My loyalist point of view

So I have to write an essay for my exam in my Revolutionary War class and I am taking on the role of a loyalist in Boston in 1766. I am writing to my brother in Scotland who is studying medicine there and I am warning him of the issues in the colonies.


Dearest Brother,

I do so hope that you will continue your studies in Scotland and not give any more thought to coming to these troublesome colonies. Some of my neighbors believe that we as British citizens should not be taxed so harshly. The stamp act of which many of them dislike so much is of little consequence to me. Our King protected these colonies from the french and their savage allies and our we just supposed to say thank you and move on? We must do our part to pay for that expensive war. Many of my neighbors say that they would be happy to pay taxes if they had representation in parliament but none of our colonies have that, why should Boston be so fortunate? The crown is rule but I doubt these men, these sons of liberty understand that. The acts of a few dishonorable men have included hanging stamp officials in effigy and even the destruction of Andrew Oliver's home who is of course connected with the stamp act. I understand these people got what they wanted as the poor man resigned his commission. Can you imagine, a man of the crown being bullied from his post? What madness is here! Now I understand that parliament is going to send troops from his majesty's army and quite right too. If I were to take up a post of collecting on the King's behalf I would most definitely want the army here to protect me. We need to have a time of reason again my brother. There are far to many who believe in taking the law into their own hands and distorting it far from what the King desires. Parliament will no doubt repeal this act but there will be others and then what? More rebels? More destruction? The King will most assuredly come down hard on this colony and others who should do the same.

I remain your moste humble servt,

Lord So and So

"Hyde Park on Hudson": Why this terrible movie makes my job complicated

For those of you who bothered to see the latest flop "Hyde Park on Hudson", you might have noticed how terrible the movie was even without knowing the history behind it. I had heard that Bill Murray was going to be playing the role of our 32nd president but I had found it difficult to believe until the man actually stopped by one day and took a tour around the site. And when my boss took the producers into the home to get a feel for the place it then became clear that it was really happening. So naturally we were all quite excited. Months later when our site supervisors as well as those from Wilderstein (Daisy Suckley's home) had a private screening of the finished movie, I knew then that this was not going to be a pretty picture. When it was finally released in December of 2012 I rushed out to get a seat for what my boss had referred to as "Hollywood Garbage". Even though it was opening night and it was only playing in one theater in the area, the place was far from sold out. I could tell right from the beginning that this was not right. The movie makes it seem as if Daisy Suckley is just randomly appearing in FDR's life for the first time, which of course is incorrect, and that she had nothing to do with the construction of Top Cottage, his little retreat. The movie makes it seem like she is seeing it for the first time. She had everything to do with the construction of that building and was a major friend and key player in Roosevelt's life, and not the kind that the movie makes her out to be. The movie was filmed in England and not in the original estate at Hyde Park, so the overall look of everything about it is wrong. They also make a major error in the placement of the political cartoons in FDR's home.  The cartoons that poke fun at Great Britain (as well as the US) from the War of 1812 have always been in the main hall of the house and that is where the King noticed them in real life but for some reason the movie's producers decided to put these prints in the room where the King stayed which did nothing to add to the movie's already none existing plot. There was a major lacking in the overall plot and direction in this movie. It seemed like they could have done so much more in order to make it a little more true to life but they simply chose not to.

     So with that being said, there are some (few, but some) who have made it out to see this piece of - shall we say, historic fiction - and being naturally curious they have made the pilgrimage to see where it all really happened.  Now yes, the King and Queen popped by in 1939. Yes, they stayed the weekend, enjoyed some cocktails and hot dogs and went for a swim. But there is so much that this movie has to say that we have no record of or any proof at all. Particularly when it comes to Franklin and his love of certain ladies. So I have noticed some of the remarks, and/or dumb questions that have naturally come about, thanks to this co-called hollywood interpretation.

For example-- "Oh my, its much smaller than in the movie", "This must be where he and his girlfriend made out", "Did his secretary really walk around naked in Top Cottage?" "The Queen of England was very snotty in the movie, do you think she was really snotty?", "Why Bill Murray for FDR?" <---Actually thats a good question, I like Bill, don't get me wrong, but he is a ghostbuster, not FDR! Sure, he can wave that long cigarette holder around pretty well, but that was about it. So anyway, if you want to see a movie that does an OK job of showing the Roosevelts from Hollywood's point of view, try "Sunrise at Campobello" from 1960 with Greer Garson and Ralph Bellamy or "Eleanor and Franklin" a mini series from the 1970s that starred Jane Alexander and Edward Herrmann.