A brief diversion from the Stone Age now to have a look at Guy Fawkes, which I assume I must have written on November 5th, in advance of the evening’s festivities. The problem this time - bearing in mind that I obviously didn’t write this myself and am just copying it from another more “official” source - isn’t so much about the facts not checking out, so much as there’s way too much opinion masquerading as truth. We know we’re in trouble when it starts out with a sentence about “the great Queen Elizabeth.” It should be for me to work out whether or not she was great, surely? I suppose you might say that “great” refers to her relative importance, the relative size of her achievements or the length of her reign, rather than an opinion about how brilliant and lovely she was. But I’d say you’re lying to yourself. The author’s clearly trying to steer me down a dark psychological pathway that ends with brainwashed kids. Then we continue with a (largely false) story about Robert Carey’s attempts to curry favour with the poor, idiotic Scottish King James I, who is so easily impressed with him, he makes him Earl of Monmouth. Culminating in this beauty: “King James was not a pleasant man. Not only was he of ungainly appearance, he was also untrustworthy and deceitful.” Don’t mince words, mate. Tell me what you really think. Just to examine this for a second - it seems the perceived attributes of King James depend on which country you were born in. According to this article, in Scotland, he was generally perceived as pleasing to look at and to listen to, but in England, he was described as being hunchbacked and ugly. And he couldn’t speak properly because his tongue was too big for his mouth. Oh and he was dirty. And a homosexual. Maybe even a paedophile. And he drank so much he was constantly throwing up. Which meant he really, really, really stank. So he actually got off lightly in my book. And sadly, that’s where it ends. I spend so long blabbing on about King James, I never even get as far as talking about Guy Fawkes. Not one mention. But if I had mentioned him, presumably the text would have been on his side? Since James was so ugly and awful. Someone had to kill him, right? And that hero was, presumably, Guy Fawkes. So, let me get this right. On Guy Fawkes Night, we burn effigies of him because we want to punish him eternally for trying to kill a King we didn’t even like? Not sure I understand. We should be celebrating him, right? Or mourning his execution at the hands of the ugly, smelly, lying King? Has anyone actually ever thought this through? Of course, in real life, we didn’t burn him. Although by the sound of what was supposed to happen at his execution, burning to death might actually have been preferable. Fortunately for Fawkes, by some quirk of fate (if you believe the stories), he slipped and broke his neck on the way up to the scaffold, avoiding the worst of it. So did I learn anything? No, but probably for the best, if what I was supposed to learn was this messed up. Thankfully, in the real world, Bonfire Night is a completely sane experience and not messed up at all. I haven’t been to a bonfire for years.

Monday November 5th, 1979

The Old Stone Age (2) >

< The Old Stone Age (1)

TOPIC 1 Sept-Dec 1979

FAIRBURN The place where I wrote all this rubbish

Bonfire Night Waen’s first time at the annual village fireworks display

Guy Fawkes

TERM 1 A day-by-day account of Waen’s first term at Fairburn School

Waen Shepherd 2 Waen’s heroic antics in the far-flung future of 2007 AD!

Captain Carnivore Gary Shepherd is hunted down by a deadly flying meteor

Florence Nightingale What if Florence Nightingale had lived in the Year 2000?

Happy Easter! A home made Easter card I made for my Mum and Dad