Wow, you’ve just pointed out a glaring typo, I have no idea what has happened there but that point about Queen Victoria when I copied and pasted it from word read as follows:
“It’s not well known but tattoos were popular during Victorian times, even Queen Victoria is rumoured to have had a tattoo. She is alleged to have had a Bengal tiger and a python on her arm, though it has never been confirmed. However, despite this, she is believed to be one of the inspirations for modern royals getting tattoos, of which Princess Sofia is the most famous.
She has a sun between her shoulder blades and a large tattoo of a flying butterfly on her rib cage. She is also reported to have a small tattoo along with a motif on her ankles.”
I have no idea what has gone wrong to make it read as it did, it seems like the entire middle section (which I’ve italicised) somehow got deleted. I’ve no idea how this could have happened, I can only assume that when I’ve copied over a new section to replace the middle section, there must have been a cache problem and it’s not properly saved and so hasn’t published.
I’m very annoyed it’s happened if I’m honest, so I thank you very much for pointing it out, as I wouldn’t have realised otherwise, I have further clarified the point as well to make it more clear. I’ve also checked the rest of the post and can confirm there are no other problems like it. I’ll also be sending medium an email to see if this is a common occurrence or not to make certain it never happens again.
So thanks again, very well spotted. You have taught me a lesson to make certain that even after it’s posted that I check through it again to make certain that all is well, as a typo like that doesn’t just make the sentence awkward, in this case, due to the unfortunate missing paragraph, and the way the remaining sentences interlinked, it gave misinformation which is one of the things I fight against! You couldn’t even make it up. I still cannot even believe it! So thanks again!
In terms of citations, the points for this can easily be checked through googling, or through history books. The reason there are not a large number of citations is simply that if citations were included in a piece like this inevitably it would read like an endless, this source says this, that source says that, this source says this and so that means that, he says this, she says that, and so that must mean this, and on and on it would go, which would just be extremely tedious.
Also, the reference list and bibliography would be ridiculously long to the point that on a site like this, it is just not viable. Also, when it comes to history every source can be traced through about a zillion different other people, so they are virtually all secondary. All you can really do is listen to the experts and look at the historical data and then recount to the best you can based on the experts and the data, which is what I’ve done in this post.
But in regards to the tattoos, if you’re interested, you may find these posts of interest:
https://www.tattoodo.com/articles/royal-rebels-tattooed-royalty-through-history-150206
https://virtualvictorian.blogspot.com/2013/03/tattooed-by-royal-appointment.html
Anyhow, thanks for reading! And for your comment, much appreciated :-)
