Absolutely love that programme. Danny Dyer came across as very warm and personable as did Tennant. Very little pretense to either man and you can tell they went into it with their eyes open and with humility as did the lass from Little Mix. As a Scot I found it very emotional when they sang Sunshine on Leith to Tennant. I think Lineker found it quite challenging but grew into it towards the end but was clearly uncomfortable at the start.
I'm on this track. Mr Big Stuff (for which he just won a Bafta) was enjoyable, and he was very good in Rivals too. Ultimately, he has his niche and leans into it hard, so fair play to him for making the most of it.
No they shouldn't - it didn't happen. The red hot poker was inserted into a different person altogether.
He won a facking BAFTA last night.
Oh right, thank you for the information…..good for him
Edward II (allegedly.)
September 1327, Berkeley Castle, Gloucestershire (well worth a visit). His remains are in Gloucester Cathedral.
There really aren't. Did it really happen? More than likely, given his....err....lifestyle. Balance of probability applies.
I've been to the room where it happened too (again allegedly, but convincingly). You can no more disprove it than you can disprove that the landings on the moon were real (or prove it - but again, balance of probability prevails).
The House of Normandy certainly knew how to die in mysterious ways. Rufus's young brother Henry I rules for 35 years but died eating "a surfeit of lampreys".
Is that something to do with a Star man and dynamite
No. Slithery little things. Baby eels - used to be a seasonal delicacy. Now beyond expensive.
The whole "poker up the bum" thing was first mentioned about 10years after he died. It doesn't make sense in context as he was killed after a number of rebellions (that he had no real part in) aimed at restoring him to the throne, not because of anything directly relating to his relationship with Piers Gaveston or any other man.
The title of a book by one of my favourites, Ngaio Marsh.
No, there is no such 'every reason'. I'd like to hear some good reason to suggest it wasn't made up. No takers? Oh dear..................
Other than it first being mentioned about 10years later?
Nonsense or plausible historical evidence?Other than it first being mentioned about 10years later?
Or the inherent implausibility of it as a method of murdering somebody? I mean, it'd work, obviously. But it's a lot fussier than the more likely stangulation/smothering and much more likely to lead to discovery either during or afterwards.
Or the absence of any good reason why they'd choose to kill him that way?
It's just a colourful story. You may as well hitch yourself to the historical accuracy of a Robin Hood film.
Incidentally, if you want some really prime Edward II nonsense, there's yet another theory that he survived, escaped and was kept in hiding by Roger Mortimer, the guy who'd been keeping him imprisoned and who pretty much everybody thinks had him killed.
