It's Always More Complicated

How Queen Caroline turned King Arthur into an 18th‑century royal PR strategy (this one was the wife of George II - not the one Prinny tried to divorce - who he asserted to on her deathbed that he would not remarry but only have mistresses thereafter).

***

Today’s arguments about disability benefits have been raging for 500 years - well, probably longer, but

One of the clearest examples comes from the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601, which was England’s first organised welfare system. It required parishes to support people who couldn’t earn a living because of age, illness or impairment. In practice, however, access to assistance was often contested.
Tudor writers spread stories about supposedly fake disabled beggars who tricked the public by covering themselves in artificial sores or pretending to have seizures. At the same time, local officials worried about the cost of supporting people who might need help for years. Claims could be rejected because an applicant was considered of poor moral character or because they were new to the parish.

Three brain myths that need to die:

While brain scientists hem and haw and hedge their bets, many people gravitate towards those who sound more certain—those who offer tidy explanations and definitive answers, whether or not they are true.
The result is that psychology has become home to an unusually persistent collection of zombie myths: ideas that have been debunked repeatedly but which refuse to die. Some of the most tenacious concern the structure and function of the brain itself, including whether we use just 10% of it, whether bigger brains are always better, and whether we harbour remnants of earlier brains within our own, from a reptilian “lizard brain” to the popular idea of an “inner chimp”. These ideas endure because they are neat and memorable, and perhaps because they place humans where we like to think we belong: at the pinnacle of evolution.
But these simple stories about the brain and its evolution are wrong. And, it turns out, the reality is far more interesting.

***

Another myth - biographies about scientists do not necessarily inspire the kiddies: Children’s books about scientists convey demotivating messages:

First, scientific ability was portrayed equally often as fixed and as malleable, a pattern unlikely to support motivation. Second, interest in science was overwhelmingly portrayed as fixed: Most scientists were said to be captivated by science from a young age. Third, scientists in physics, engineering, and computer science were portrayed as more reliant on fixed ability than scientists in other fields. Fourth, biographies of female scientists disproportionately emphasized effort even after adjusting for the obstacles they faced, consistent with stereotypes attributing women’s success to hard work over talent. These findings suggest that well-intentioned efforts to diversify science through role model exposure in children’s science biographies may fall short.

This sort of thing is why I am so sad about the turn the Women's Institute lately took, it is not in their fine tradition: Women and environmental activism: the National Federation of Women’s Institutes

***

Apparently Esperanto is Still A Thing: Nudists, peaceniks and freeloading travellers: the people keeping the Esperanto dream alive

***

Rare jug showing Peterloo Massacre to go on display:

Experts believe the jug was made in the years following the massacre and that it reflected the escalating public anger felt in its aftermath, the People's History Museum said.