One fifth of British teenagers think Winston Churchill is a fictional character, according to a survey. While 47 percent believe King Richard the Lionheart, the 12th-century crusader-king, is fictional, 65 percent think King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table are real historical figures.
Sherlock Holmes, the detective, was so convincingly brought to life in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s novels, their film versions and television series, that 58 per cent of respondents believe that the sleuth really lived at 221B Baker Street.
Fifty-one per cent of respondents believed that Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest, robbing the rich to give to the poor, while 47 per cent believed Eleanor Rigby was a real person rather than a creation of The Beatles.
Not surprisingly, “more than three-quarters of those polled (77 per cent) admitted they did not read history books, and 61 per cent said that they changed channels rather than watch historical programmes on television.”
Norwegian youths don’t know much about 20th-century history either, reports Aftenposten: Over a quarter couldn’t identify Mao Tse-Tung.
With regards to King Arthur, there has been some suggestive but inconclusive research that the legends were based upon an actual king, so I’m not sure if that can be held against the survey-takers.
Can’t believe the data regarding Churchill… I doubt that 20 percent would believe that Mohammed is a fictional character. The schools are probably spending more time on him though.
Google “Winston Churchill fictional,” and you’ll find plenty of commentary from Brits who are exercised by how little their kids know about their own history. Over here, meanwhile, a professor at one of our most prestigious universities tells USA Today, apparently with a straight face,”There’s a kind of shift going on, from the narrative of the founders, which is the national mythic narrative, to the narrative of expanding rights.” Putting aside Marilyn and Oprah, who symbolize our expanding rights to God knows what, our ignorance is not embarrassing, but a virtue—a shift in the narrative.
The survey wasn’t just of young people. Go back to the source http://uktv.co.uk/gold/stepbystep/aid/598605. The references to 65% believing that King Arthur was real and 58% believing in Sherlock Holmes were for all Britains, not just teens.
There was only one paragraph on young people, “The research showed that the nation’s under 20s are lacking the most when it comes to basic historical knowledge. Over one fifth (21%) thought Winston Churchill, arguably Britain’s most famous Prime Minister, was a work of fiction, and over a quarter (27%) thought pioneering nurse Florence Nightingale was a mythical figure.”
The reference to 47% not believing in Richard the Lionhart, was again for all Brits, not just young people. And while a fifth of the under-20s did think Churchill was fictional, so did 23% of all Brits.
Well Richard the Lionheart is confusing! I mean, he appears in fiction (like Robin Hood) and the King Richard of movies is really a fictionalized version of the original.
And Robin Hood has been a folk hero for centuries.. maybe he was based on a real figure, who knows.
And as for Churchill– some of the stories about his conversations (i.e. If you were my wife, I’d drink it!) while true, do have a fictional flare.
When I first read “Carry On Mr. Bowdwitch” I was annoyed at the author–how could she create such a far-out unrealistic main character and win the Newberry? Then I found out the book was a BIOGRAPHY. That completely impoosible man actually EXISTED.
Perhaps part of the problem is that some historical figures are so unusual and so large that we can’t quite get our head around the fact that they’re real!
That’s a good excuse for Richard. Churchill is a little harder to excuse…..
Yeah, that Lionheart guy was French too!!! From Anjou no less, home of the pear. Heard those pears were fictional too. Ya never know about those pears…
“And as for Churchill– some of the stories about his conversations (i.e. If you were my wife, I’d drink it!) while true, do have a fictional flare.”
I think the problem is that it is difficult to have *any* reasonable grasp of Britsh WW-II history and not know that Churchill was real. Not knowing about Churchill suggests pretty much *no* knowledge of WW-II. And this probably suggests little knowledge of much other history.
-Mark Roulo