Hi Fellow Historians!

Everyone probably knows the famous Tudor portraits (f.e. The Ditchley Portrait, The Rainbow portrait, Whitehall Mural etc.). Of some monarchs we have quite a few portraits(Elizabeth I, Henry VIII), of others we have only a few (Henry VII, Mary I, Edward VI). I am currently working on a paper concerning clothing and authority of Tudor Monarchs. For this paper, I need to know who saw these paintings (only the monarchs? Their closest servants? the maids? The nobles? the people?). I read somewhere that Elizabeth and Henry made sure the portraits got around England for everyone to see, but unfortunately, this was without a source given. Could you guys help me out? I need a source (preferebly book/article title) that states what kind of people used to see these kinds of portraits.

Greetings,

A very stressed out fellow historian who has to hand in a proposal in 48 hours.

on a similar note, it seems like the chain across the harbour was anchored at the Galata, surely it would have been an important strategic point to take the far end of the chain.

I’m searching for good sources on the Mexican Revolution in english. All suggestions are appreciated.

[deleted]

Is there any evidence as to how tea spreads from China to the Middle East and Europe? Do we know if it came over with Attila or Genghis, or someone else?

I know that there were volunteers but why was there no direct involvement also a side question what other countries sent troops to Spain?

[deleted]

In Mexico, we've always called him Moctezuma. It wasn't until I started to play Civilization that I discovered that he's known as Montezuma. This sounds very odd because "Monte" means "hill." I do not think hill has anything to do with th name, but it does make it sound funny.

• two male friends
• two female friends
• mixed gender groups
• strangers
• close friends
• husband/wife
• family members

Did they use nicknames? Did they use suffixes? Was it different in England during this time versus the same period in the US?

In A River in Darkness Masaji Ishikawa lays a lot of blame on the Red Cross of Japan (among others) for facilitating his family’s immigration to North Korea when they should have known better. So, without the benefit of hindsight, just how blatantly disastrous was the choice to move to North Korea at the time?

[deleted]

Hi, Im trying to find the war records of a relative who probably served during WW2. When he was alive he said that he had served but never talked about it properly. He did mention a few things off handedly over the years which were that he was recruited through Melbourne University, he learned japanese, he spent some time on a US Navy ship but he never saw combat.. We think he probably worked in signals intelligence, but we cant find his war record.

We've never been able to find out conclusively but we highly suspect he worked in the intelligence community post war through to the late 60s. So it might be that his personnel file isnt in the normal records.

We dont get anything on the naa.gov name search. Any ideas how else I could search to find more info? We're not expecting to find his personnel file but would like to atleast find his name on a list somewhere.

Why wasn’t the dominate language English seeing the hundreds of years of British rule, and why does it seem like all the far right today in South Africa today still Afrikaans?

What led to its removal by the American Psychiatric Association from the DSM as a mental illness in 1987?

Doing research for a fiction piece, and was hoping to get some recommendations of books or articles about urban life in German-speaking areas- Nuremberg specifically would be amazing, but any general info would be very helpful as well.

I'm certain that this has been answered someplace, but as I sit here drifting off to reading Milton's Paradise Lost, it occurs to me that there have been many passages in other books from different medieval periods - passages which are not poetry - which have a far more florid way of expression than we currently use today.

I've read passages from Ian Mortimer's books of recorded speech throughout the ages, and passages in Daniel J. Boorstin, and many others. And all of the every day "recordings" of the words people use appear to be a lot more florid and roundabout than our manner of thinking and expression in today's modern age.

Granted: Almost all of these writers were keen on embellishing many things and, I suspect, liked to throw in dramatic poetic turns of phrases whenever possible. However, I cannot conclude that every single writer who wrote things down verbatim was in the habit of embellishment. So what I am getting at is: Did people really put in a lot more care into their sentences and answers, even as far down the hierarchy as the peasantry? And, if so, would that not be evidence of a different way of thinking about things? As in: They must have had a rather different way of coming to conclusions and answers, and even questions, than in our own modern habit.

Would it be fair to say this? If not, why not?

I realize that this answer delves into many disciplines such as linguistics, psychology, and history, as well as sociology, but I am curious about it all the same. Does anyone out there know any answers to these questions?

Yes, Milton can bring this out in a person. Shakespeare as well. :D

Thank you in advance for any replies!

I am currently researching the second amendment, but more specifically their use of the word "Militia". The definition of the word which works best for my argument is from dictionary.com: "a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers".

However, I am fully certain that the founding fathers did not use dictionary.com, and so I wonder, what dictionary did the founding fathers of the US use?