1000 Years of Annoying the French

Product Information

So from that point of view it gives great pleasure to hit the French with la baguette de l'histoire. Clarke's witty writing helps a lot. But it is not thoughtless bashing, Clarke's book actually hits upon an interesting topic: the way national identities are constructed and how historical events are greatly distorted in that process. We and the other. You could easily write a book about every country in Europe and the ridiculous deviations of history. The most interesting example in this book is obviously (to me) the story of Jeannne D'Arc. It is rather hilarious how the national memory erases the fact that the poor girl was sentenced to death by her own people for wearing trousers. Mon Dieu! If you are really interested in the historical field of national memory I would highly recommend The Invention of Tradition by Eric Hobsbawm. This is probably the most annoying thing of all to the French. Not only do we pronounce the battles incorrectly (Crécy should be ‘Cray-see’ and Waterloo ‘Watt-air-loh’), with Agincourt (‘Ah-zan-coor’) we even get the spelling wrong.” A laugh out loud hilarious and perceptive look at the history of England and France and their relationship for the past one thousand years. This is no dry history book, but a humorous recounting with lots of pithy statements and witty asides. I loved the humorous approach because it was not politically correct and because humor often allows you to get closer to the truth and reality of a thing.

Stephen Clarke เป็นนักเขียนที่ถนัดการเขียนแนวเสียดสี ที่มีลีลาฉกาจหาตัวจับยาก หนำซ้ำยังรุ่มรวยอารมณ์ขัน ผมชอบการหยิบแกมหยอกของชาวอังกฤษ-ฝรั่งเศสแน่ล่ะว่ามันออกชังๆหน่อยแต่พวกเขาให้เกียรติกันและกันมากเลยนะ มันเป็นการจิก-กัดโดยไม่รุ้สึกถึงการ”เหยียด” ซึ่งทำออกมาได้น่ารักมาก น่ารักแบบที่คิดไม่ออกว่าเหล่าชาติในอาเซียนจะเขียนถึงประเทศเพื่อนบ้านได้น่ารักแบบนี้ ตัวผมอยากให้เรามีหนังสือประวัติศาสตร์ประเทศเพื่อนบ้านที่เขียนได้อารมณ์สนิทกันขนาดนี้บ้าง He takes delight in pointing out that William the Conqueror was not French and that he loathed them as much as they loathed him and his barbaric Norman ways. You learn a lot about the impact of France on the world. In many cases, as the book has a clear anti-French bias (albeit tongue-in-cheek apparently) Clarke takes pains to point out where our common understanding of the influence of France on history is misplaced. Up your ass, Stephen! Up your ass. After all those "oh, but this French thing isn't French, it was borrowed from Britain, Austria or somewhere else!", maybe Stephen Clarke should have talked about how French Britain still is! Even if Guillaume le Conquérant (William the Conqueror) was a bastard, what happened and still happens today is that the House of Lords and the House of Commons are still French or Norman medieval, and endorsements to bills are made in Old French, using such phrasing: "Soit baillé aux Communes." "A ceste Bille les Communes sont assentus." "A ceste Bille avecque des Amendemens (or avecque une Amendement) les Communes sont assentus." "A ceste Amendement (or ces Amendemens) avecque une Amendement (or des Amendemens) les Seigneurs sont assentus." "Ceste Bille est remise aux Communes avecque des Raisons (or une Raison)." "Soit baillé aux Seigneurs." "A ceste Bille avecque des Amendemens (or une Amendement) les Seigneurs sont assentus." "A ceste Bille les Seigneurs sont assentus." And then, once royal assent is given, the law is announced by the Clerk of the Parliament in these words: « La Reyne le veult. » If this isn't hilarious, I don't know what is.

This was absolutely hilarious, I couldn’t stop laughing at parts. It was written in a conversational manner and I rather liked that. It did make me question some of the facts, but I did my own research on the facts I questioned, and they were all right. One of the most frequent questions I get when doing readings and talks is: why is there such a love-hate relationship between the French and the Brits? A 'deliciously' entertaining read from start to finish - probably the most entertaining history book I've ever read (and I do enjoy a bit of history). Having read Stephen Clarke's 'A Year In The Merde' before this, my experience of reading this one was a quite welcome and pleasant subversion of my expectations - and I do have a penchant for the latter as well. You don’t have to be a Brit or an Anglophile or even a Francophobe to appreciate this book but it helps. Stephen Clarke takes a potted look at 1000 years of Anglo-French relations from the Norman invasion of Britain in 1066 to President Sarkozy’s visit in 2008 and reveals that all of France’s failures in those thousand years were due to the machinations of the Brits and France’s successes (few and far between, according to Clarke) were actually achieved by someone else who was distinctly not French. Is monsieur annoyed by now? Tres bien.

This is a great introduction to anybody wanting to understand the peculiar relationship between two countries separated by a 30 mile stretch of water and 1000 years of colourful history. Harold didn’t need to hire expensive lawyers to dream up a credible defence, though – what hostage is going to refuse to take an oath to a man who is holding him hostage? And what jurisdiction did this Norman foreigner have in England?” Another thing that should not be left unsaid is the part about colonization. Because this book shines a big bright spotlight on all the notable mistakes the French made and even some of the successes the British achieved, but tries to be as brief as possible about everything the British did wrong. It is very important to understand that you don’t get to see the whole picture here. The British part is casually mentioned in a few sentences here and there, while the French part takes up multiple long chapters. It’s not tactless or provocative – relations couldn’t be better between the British Embassy and their French hosts – it’s simply there. Just as the battle between the sexes will never end (we hope), neither will the millennium-old rivalry between the French and anyone who happens to be born speaking English.And to everyone at Susanna Lea’s agency for their role in making this whole histoire possible. ‘The English, by nature, always want to fight their neighbours for no reason, which is why they all die badly.’ From the Journal d’un Bourgeois de Paris, written during the Hundred Years War” James II’s second wife, an Italian Catholic princess called Mary (at the time, there was an edict whereby all female royals were to be called Mary to confuse future readers of history books),” A "bummel" is a journey without end. Whether we want to or not, most of us have to settle with a return to our regular exertions. And the most interesting thing for me was that while researching this book, I found that our versions of the same events are like two completely different stories – the French see history through tricolour-tinted glasses and blame the Brits (and after about 1800, the Americans) for pretty well every misfortune that has ever befallen France. Sometimes they’re right – we have done some nasty things to the French in the past – but often they’re hilariously wrong, and I have tried to set the record straight. In short, Normandy owed its existence to an Englishman who deflected invaders away from Britain and over to France. An auspicious start.”

Verrazzano must have been turning in his grave. (Except that he didn’t have one because he’d been eaten.)” Amongst all the good natured ribbing, Stephen Clarke gives an interesting history lesson on these two countries peppered with anecdotes and trivia. For example, Joan of Arc was actually sentenced to death not because she could hear the voice of God but because she wore trousers (it’s slightly more complicated than that but that’s the gist of it. She wore pantaloons. Burn her at the stake!) The love is easy to explain – despite what we might say in public, we find each other irresistibly sexy. The hate is more of a problem – for a start, it’s mistrust rather than hatred. But why is it even there, in these days of Entente Cordiale and European peace?

PDF EPUB Download

I can’t begin to count how many times I’d read something and go google to find out more. I’ve been deep in rabbit holes daily. The narrative flows well and is littered with jokes such as those mentioned above. But this is not history dumbed down, it is as informative as any core text book. Who knew that modern champagne was invented in England, that Dom Perignon tried to remove the fizziness from the French stuff because the bottles kept exploding whereas the English went crazy for it and the fizzier the better? This is a very French trait. Today, if a big manufacturing company is in trouble, it will parachute in a graduate of one of France’s grandes écoles, someone who has studied business theory and maths for ten years but never actually been inside a factory. The important thing to the French is not experience, it is leadership – or, more exactly, French-style leadership, which mainly involves ignoring advice from anyone with lots of experience but no French grande école on their CV.”

From the Norman (not French) Conquest, to XXX, it is a light-hearted - but impeccably researched - account of all out great-fallings out.Like everyone else, I always suspected that the mistrust had something to do with 1066, Agincourt, Waterloo and all that, but I felt that most of our battles were too far in the past to have much effect on the present. So I decided to delve into that past and come up with a more accurate answer. Coming after the scuttling of the French fleet at Toulon by the Vichy Régime, it was the last blow to a fleet that, whatever the Brits might think of it, was in 1939 the fourth in the world after Britain, the United States and Japan; also, as the Naval Encyclopedia admits, it "had been saved from the budgetary misconceptions of aviation or the erroneous tactics of the Army"!