Britain's Second Worst Historian Has Some Very Deep Mind Thoughts

Everything might be going to Hell right now, but at least we can look back on the good old days when Britain's elite were at least *actually* elite. 

Oops... guess the left won't even let us do that.

You know, for an unbiased organisation, it's surprising how whenever Beeboids come out with some deranged theory, it's always deranged in the self-same way. First we had the Countryfile bimbo explaining how the countryside was totes racisss you guys and now this:

BBC historian Lucy Worsley has said the Battle of Waterloo should not be trumpeted solely as a 'British victory' because of the firepower brought by European allies.

She said the Duke of Wellington deliberately glossed over the role the Prussian army played in helping defeat Napoleon in 1815 in order to boost morale back home.

Huh? Napoleon had been utterly beaten and was doomed to die in exile. How much more of a boost did it need? 

But you read on and find out that she has Captain Hook's grasp of history:

Worsley said that Wellington's first cable back to London all but whitewashed their involvement

"Cable".In 1815. 

Did he follow it up with a Livechat on Youtube?

And it gets better:

She said: 'The European allies referred to the battle as the Belle Alliance and saw it as a European collaboration, but from the earliest dispatch sent back to Britain after the battle, Wellington was calling it the Battle of Waterloo after the place it was fought, playing down the collaborative nature of the victory.' 

Yes, he called the battle after the place it was fought, the fiend! 

Wait until someone tells her the Battle of Jutland didn't actually take place on the Jutland peninsula. 

It's the tip of the iceberg, girl!

Meanwhile, back in the non-insane parts of the world, the casual observer is free to note how carefully any Germanic influence has been edited out of this famous painting.

Literally everyone who has even a passing familiarity with the battle knows how it all came down to the ability of the Anglo-Dutch forces to hold on until the Prussians could arrive. Asking how the battle would have gone without the Prussians is like asking how D-Day would have gone without air superiority. If it hadn't been for the Prussians then the battle would not have been fought that way in the first place. 

Seriously, if there was any justice in the world this daft bint would be banned from calling herself a historian until she can find at least ten people who can name either of the two sets of buildings used to anchor the allied position but don't know about the Prussians. 

Mind you, ludicrous, provable, inaccuracy has never been a problem for the country's worst historian (and fellow BBC favorite) Mary "Typical Roman Family" Beard