Buzz
Throughout history, the many have been governed by the few, and it’s no wonder that misconceptions have emerged about the lives and actions of the influential and powerful figures who have led us. Often, the myths we've formed are just as bizarre as the beliefs themselves.
10. 'Margaret Thatcher Was the Inventor of Soft-Serve Ice Cream'
When Margaret Thatcher passed away in 2013, the Bishop of London reignited the controversy over whether one of Britain's most stern leaders played a role in the creation of one of the world's most famous frozen desserts—soft-serve ice cream. The claim gained widespread attention, with media outlets globally repeating the story that Thatcher, a chemistry graduate from Oxford, had once worked as a chemist for J. Lyons & Company. Allegedly, she helped develop a method to incorporate more air into ice cream, thereby leaving behind a strange legacy.
Yet, the tale is entirely false. Soft-serve ice cream was actually invented in the United States, not the UK, and it seems to have been the creation of either Tom Carvel or J.F. McCullough. Both came upon the idea independently, but around the same time—in the 1930s, long before Thatcher’s graduation in 1947. The version of soft-serve we know today evolved in the 1960s, thanks to the introduction of air pumps and other specialized machinery.
The origins of this persistent myth are hard to pinpoint, but the most likely source is an unusual one: Early mentions of Thatcher's involvement in ice cream technology seem to come from the British left, who used it as a symbolic comparison to her political career.
9. 'Nero Played the Fiddle While Rome Burned'
The tale of a crazed emperor supposedly playing his fiddle while his city burned is one of the most vivid images we have of the ancient world and provides insight into the mind of one of history's most notorious rulers. The story goes that during the great fire of Rome in AD 64, the despised emperor Nero reportedly spent the night merrily playing his fiddle while his people suffered. This seems plausible enough, especially if we take the word 'fiddling' to mean not being productive, rather than referring to an actual instrument.
Historians, however, are certain that this is a complete fabrication. Nero was not even in Rome when the fire broke out; he was in his villa in Antium, around 56 kilometers (35 miles) away. In fact, he did a great deal to assist the city during and after the disaster, organizing relief efforts and offering shelter to displaced residents in his royal estates. He also ordered food vendors to reduce their prices, personally distributed large quantities of food, and funded much of the relief himself.
So, why does this myth persist? The rumor that Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned dates back to the time of the fire. According to the historian Tacitus, once the fire was raging, crowds of people, now homeless and frightened, spread the story that Nero, known for his love of the arts, performed a song about the fall of Troy. This account was picked up by later historians and seemed plausible, especially given Nero's eccentric reputation. People also remembered that he built a grand new palace on land cleared by the fire—a project some even believed he had started himself.
While the image of a detached and mad emperor fits the stereotype we have of Nero, it leads to another major misconception about him. The writings of the second-century historian Suetonius paint a very different picture of Nero, one who was known for his generosity and mercy. Though he had a great passion for the arts, which won him favor with a section of the population, these accounts suggest that during his reign, he was not universally despised as the 'mad tyrant' his legacy is often painted as today.
8. ‘George Washington Had Wooden Teeth’
The story that George Washington had wooden dentures is one that still shows up in the occasional history textbook, and even though a good number of people know that this is a widespread misconception, fewer know the story of how Washington’s teeth played a role in the American Revolution—and why we think they were wooden in the first place.
First, the misconception: Washington did wear dentures and was plagued with constant pain from them, and it shows in the official portraits of him. His dentures are the reason he looks slightly different in various paintings, and the dentures wore were made of a number of different materials, including ivory, lead, and gold. The wooden teeth story likely originated from the stained, grainy appearance that his teeth gradually acquired, and it was kept as a way to make Washington more accessible as an “everyman” sort of character. One part of the myth, the idea that Washington carved his own dentures, is at least partially true, as we do know that he did repair his own teeth.
George Washington was notoriously private about his ongoing dental issues, and in 1781, British forces intercepted a letter he had written to his dentist. In this letter, Washington requested that cleaning supplies be sent to him outside of New York, as he did not expect to be in Philadelphia anytime soon. The British mistook this personal request for vital military intelligence, assuming that all the correspondence in the intercepted mail was crucial. This misunderstanding led Sir Henry Clinton to forgo sending reinforcements to Yorktown, a decision that ultimately resulted in the defeat of Lord Cornwallis and his forces.
Although Washington’s teeth were not made of wood, it’s known that he kept several of his own teeth at Mount Vernon. Additionally, he once spent a significant sum—122 shillings—on nine human teeth, which were intended to be used in future sets of dentures.
7. ‘Hitler’s Snub to Jesse Owens’
The 1936 Olympics were held in Nazi Germany, where American athlete Jesse Owens made history by becoming the first person to win four gold medals in a single edition of the games. The well-known story claims that Hitler, infamous for his racism, snubbed Owens after his victories. However, the true account is far more unusual—and much less flattering to the United States.
Upon returning to America, Owens had only positive things to say about his experience in Nazi Germany. Not only did he form a friendship with fellow athlete Lutz Long (who Owens would never see again after Long’s tragic death in World War II), but he also spoke kindly of Hitler himself.
Owens was quoted by the media saying, “Hitler had a certain time to come to the stadium and a certain time to leave. It happened he had to leave before the victory ceremony after the 100 meters. But before he left, I was on my way to a broadcast and passed near his box. He waved to me and I waved back.” Throughout the interviews, Owens emphasized the importance of focusing on the games rather than the politics, stating that criticizing his host country would have been poor sportsmanship. Hitler’s controversial views on race and the competition, he claimed, were expressed only to Albert Speer, not to the athletes themselves.
However, there was one world leader who did snub Owens—Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When Roosevelt invited all the Olympic champions to the White House, Owens was the only one not to receive an invitation. He didn’t even get a congratulatory telegram or letter, and Owens later remarked, “Hitler didn’t snub me; it was our president who snubbed me.”
6. ‘The Cesarean Section Was Named For Julius Caesar’
The popular tale suggests that Julius Caesar lent his name to the cesarean section, the method by which he is said to have been born. This myth has persisted for centuries, with 16th-century woodcuts even depicting the event that supposedly gave the procedure its name.
However, this long-standing misconception can be debunked for several reasons, with one of the most compelling being that Caesar’s mother was reportedly alive long enough to witness his invasion of Britain. The myth, however, claims that the future emperor was removed from her body after her death, which was a common practice in the early days of cesarean sections. The true source of the term is likely the Latin word caedare, meaning “to cut.” Roman law dictated that a pregnant woman who had recently died or was dying must undergo the drastic procedure to cut the baby free in an attempt to save it.
No records exist of a woman surviving the procedure until the year 1500, and even then, the surgery wasn’t performed by a physician or surgeon. It was carried out by Jacob Nufer, who had experience castrating pigs. While that story is debated, it was around this time that perceptions of cesareans began to change, along with the term itself. A 1598 book on midwifery was the first to refer to the procedure as a “cesarean section,” marking a shift in focus to saving both the mother and the baby.
5. ‘Queen Victoria And Prince Albert Lived In Domestic Bliss’
The union between Queen Victoria and Prince Albert has long been celebrated as one of history's greatest love stories, with the narrative concluding in her profound mourning following his death. However, only in recent years has a deeper investigation into the personal diaries and letters of various members of the Victorian court uncovered the truth behind the polished public image, revealing a very different reality.
A BBC documentary exploring the letters behind the royal façade found a much less romantic story: a mother who despised her crying children and was fearful that her role as a constant childbearer would diminish her power and influence over both the royal duties and her family. Prince Albert, on his part, expressed concerns that Victoria might have inherited the madness that had once afflicted King George III, and their arguments were so intense that at times, the only way Albert could communicate with her was by slipping notes under her door.
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert both believed their eldest son Bertie, who would become Edward VII, to be somewhat of a fool. After Albert became ill—and ultimately passed away—following a visit to Bertie where they walked in the rain together, Victoria's resentment toward her son grew. For the following 40 years, she maintained an extraordinary level of control over the lives of her children and their spouses. Major events were planned according to the menstrual cycle of Bertie’s wife, Princess Alexandra, and daily letters relentlessly arrived for Victoria’s eldest daughter, Vicky, who lived in Germany. Leopold, for much of his life, was told he was “common-looking” and an invalid, wrapped in wool and bullied by the servants.
In the end, the future king cut all ties with his mother and ascended to the throne at the age of 59.
4. ‘Benjamin Franklin Wanted A Turkey To Represent the US’
While the bald eagle is widely recognized as the symbol of the United States, it's often said that Benjamin Franklin lobbied for a different bird—the turkey. Though it's amusing to imagine the US symbolized by a turkey, the story is entirely false.
What Franklin actually did was write a letter to his daughter in which he questioned whether the eagle was truly a fitting symbol of the new American spirit. He described the eagle as 'a Bird of bad moral Character' and compared it to 'men who live by sharping & robbing,' saying it was typically poor and often filthy. Franklin also remarked that the seal's eagle resembled a turkey more than an eagle and suggested that the turkey was a far nobler bird. While these thoughts were never made public, Franklin did propose a design for the country’s Great Seal.
However, no turkeys were involved in Franklin's proposed design. Instead, he suggested using an image from the book of Exodus, showing Moses confronting the Pharaoh and standing against tyranny, reflecting the colonies' own fight. Though Franklin's design was rejected, Thomas Jefferson took Franklin's proposed motto, 'Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,' and adopted it for his personal seal.
The idea of Franklin’s turkey design truly gained public attention in 1962 when The New Yorker published an issue featuring a reenvisioned Great Seal with a turkey on its cover.
3. ‘King John Signed The Magna Carta’
This may seem like a mere technicality, but it’s one that even the Royal Mint has been criticized for getting wrong. The rule of King John and the adoption of the Magna Carta in 1215 marked a turning point in British history. After enduring the king’s brutal reign, the world finally forced John to relinquish much of the monarchy’s power. This was achieved through a document that imposed 63 laws on the king and established a council of 25 barons. Although John later sought the pope’s intervention, claiming he was coerced into the agreement, the deal remained in place.
To commemorate the 800th anniversary of this landmark event, the Royal Mint issued a special coin showing John holding the Magna Carta and a quill pen. This sparked outrage among historians, as the king never 'signed' the document as depicted on the coin, or in many other illustrations. In fact, documents were authenticated with the application of a seal at the time. Furthermore, there was no single Magna Carta; royal scribes produced multiple copies (between 13 and 40), each of which bore John’s royal seal.
For those interested in more precise details, the Oxford English Dictionary provides insight into the meaning of 'to sign.' It defines it as 'to stamp with a seal or signet; to cover with a seal.' However, the first known use of this definition appears in a document created by Henry III, John’s son.
So, in a technical sense, the Magna Carta was never signed.
2. ‘Abraham Lincoln Wrote The Gettysburg Address On A Train’
This is yet another myth that continues to appear in history books as fact: the story goes that Lincoln, on his way to Gettysburg for the dedication ceremony, hastily wrote the Gettysburg Address on bits of scrap paper and the back of an envelope while riding on the train to the event.
In reality, Lincoln never composed any part of the Gettysburg Address while on the train to Gettysburg; the first drafts of his speech were written while he was still in Washington, DC. The speech itself underwent revisions on Lincoln’s first night in Gettysburg and again after his visit to the battlefield.
The notion that Lincoln’s iconic speech was hurriedly written came to light about two decades later. John P. Usher, the secretary of the interior under Lincoln, added the story to the existing accounts of Lincoln’s journey from DC to Gettysburg. Since Usher had been on the train with the president, no one questioned his version of events. This myth was further solidified when Mary Shipman Andrews penned a short story in 1906 based on this narrative.
At the same time this myth gained traction, two people attempted to prevent Usher’s exaggerated account from taking hold. David Willis, the man who hosted Lincoln in Gettysburg, sought to spread another story—that Lincoln had written the entire speech while staying at Willis’s house. Additionally, Lincoln’s personal secretary, John Nicolay, spoke out against the growing myth. Nicolay had seen an early draft of the speech, written while Lincoln was still in Washington, and he, along with fellow secretary John Hay, had been given a handwritten copy of it. Both versions are now preserved in the Library of Congress.
1. ‘King George III Was Mad’
George III is dubbed the Mad King for good reason: there was undoubtedly something deeply strange about his behavior. Once he reached the age of 50, he began experiencing fits that left him plagued by hallucinations, confusion, mania, and such extreme mood swings that the king, who had once been a trusted figure in maintaining peace, would lash out at his staff and doctors. During lucid moments, he would openly discuss his illness, and in 1788, he implored his son, hoping that death would come before another episode of madness.
Mental illness has always been the prevailing explanation for the king’s actions, and at the time, the treatments he underwent likely worsened his mental state. He was subjected to bloodletting, purging, sedation, and even confinement to an icy room during the winter in a desperate attempt to rid him of his ailment. Despite this, George III’s condition continued to decline. After his son ascended the throne, the king’s suffering continued for years, and his eventual death was seen as a merciful end to his torment.
Today, some believe George III may not have suffered from a mental illness at all but from a genetic disorder known as porphyria. This condition, which also causes severe physical symptoms like abdominal pain, could account for the king’s ailments. The puzzle, however, remains as to why these symptoms manifested only during his middle age if it was indeed a hereditary condition.
Analysis of the king’s hair revealed alarmingly high levels of arsenic and lead, which may help explain his decline. Though roughly 90% of those with the gene for porphyria never experience the condition, the presence of arsenic in the system can trigger its onset. When George III began experiencing severe abdominal pains, he was treated with emetic tartar, a remedy containing high amounts of arsenic. The more the king’s behavior deteriorated, the more of the toxic substance was administered, until he was reduced to a hollow, haunted shell of a man.
