especially non-Americans. But somebody writing a script for a history show should have checked.
To be fair, at the time, “Great Britain” was England and England’s subjugated nations (i.e., Scotland), serving the interests of England. So it’s not unfair to call it a victory for England.
It did occur to me that he was basing his info on what a pilot said but I find it very hard to believe someone who flew planes for years would make a mistake like that. I didn’t think about the info coming from a paratrooper though so that does seem like a plausible explanation.
Bollocks. Many of the British Army soldiers were Scottish, and thousands of people in England wanted the Jacobites to win. It’s not a tenable position for a qualified historian to take.
The Bill O’Reilly “Killing” books are awash in errors. My favorite is the one in Killing Kennedy where he claimed to have been just outside when George de Mohrenschildt killed himself. In fact, O’Reilly was in a different state at the time.
Who’d figure that Bill O’Reilly routinely distorted things for his own personal agenda?
At the time, Clive Cussler’s, “Raise the Titanic!” was a fun, techie-ish read about bringing up the sunken tub. In one piece. Of course, now we know the condition of the wreck and just have to palm our collective faces.
That’s a message the SNP strongly push and I’m sure they were delighted to hear her say it. In reality it was much more complex, with Scots and English on both sides.
Do you have any examples of the SNP pushing this idea (that the Battle of Culloden was won by ‘England’)? Because I don’t believe they do say that or anything of the kind.
Pretty much. The Jacobites also had many supporters in England. And many, perhaps most, Scots opposed the Jacobites on grounds that had nothing to do with England.
But here, Quartz is making an evidence free provocative comment about present day politics.
The thing is, it wasn’t just Cussler. Arthur C. Clarke had also posited a raisable Titanic in his book Imperial Earth, and later in The Ghost from the Grand Banks. Heck, so did Ghostbusters, which depicted a raised Titanic discharging ghost passengers at the New York docks.
At the time virtually everyone seemed to think that the Titanic would be preserved, rust-free, in the oxygen-poor depths of the North Atlantic. Nobody thought about the “rusticles” that we eventually learned covered the surface of the ship. And everybody ignored the eyewitness reports of the ship breaking in half (as depicted in Cameron’s film), even though these were pretty definite and unequivocal.
Well, for starters, I have been to Culloden: the exhibits were very one-sided. I’ve also lived up here for nearly 8 years. I’ve also heard what my nephew is taught about history.
Wow, this is hilarious. I thought, “surely he’s not going to cite his recent trip to Culloden as evidence for SNP policy”, but you have.
Culloden is managed by the National Trust for Scotland. Neither the SNP nor the Scottish government have any input into what the NTS put on their exhibits. Not only that, but when the NTS appointed Neil Oliver as their president, they could hardly have sent a clearer signal that they are against the SNP policy of Scottish independence.
And what, pray tell, is your nephew taught about history? Are you going to suggest that history teachers are compelled by the Scottish government to teach some particular narrative? Will you have any documentary evidence for this claim? I can’t wait to find out.
Nitpick - in “The Ghost from the Grand Banks”, the Titanic was split in two pieces. A major part of the plot was that there were two different consortiums (British/American and Japanese) each raising a separate section.