YT comment: We’ve gone from “Gypsy’s biggest fans” to “TAZE ‘EM”
P.S. Check out their Life After Lockup reaction series, they’re the only channel with millions of subs who are unafraid of calling her out for her bullshit from the start. Love how they remind the viewer every episode that Gypsy killed Deedee LOL.
this is an old article but i felt that it’s still worth sharing. charles manson and his “family” disturbed the beatles so much that the first time paul played helter skelter with his band was 34 years after it was released. paul wrote this song with the aim of creating a rock and roll track that is raunchier, louder, and more ridiculous than anything the who has ever released. if only charles manson had just followed the beatles’ example by actually working on his own music instead of over- interpreting the song in his lame attempt to sound to sound smart.
some beatles quotes from their 2000s anthology
book where they had some very unpleasant things to say about manson:
“Then it got over to America - the land of interpretative people...Charles Manson interpreted that 'Helter Skelter' was something to do with the four horsemen of the apocalypse. I still don't know what all that stuff is, it's from the Bible, 'Revelations' - I haven't read it so I wouldn't know. But he interpreted the whole thing - that we were the four horsemen, 'Helter Skelter' the song - and arrived at having to go out and kill everyone.
It was terrible. You can't associate yourself with a thing like that. Some guy in the States had done it - but I've no idea why. It was frightening, because you don't write songs for those reasons...it all went wrong at that point but it was nothing to do with us. What can you do!” - paul mccartney
“Everybody was getting on the big Beatle bandwagon. The police and the promoters and the Lord Mayors - and murderers, too. The Beatles were topical and they were the manin thing that was written about in the world, so everybody attached themselves to us, whether it was our fault or not. It was upsetting to be associated with something as sleazy as Charles Manson.
Another thing I found offensive was that Manson suddenly portrayed the long hair, beard and moustache kind of image, as well as that of a murderer. Up until then, the long hair and the beard were more to do with not having your hair cut and not having a shave - a case of just being a scruff or something.” - george harrison (the last part about hair is so funny lol)
i find it funny how charles manson perceived the beatles as prophets when none of the beatles members themselves had such delusions of grandeur in spite of their success. while manson was driven by ego and a desire to use rock music as tool of power, the beatles just wanted to make good music and have fun with their lads, something which charles manson was unable to do. i’m not saying that helter skelter was the primary motive for the murders, but damn, charles manson’s mind is so messed up that he could interpret peaceful or even humorous lyrics to for his dark worldview.
I recently came across an 1849 article arguing that Foxe’s account of the dramatic conversation between Edward VI and Cranmer over Joan Bocher’s execution lacks corroboration from Edward VI’s journal and the Privy Council records. I realise this is an older piece of scholarship, but it made me wonder how modern historians assess Foxe’s reliability more broadly.
Besides the aforementioned example, what other stories from Acts and Monuments have been revised or contested by modern scholarship?
Some examples I’ve come across include Elizabeth I’s Marian experiences, Foxe’s portrayal of the Lollards as proto-Protestants, his editorial reshaping of Anne Askew’s writings to reinforce Protestant themes, as well as his confessional framing of Anne Boleyn as a central evangelical figure; whose role in the English Reformation may have been amplified by later Protestant memory.
I’m also curious whether there are any other famous speeches, private conversations, or anecdotes that appear only in Foxe and lack independent corroboration. Happy to hear any thoughts on the text in general, its legacy, or recommendations for further reading.