Biekm said

Hi Ethan!

My name is Bieke and I am from Belgium. Until a few months ago I studied history at the Catholic University of Leuven, working for my bachelor degree.
Every week at the beginning of our first class, we got a little information about the activities that you could do after school from older students.
They also gave some info about certain talks you could go to, discussing the possibilities of a job after college. This turns out not to be so black and white as some people seem to think, later on when I followed the class of Introduction to Historical Research this became all the more clear.

We learned there that the skills that a historian has to develop to effectively do an investigation in the past, are also those that one expects from a journalist. For example: how one approaches primary and secundary sources. But it is not just that. Organising archives, maintaining them and watching over them are also options – since they are also sources. Working in libraries is also handy – see the sentence before.

There are so many history-related jobs and of course there is the option of an academical career. But this is in Belgium. Is it possible that an education in history in Britain is formulated as historical scholarship? I think I read something about it.
But maybe this is some better advice – and I hope possible in England: to have a job that is somehow related to history or historical knowledge, you have to ask yourself: what does a historian do? What made them historians and what skills did they have to develop to accomplish this? And are these skills also required in other jobs, say: journalist? Or, as you said yourself: a museum? In archives or libraries?

Any way, I think some really succesful people in the country came to talk about their lives after their education. Some were the CEO’s of great news papers and some worked in the media-industry. It is all pretty amazing.

Of course you don’t have to go to an university. But although I went for a short time – being a history lover also in my spare time – I can definitely tell you that the knowledge you will get and the skills you’ll learn, are very very helpful in itself. I am currently doing research to write historical fiction and I must say (since I also want to use primary sources) it is very hard without the right knowledge on how to do it. So that is definitely a plus. Another good thing is that the things you already know by your passion for history, will get academic backing. It gives you more perspective on the bigger picture.

I hope this has helped you a little. Before I went to college, years before, my sister used to say that all people who study history, end up driving busses. She is a very nice person, though 🙂 Anyway, she looks at it differently now. As do I. I hope you do too.

Biekm

I wouldn’t say writing historical fiction is hard, as most of it down to imagination, but getting the timelines right can be very taxing and tedious times. I’ve been writing my own book now for over 2 years and in that time I must have edited it a hundred times and then some..
Some of our members have been successful in managing to get their books published and I have a great sense of respect for them and take pride in their books, and apprieciate the long hours of work they must have put into writing them.
Writing a book does take a long time If I have remember it rightly Claire Cherry was writing her book about George Boleyn for 7 years, and as a result, due to through research has produced a book with Claire Ridgway which is very informative and interesting.
You really don’t need all the fancy bells and whistles after your name to be a writer of historical fiction, (well any genre of book really) all you need is the determination to write and do the research behind it all.
You are right about having passion for history and that one thing we can all say honestly here, we do have a passion for history, we may not always agree with each other about certain things to do with, the “why’s what’s and wherefore’s” but we are all adult enough to agree to disagree, and we all have respect for each other.

Yes this is true, I have to admit that English history has some very colourful charathers in it’s past. Fat arse Henry is always the first one that springs to mind with many people though. I don’t know whether that is because he is known for 6 wives or what he did to them. 2 of them he had chopped up, another 2 he disguarded when they proved unfit for purpose. 1 of them her let die and the last one he browbeat into submission and made her life a complete misery. ( I bet when he finally kicked the bucket she clapped her hands and stamped her feet all over his fat ugly face) was a complete git to everyone and everything around him. In my opinion Fat arse was nothing but a lying poor bleeding martyr, sad sack of stinking muck who had a microscopic dooberry which didn’t work. (I really don’t like Fat arse.. Well duh)
Scottish History is very different very bloodthirsty, blood fueds and all sorts of conspirities and murders. Many of the monarchs either died in battle or were murdered. It’s a very interesting and complex history.
James the 6th at least faired a little better, but his reign wasn’t without it’s problems, and there were a few assasination attempts, against James long before came to the English throne and before the Gunpowder Plot. He earned the epitaph as being “The wisest fool in Christendom” but was he really a fool when he was the first Scottish king to die in his bed of natural causes?