Rob Halliday

24th Sep 2005

Zulu (1964)

Factual error: Several of the Martini-Henrys shown in the movie are later models that could not possibly have been present at Rorke's Drift. These include the Mark III, Mark IV, and several variants of the Francotte Cadet and Boer ZAR Contract Westley-Richards (neither manufactured until 1895) along with Bromhead's hunting rifle. One of the Zulus is even carrying a Martini-Enfield .303 Carbine, not manufactured until 1899.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: When they were making Zulu they could only obtain a limited number of firearms that would have been available in 1877. They had to make do by supplying the actors with firearms from later dates.

Rob Halliday

Explaining why or how a mistake occurred does not invalidate it. This correction isn't valid.

Bishop73

27th Aug 2001

Zulu (1964)

Factual error: Stanley Baker (in the scene where he reloads his revolver) is shown using a Webley Mark VI - not issued until 1915.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The film company and production unit tried to find revolvers of the sort that would have been used by British army officers in the 1870s. They were unable to find hand held firearms of the appropriate date, and so had to issue Stanley Baker/Lieutenant Chard and Michael Caine/Lieutenant Bromhead with First World War era handguns as the best possible substitute. Everybody was aware that this was historically inaccurate, but this was the best they could do under the circumstances.

Rob Halliday

Explaining why or how a mistake occurred does not invalidate it. This correction isn't valid.

Bishop73

Continuity mistake: When Merlin is thrown in to the armor under the water as a fish, his glasses are thrown off and they land on the nose of the armor. The next time they show him, the glasses are down beside him. And still again, when Merlin is changed back into a human, he has the armor on his head and when he pulls it off, his glasses are on underneath the armor.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Notice the dialogue just before Merlin turns himself and Arthur/Wart into fishes: Arthur: You mean you can turn yourself into a fish? Merlin: After all, I happen to be a wizard. If Merlin has the magical powers to turn himself into a fish, perhaps a by-product of his magic is that his glasses are magic, so he retains his glasses when he undergoes the transformation into a fish, even if his glasses fall off, they magically return to him, and his glasses magically reappear when he turns back into a human.

Rob Halliday

What's more likely - the director intended Merlin's lore to include magically retaining his glasses, or the team of animators made a couple continuity errors?

3rd Jun 2015

The Ladykillers (1955)

Factual error: The Boccherini string quintet is actually scored for 2 violins, 1 viola and 2 cellos, not the crooks' line-up of 2 violins, 2 violas and 1 cello.

Louisa

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: I don't really know anything about how string quintets (or quartets) perform, or how any group of musicians might prepare to perform a well-known piece composed many years ago. So maybe my answer is not valid. But would it be acceptable within the music community for a musical group to re-score a piece, so long as they remain faithful to the original? If two members of a string quintet said they were more confident and capable on a viola than on a cello, would the quintet re-score the piece accordingly? Is it acceptable for musicians to adjust a long-established piece of music? Another possibility. The crooks are not musicians at all. They pretend to be musicians, but this is only a "front" for a bank robbery they are planning. They maintain the pretence by miming to records. So is this a subtle joke?"Look, the crooks are pretending to be musicians, but they are getting it all wrong! They are playing the wrong combination of instruments. Ha ha!"

Rob Halliday

I asked a friend who belongs to a string quartet if you could re-score a quintet piece. She said this would be complicated, difficult, and more trouble than it was worth. So I must retract my suggestion that the crooks re-scored the Boccherini String Quintet. But maybe I am right with my other suggestion. The crooks are not musicians, but only mime to records. Thus, they use the wrong combination of instruments. This is therefore intended as a subtle joke.

Rob Halliday

Correction: Merlin has incredible wisdom and knowledge, so maybe he independently invented glasses. Plus, it is made very clear in this movie that Merlin is capable of time travel, and has visited the twentieth century, acquiring modern scientific knowledge which he can use to great effect in the time of King Arthur. Even during the movie he declares that he is going to Bermuda, at which point he disappears from the film. In the final five minutes Merlin re-appears in a twentieth century surfer's costume and talks about life in the twentieth century. So he could quite easily have gone to an opticians, had an eye test and acquired spectacles during one of his travels to the future. Plus, one of the leading characters of The Sword In The Stone is a talking owl, who can hold conversations with humans. I don't think there were any talking owls during the Middle Ages, so maybe this film should not be regarded as accurate history.

Rob Halliday

Correction: He states that he is also a time traveller.

Rlvlk

16th Jan 2009

Carry On Cowboy (1966)

Audio problem: When we see the can-can dancers perform on-stage, the music is played by a full band including brass and drums, despite the fact that there's only a pianist on-stage. (00:22:10)

Madstunts

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: This error is not unique to Carry On Cowboy. It seems that in very many western movies (and TV shows) there might be a scene in a saloon, in which a singer or some dancers are performing on a stage. In nearly all such occasions they seem to be accompanied by a full orchestra which is nowhere to be seen.

Rob Halliday

This is not a valid correction. To say the error exist in other films does not invalidate this error.

Bishop73

Sorry, I think I got that wrong. I was not trying to invalidate the error, far from it! What I meant to say was that I agree that this is quite an obvious error in Carry On Cowboy, and that this also seems to be a common, and rather amusing, error in many other western films as well.

Rob Halliday

Unfortunately at this time, valid mistake entries are not subject to forum discussion where one agrees or discusses the mistake. Just give the mistake a thumbs up if you agree with it.

Bishop73

Deliberate mistake: Near the beginning, Col. Mortimer takes down a wanted poster and goes after the man. The man he kills looks nothing like the man pictured on the poster.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: There is a similar situation in the UK produced western movie "Carry On Cowboy" (released 1965). Johnny Finger/The Rumpo Kid (Sid James) shoots the sheriff of a US town. The sheriff is related to legendary sharpshooter Annie Oakley (Angela Douglas) and she swears revenge. Finding that Johnny Finger is staying in a saloon, Annie Oakley sets up a trap on the staircase. Another person (an uncredited extra) inadvertently walks up the staircase, so she shoots him instead. As he falls down the stairs she calls out "I'm terribly sorry I thought you were somebody else." Perhaps Col Mortimer has made a similar mistake. Being less polite than Annie Oakley he does not have the good manners to apologise.

Suggested correction: Is that a mistake? (Either on the part of the people who made the film, or assuming this was real life, on the part of Colonel Mortimer?) They're a pretty bloodthirsty lot in this film, and nobody seems to really care who gets shot. Maybe he figures he can get a bounty for that person anyway.

Rob Halliday

16th Mar 2012

The Caine Mutiny (1954)

Corrected entry: After Ensign Keith reprimands Horrible and Meatball, Meatball remarks that Keith "must think he's a five-star admiral." The scene is set in early 1944, but the rank of Fleet Admiral (a.k.a. five-star admiral) did not exist until December 1944.

Correction: Meatball may not literally mean that Ensign Keith thinks he is a "five star admiral." Meatball might have made this statement in the full knowledge that there was no such rank as "five star admiral." It might have been another way of asking "Who does he think he is?" Meatball could equally well have said Ensign Keith thinks he's a "twenty star admiral", or the President of the USA, or the Emperor of China. Meatball may mean that Ensign Keith has a very exaggerated idea of his own importance, when he is really just self-important, rude, arrogant and ignorant.

Rob Halliday

Factual error: When the Victorian astronauts are on the moon they are dressed in deep sea diving suits - without gloves.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Is this really a mistake? H G Wells wrote "The First Men In The Moon" over 1900-1901 before the invention of the aeroplane, when space travel was still a fantasy. By 1964 Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova had flown into outer space, so the makers of this film knew what sort of equipment would be needed if you really wanted to make a trip to the moon. And this film shows astronauts in suits copied from those worn by actual astronauts. But the idea of the original book, and this 1964 film, was that a (very) eccentric English Victorian scientist led an expedition to the Moon. So, surely, if Victorian Englishmen and Englishwomen went to the Moon, they would have used the technology available at the time. Beside that, when they reach the Moon they find it is inhabited. Even in 1900 astronomers knew there was no life on the Moon. I don't think this film was meant to be taken too seriously, and that when they made the film they deliberately dressed the cast in deep sea diving suits as a joke.

Rob Halliday

Corrected entry: When Lucy came out of Narnia the first time, she was only gone for a few seconds. 5 to 10 seconds at the most. But when she goes in the 2nd time, Edmund goes in at least 30 seconds after Lucy. Wouldn't Lucy have already returned if time basically stops in Narnia?

Correction: I suggest you read "The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader", one of C S Lewis' later books about Narnia (filmed by Disney in 2010). In the first chapter of "The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader", you will read, and I quote directly: "Narnian time flows differently from ours. If you spent a hundred years in Narnia, you would come back to our world at the very same hour of the very same day on which you left. And then, if you went to Narnia after spending a week here, you might find that a thousand Narnian years had passed, or only a day, or no time at all. You never know till you get there."

Rob Halliday

Correction: Time doesn't stop in Narnia, it goes a lot faster. Lucy and Edmund eventually met up in Narnia the second time so it makes sense that they came back together. Lucy just spent a much longer time in Narnia than Edmund the second time she was there.

4th Jul 2020

The Long Ships (1964)

Factual error: At the end, Rolfe suggests to King Harald that they seek "the three crowns of the Saxon kings." But this lost treasure legend is a modern invention. In 1925 M R James wrote "A Warning To The Curious", which says that the Anglo-Saxon kings of East Anglia buried three crowns near the English coast. Somebody who finds one of these meets a mysterious, sinister death. The legend of the three crowns of the Saxon kings has since appeared in many books about English folklore. But there is no record of this story before 1925 and it is now believed that M R James invented it. Thus the story of the three crowns would not have been known to the Vikings.

Rob Halliday

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: First of all, you state "it is now believed that M R James invented it." So it is not known for certain if he did or not? And if it is doubted now, what about 1964? Something doesn't become a mistake if future discoveries contradict what was known at the time. And finally, whether it was a real legend or not is irrelevant. It is a legend in the world of the movie, just like the legend of the golden bell. If anything this should be listed as trivia.

Well observed, Sir! I concede that you make very valid points. In hindsight, I should not have submitted this as a factual error. I should have worded it as a question. I should have asked if Rolfe's closing lines about "the three crowns of the Saxon kings" alluded, directly or indirectly, to the M R James ghost story "A Warning To The Curious." Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But I will have to agree that, if the golden bell is a real object in the cinematic world of "The Long Ships", then the legend of the three crowns of the Saxon kings can be an equally real legend in the cinematic world of this film. I am fully aware that films are not real life and that the internal logic of a film need not follow the logic of real life.

Rob Halliday

Factual error: Ramses' sphinx was established in record time. Given the time between Moses' leaving Egypt and his return, there would not have been enough time for that Sphinx to be constructed. If the movie had conveyed the 40 year span between Moses' leaving and his return, the construction of that Sphinx would have been probable.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: There is nothing in the film to indicate that Moses hadn't been gone for forty years or more. He looks younger than that, but many people lived longer in those days, so Moses might look younger than he really is. It is not stated in the film how many years took place between Moses' flight from Egypt and his return, so it is impossible to say whether or not it was less than forty years.

Modern research suggests it may have taken much less than forty years to construct the Great Sphinx Of Egypt. Archaeologists have spent much time trying to establish how long it might have taken the Ancient Egyptians to build the great monuments, temples and structures of Pharaonic Egypt, considering the resources, manpower and technology available at the time. This has also been examined by modern engineers who have practical knowledge of the problems that people might have been faced with in building such incredible structures. It is uncertain if there will ever be any fully accepted consensus, but there is now general agreement that the Ancient Egyptians were highly intelligent and might have been able to build these structures in a relatively short time. The website interestingengineering.com has a webpage about the Great Sphinx, and it, quite credibly, suggests that a workforce of one hundred people could have constructed the Great Sphinx in a mere three years.

Rob Halliday

3rd Jul 2004

Amadeus (1984)

Corrected entry: Amadeus and Stanzi had six children, only two of whom would reach adulthood. We only see one child, a son, throughout the movie.

Correction: The film is more than two hours long - if it included every event in Mozart's life it would be, well, thirty two years long. Bit long for a film, methinks, like all film biographies we only see a small part of their life. The second child was simply not a part of the action.

Correction: You think that's a mistake? You may have noticed that, in Amadeus, none of Saleri's children appear. This might fit in with the film script, because, quite early on in the film Salieri shows his determination to devote his life to nothing but music by taking a vow of chastity. In actual fact Salieri was married and had eight children.

Rob Halliday

Corrected entry: It is clear that the tunnel through which the paper chase leads is straight and level. Anyone running from one end to the other will get there quickest by this route. However the three children confidently predict that by climbing up a hill and back down the other side they will get to the other end first, and succeed. This would not happen.

jerryr59

Correction: Several factors would have slowed the boys down while they were running through the tunnel. The boys would either be running over gravel and trying to avoid the sleepers, or stepping from sleeper to sleeper and trying to avoid the gravel. It would be dark, so the boys would slow down, looking out to avoid tripping over things. There is also the fact that the boys had already been running for some distance, and so were beginning to tire and slow down. The three 'railway children' only wanted to get across the hill, so they only had to make a quick 'sprint' in which they could use all their speed and stamina to run a short distance. They were running over open countryside, in sunlight, with full visibility. Plus they did not want to get to the end of the tunnel before the boys, they just wanted to run to a point where they would see them come out of the tunnel.

Rob Halliday

Correction: The tunnel isn't straight. Pausing the film when the camera is pointing into the tunnel shows the train lines running at a different angle to the position of the other end of the tunnel. The lines would need to curve twice, like an S shape, to align correctly.

Corrected entry: Mr. Silk picks Tintin's pocket when they bump into each other on the street. However, it is clear that neither of his hands go anywhere near his pockets.

loginwithfacebook

Correction: Have a look at the original Secret Of The Unicorn book with Herge's illustrations. Mr. Silk has picked wallets out of hundreds of people's pockets, but nobody has ever seen or felt him take their wallets. Mr. Silk must be the world's fastest and most adept pickpocket. Perhaps he's so fast that nobody sees his hands move. Did you ever see the Mel Brooks film Blazing Saddles? The Waco Kid, played by Gene Wilder, is the fastest gun in the west. Once he shoots six people's guns out of their hands. Yet you never see his hands move at all! He can draw his gun, fire at multiple targets, and replace his gun in his holster, but he moves so quickly that your eyes can't even register the movement. Maybe Mr. Silk is an equally fast pickpocket.

Rob Halliday

17th Nov 2008

The Omen (2006)

Factual error: When Thorn tries to kill Damien he takes him into a church at night. No church in London would be open at night unless a service was going on.

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Supernatural forces of good and evil have a vested interest in trying to save or eliminate Damien. Throughout the Omen trilogy it is implied that they might be on hand to subtly influence the course of events. Maybe God (or one of God's agents) unlocked the church door to help Thorn. Or maybe the Devil decided to wind up Thorn by letting him get into the church, only to make things go wrong when they got inside! but you DO lead ME on to something that puzzled ME. In the first Omen film the very young Damien is taken into a church (in point of fact Guildford Cathedral). As the son of the Devil he has a great aversion to all things Christian, so he has a huge tantrum, and screams, struggles and resists going into church. In later films he can enter religious buildings without any ill effects.

Rob Halliday

For a long time I have wondered about countering your observation on The Omen. I am 64 years old and worked for an organisation that takes care of historic churches. I also have pursued specialist historical research on churches, and visit historic churches for a hobby. I agree that, generally speaking, churches in London are locked at night unless a service or special event is taking place. Yet sometimes parish priests and church custodians can be very absent minded, and just leave a church door unlocked. Or maybe a late-night service is scheduled, so the priest leaves the door open all evening. I have gone around London and other big cities at night and passed churches, and, just for curiosity, tried the door. Sometimes I could gain access. So, all things considered, it is unlikely that a church in London would be locked at night after dark, but this is not wholly beyond possibility.

Rob Halliday

Other mistake: Like most Sherlock Holmes films 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' is set in Victorian England: Queen Victoria even makes an appearance. Holmes and Watson go to Loch Ness in Scotland, where they see the Loch Ness monster. (Spoiler alert) it turns out that the Loch Ness Monster is not a living creature, but an experimental submarine. Like most people who would have seen the film on its release in 1970, they are familiar with the Loch Ness monster (even if they do not necessarily believe in it). But the first documented sightings of the Loch Ness Monster were only made in 1933. Nobody ever thought there might have been a monster in Loch Ness before 1933.

Rob Halliday

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Sightings and lore of the Loch Ness Monster date back over 1,500 years. In fact, the indigenous people of the region carved images of the monster into stone as far back as 500 AD. The 1933 hoax was certainly not the first time the monster was sighted; however, the hoax was inspired by the centuries-old Loch Ness legend, of which Holmes, Watson and everyone else would be well aware in the Victorian era.

Charles Austin Miller

The only carved images from that period are Pictish symbol stones, none of which are particularly associated with Loch Ness.

On the contrary, the Pictish "Drumbuie Stone" (recovered at Drumbuie Farm on Loch Ness in the mid-19th Century) depicts a large serpentine creature, very much matching traditional descriptions of the Loch Ness monster. Https://canmore.org.uk/site/12626/drumbuie.

Charles Austin Miller

Suggested correction: This is somewhat incorrect. The 1933 photograph that was published in newspapers may have brought the idea of a Loch Ness Monster to a wider audience, reports of a creature in Loch Ness (or Loch River) were around long before then. And just because the term "Loch Ness Monster" may have first been printed in 1933 doesn't mean the term didn't exist before then. In a fictional story surrounding fictional events, there's no mistake in bringing up a creature already rumored to have existed.

Bishop73

Well observed sir! I thought somebody might well say that. Maybe I should have gone into more detail. May I make it clear that I have absolutely no problem with a sighting of the Loch Ness Monster in a Sherlock Holmes film, since Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, and 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' was an imaginary story. (Plus the film contained some intentionally comic elements, it was a bit 'tongue in cheek', so lets not take it too seriously!) But lets look at the history of sightings of the monster. The first sighting to attract widespread attention was on 22 July 1933, when the Spicers saw a creature near (but not in) the Loch. On 12 November Hugh Gray took the photograph you allude to. In 1934 Rupert Gould published the first book about it. You say that earlier sightings may not have been widely reported. You are quite correct! One D. Mackenzie said he saw a monster in the Loch in 1872, but did not tell anybody at the time. A sixth century life of St. Columba records an encounter with a 'water beast' in the River Ness. My point was that, in the film, Holmes, Watson, and most other people, are familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. (Spoiler alert again) : The 'monster' is an experimental submarine, which Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, is helping the war office to develop. To stop people realising they were experimenting with new military technology, they would develop the submarine in Loch Ness, so anybody seeing it would think it was the Monster (to add to the deception they give it an artificial neck and head). My point is that, while most people who saw the film in 1970, and most people using this website, would be quite familiar with the story of the Loch Ness Monster. So, whether or not they believe in its existence, they would get the joke (after all, the film was not meant to be taken completely seriously). In the Victorian era the Loch Ness Monster would, at best, have been a local rumour, not something that was known worldwide so it is doubtful that even people as undoubtedly intelligent as Holmes and Watson would have known about it. If they saw a monster in Loch Ness they would not say 'Oh, that's the Loch Ness Monster'. They would ask 'Whatever is that great big thing going through the water?'.

Rob Halliday

8th Jul 2018

Braveheart (1995)

Corrected entry: Some more errors about Princess Isabella: at the height of William Wallace's rebellion Edward I sends her as an ambassador to negotiate with Wallace (and spy on the Scots) instead she falls in love with Wallace. Princess Isabella was born in 1292: Wallace's rebellion was at its height during 1297-8, so she could have been no more than 6 at the time. (Somebody else has already observed that she was only 13 at the time of Wallace's execution.) Isabella's first language would (obviously) have been French, a 13th century Scotsman would speak either a heavily accented Scottish version of English, or Scots Gaelic, but Isabella has no communication difficulties in Scotland. The Wallace-Isabella affair is also absurd, since it is implausible that, at the height of a war, an unaccompanied young woman, let alone a princess engaged to the heir to the throne of England, would be sent into the heart of a war zone as an envoy and a spy.

Rob Halliday

Correction: Her age has already been marked as an error. As someone well travelled, Wallace knew several languages and as an educated princess, Isabella would have likely known several (and this could all simply be a translation convention). And the king admits that he knew of the danger, and hoped that if Wallace or his men killed her, her father the King of France would help him defeat the Scottish rebellion.

Greg Dwyer

I concede most of your points, and, as you observe, if Isabella and Wallace can converse, this is 'translation convention'. Another error in the film that has already been marked: while the historical Wallace was a minor nobleman, Braveheart shows him as a common man, with no aristocratic or upper class traits, so the Isabella-Wallace romance forms a stock element of many romantic stories, a princess or prince defying social convention to fall in love with a lower class man or woman, entertaining as a story, but implausible in reality. And I think we agree that Isabella was only 6 at the time of Wallace's rebellion, so, in reality, she would have been far too young to have been involved in events.

Rob Halliday

First, both historical inaccuracies and things that you consider unlikely are not mistakes. Second, history is riddled with accounts of nobles having affairs with commoners and slaves.

Greg Dwyer

27th Aug 2003

Chariots of Fire (1981)

Corrected entry: This 'college dash' that Abrahams impresses Cambridge University by completing - something's not right. The challenge is to get around the courtyard in the time it takes the clock to strike midday. The big deal is that this challenge is supposed to have been around for almost seven centuries and no one has ever completed it successfully. That means that the college dash originated in the early 13th century. There couldn't have been a clock like the one used to time the dash back in the 1200's.

Correction: There could have been manually-rung midday bells.

J I Cohen

Correction: The 'College Dash' is not a centuries old tradition: it is a twentieth century tradition. And it is not called 'The College Dash', it is called 'The Great Court Run'. Even so, lots of things are wrong with the scene in question! Keep reading, and I will give you some details. It is a Cambridge tradition for students to try to run around the Great Court of Trinity College while the college clock strikes 12. This would be quite an achievement, because this is not just the largestest courtyard in Cambridge, but possibly the largest courtyard in England. It measures (very) roughly 100 meters (110 yards) north-south and 80 meters (88 yards) east-west: so its four sides cover a grand total of 360 meters (400 yards). (My figures are not 100% mathematically accurate, but I am trying to convey an idea of how far students have to run.) Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross) successfully completes 'The Great Court Run' accompanied by another student, Andrew Lindsay (Nigel Havers). But this scene was not filmed in Trinity College. It was not even filmed in Cambridge! It was filmed in the much smaller 'School Yard' at Eton College (a school in Berkshire, 70 miles from Cambridge) which only measures (very roughly) 45 meters (50 yards) north-south and 65 metres (70 yards) east-west, so its four sides only cover 220 meters (240 yards). Harold Abrahams studied at Cambridge between 1919 and 1923, but he never attempted the Great Court Run: the tradition may not have begun until 1927, when David Cecil (also known as Lord Burghley, the future Marquess of Exeter) was the first person to accomplish the feat (with reliable witnesses watching him). 'Chariots Of Fire' contains another inaccuracy: Abrahams and Lindsay make the run as the clock rings 12 times, but the clock in the Great Court at Trinity College is rather unusual, in that it strikes twice for each hour, and will thus strike 24 times at mid-day (and midnight) : this takes between 45 and 55 seconds. Even so, in over 90 years since 1927, very few people have been able to run a full circuit of the courtyard before the clock finishes striking.

Rob Halliday

Corrected entry: During the religious service we see noblemen and women sitting on benches - benches were not introduced in churches until the 19th century.

Correction: No they were not. I live in Suffolk, England: many churches had benches by the end of the middle ages. Many churches just in Suffolk have fifteenth century bench ends (Woolpit, Blythburgh, Wordwell). In fact, all English churches probably had benches and seats for the congregation by the sixteenth century. A recent specialist study "Pews, Benches And Chairs" edited by Trevor Cooper and Sarah Brown (Ecclesiological Society, London, 2011) shows that sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth century benches, seats and pews are quite common, and that that some thirteenth century benches may still survive in a few churches. So benches in a church in the twelfth century is a possibility.

Rob Halliday

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.