Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Historical Accuracy in your Romance?

User avatar
Libby
Avid Reader
Posts: 315
Joined: January 2009
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Post by Libby » Thu February 26th, 2009, 9:10 pm

[quote=""EC2""]
Not for the squeamish or innocent I warn you. I am not easily grossed out, but I am now....
[/quote]

There was stuff there I really didn't need to know - but I just couldn't help myself taking a look, could I?
:eek:
By Loyalty Bound - the story of the mistress of Richard III.

http://www.elizabethashworth.com

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3562
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favourite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Post by MLE (Emily Cotton) » Thu February 26th, 2009, 9:41 pm

I can't think of a single excessively thin modern movie star who isn't just that. I would say the reverse -- that some of the ones we consider 'plump' would be considered average to skinny a hundred years back.

User avatar
Margaret
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 2440
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: I can't answer this in 100 characters. Sorry.
Favourite HF book: Checkmate, the final novel in the Lymond series
Preferred HF: Literary novels. Late medieval and Renaissance.
Location: Catskill, New York, USA
Contact:

Post by Margaret » Fri February 27th, 2009, 11:14 pm

A hundred years ago, yes. A thousand years ago - food just wasn't that plentiful, except in the royal courts. That's why it was considered more attractive for a woman to be "plump" - it meant she was well-fed enough to bear healthy children.
Browse over 5000 historical novel listings (probably well over 5000 by now, but I haven't re-counted lately) and over 700 reviews at www.HistoricalNovels.info

User avatar
nona
Bibliophile
Posts: 1149
Joined: September 2008
Location: Oklahoma

Post by nona » Sat March 14th, 2009, 1:56 pm

[quote=""Margaret""]That's why it was considered more attractive for a woman to be "plump" - it meant she was well-fed enough to bear healthy children.[/quote]

lol, if thats the case I wouldn't have to worry due to my 'plump-ness' and if we're not careful all my husband has to do is look at me and I'm with child!

User avatar
Richard
Reader
Posts: 96
Joined: February 2009
Location: Albany, NY
Contact:

Post by Richard » Sun March 15th, 2009, 5:01 pm

I've done a lot of reading on so-called "evolutionary fitness" - the idea that the genes are still optimized for survival in the Stone Age. That means a high-protein, very low-carb diet with short burst / high intensity exercise. So, ten thousand years ago everyone either looks like a "gym rat" or is dead. As the discussion has noted, between one thousand and one hundred years ago having enough food to be plump means wealth, and therefore a good indicator of evolutionary desirability. Today, only the reasonably well-off can affrord the high protein diet or have the time and equipment to exercise like our stone-age ancestors. Paradox!
How did an 800-year-old headless corpse transform Venice from a backwater
into the greatest sea-empire of the early Middle Ages? Find out at,
Image

User avatar
nona
Bibliophile
Posts: 1149
Joined: September 2008
Location: Oklahoma

Post by nona » Sun March 15th, 2009, 5:56 pm

very true what a paradox.

Post Reply

Return to “Historical Romance”