BBC History Magazine
BBC History Magazine
2009-02-27 18:59:30
The BBC History Magazine in the UK has Richard on the cover again,
this time, March issue, under the title "REVEALED - The real reason
he was butchered at the Battle of Bosworth".
The main article is about the Harrington - Stanley feud and the
reasons the author of new book "Richard III and the Death of
Chivalry" David Hipshon, feels were the reasons for Stanleys betrayal
of Richard at Bosworth.
Of course, and I'm not sure he is also responsible for it, but under
the article is a Timeline for the WOTR that unfortunately includes
the following:-
1483
Edward IV dies in his bed at the age of 40. His brother, Richard Duke
of Gloucester, puts Edward's two sons, aged 12 and 10, in the Tower
and takes the throne as Richard III. The Princes disappear. The Duke
of Buckingham, Richard's chief supporter, rebels and is executed.
The argument of the article is convincing, particularly in view of
the amount of research has been done of late into the Harrington
case. I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet read it, which as
this is the first post mentioning it, probably means the majority of
you, but the only part of the article I don't like, and it has four
large pages, is the following:-
"Historians have been tempted to see Stanley's treachery as merely
the last act in the short and brutal drama that encompassed the reign
of the most controversial king in English history. Most agree that
Richard had murdered his two nephews in the Tower of London and that
heinous crime so shocked the realm, even in those medieval days, that
his demise was all but assured. The reason he lost the battle of
Bosworth, they say, was because he had sacrificed support through
this illegal coup. But...."
Details of the Harrington Stanley feud follow, and Richard's
honourable part in it.
I think if we challenge the editor he/she might argue that Hipshon
says "most agree" and "they say", not that he agrees with these other
historians?
His last line is...
"When Richard rode into battle, with Harrington by his side, loyalty,
fidelity, and trust rode with him. Like the golden crown on Richard's
head they came crashing down to earth."
I for one, wouldn't disagree with that.
Paul
Richard liveth yet
this time, March issue, under the title "REVEALED - The real reason
he was butchered at the Battle of Bosworth".
The main article is about the Harrington - Stanley feud and the
reasons the author of new book "Richard III and the Death of
Chivalry" David Hipshon, feels were the reasons for Stanleys betrayal
of Richard at Bosworth.
Of course, and I'm not sure he is also responsible for it, but under
the article is a Timeline for the WOTR that unfortunately includes
the following:-
1483
Edward IV dies in his bed at the age of 40. His brother, Richard Duke
of Gloucester, puts Edward's two sons, aged 12 and 10, in the Tower
and takes the throne as Richard III. The Princes disappear. The Duke
of Buckingham, Richard's chief supporter, rebels and is executed.
The argument of the article is convincing, particularly in view of
the amount of research has been done of late into the Harrington
case. I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet read it, which as
this is the first post mentioning it, probably means the majority of
you, but the only part of the article I don't like, and it has four
large pages, is the following:-
"Historians have been tempted to see Stanley's treachery as merely
the last act in the short and brutal drama that encompassed the reign
of the most controversial king in English history. Most agree that
Richard had murdered his two nephews in the Tower of London and that
heinous crime so shocked the realm, even in those medieval days, that
his demise was all but assured. The reason he lost the battle of
Bosworth, they say, was because he had sacrificed support through
this illegal coup. But...."
Details of the Harrington Stanley feud follow, and Richard's
honourable part in it.
I think if we challenge the editor he/she might argue that Hipshon
says "most agree" and "they say", not that he agrees with these other
historians?
His last line is...
"When Richard rode into battle, with Harrington by his side, loyalty,
fidelity, and trust rode with him. Like the golden crown on Richard's
head they came crashing down to earth."
I for one, wouldn't disagree with that.
Paul
Richard liveth yet
Re: BBC History Magazine Vol 10 No.3 March 2009
2009-03-05 18:42:04
I bought a copy yesterday - not a bad article generally; I agree that the third paragraph which starts "Historians have been tempted.." begins with a re-hash of the Tudor version of history, but it then goes on to the possible reason for the Stanley betrayal - basically their attempt to grab Harrington lands after the head of the Harrington family and his heir fell fighting for York at Wakefield. Richard, not unnaturally, backed the family of his father's ally, and James Harrington rode with him in the fatal charge at Bosworth (the article doesn't say whether he was killed in the battle - anyone know his fate ?).
Perhaps the real question is why on earth Richard trusted the Stanleys in the slightest ? He was an experienced soldier; exposing his flank to William Stanley's forces was an extraordinarily foolish thing to do in the circumstances.
Richard G
PS the magazine also includes an interesting article on the Round Table at Winchester suggesting a gathering of 1285 as a possible reason for its construction.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The BBC History Magazine in the UK has Richard on the cover again,
> this time, March issue, under the title "REVEALED - The real reason
> he was butchered at the Battle of Bosworth".
> The main article is about the Harrington - Stanley feud and the
> reasons the author of new book "Richard III and the Death of
> Chivalry" David Hipshon, feels were the reasons for Stanleys betrayal
> of Richard at Bosworth.
> Of course, and I'm not sure he is also responsible for it, but under
> the article is a Timeline for the WOTR that unfortunately includes
> the following:-
>
> 1483
> Edward IV dies in his bed at the age of 40. His brother, Richard Duke
> of Gloucester, puts Edward's two sons, aged 12 and 10, in the Tower
> and takes the throne as Richard III. The Princes disappear. The Duke
> of Buckingham, Richard's chief supporter, rebels and is executed.
>
>
> The argument of the article is convincing, particularly in view of
> the amount of research has been done of late into the Harrington
> case. I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet read it, which as
> this is the first post mentioning it, probably means the majority of
> you, but the only part of the article I don't like, and it has four
> large pages, is the following:-
>
> "Historians have been tempted to see Stanley's treachery as merely
> the last act in the short and brutal drama that encompassed the reign
> of the most controversial king in English history. Most agree that
> Richard had murdered his two nephews in the Tower of London and that
> heinous crime so shocked the realm, even in those medieval days, that
> his demise was all but assured. The reason he lost the battle of
> Bosworth, they say, was because he had sacrificed support through
> this illegal coup. But...."
>
> Details of the Harrington Stanley feud follow, and Richard's
> honourable part in it.
> I think if we challenge the editor he/she might argue that Hipshon
> says "most agree" and "they say", not that he agrees with these other
> historians?
>
> His last line is...
>
> "When Richard rode into battle, with Harrington by his side, loyalty,
> fidelity, and trust rode with him. Like the golden crown on Richard's
> head they came crashing down to earth."
>
> I for one, wouldn't disagree with that.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Perhaps the real question is why on earth Richard trusted the Stanleys in the slightest ? He was an experienced soldier; exposing his flank to William Stanley's forces was an extraordinarily foolish thing to do in the circumstances.
Richard G
PS the magazine also includes an interesting article on the Round Table at Winchester suggesting a gathering of 1285 as a possible reason for its construction.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> The BBC History Magazine in the UK has Richard on the cover again,
> this time, March issue, under the title "REVEALED - The real reason
> he was butchered at the Battle of Bosworth".
> The main article is about the Harrington - Stanley feud and the
> reasons the author of new book "Richard III and the Death of
> Chivalry" David Hipshon, feels were the reasons for Stanleys betrayal
> of Richard at Bosworth.
> Of course, and I'm not sure he is also responsible for it, but under
> the article is a Timeline for the WOTR that unfortunately includes
> the following:-
>
> 1483
> Edward IV dies in his bed at the age of 40. His brother, Richard Duke
> of Gloucester, puts Edward's two sons, aged 12 and 10, in the Tower
> and takes the throne as Richard III. The Princes disappear. The Duke
> of Buckingham, Richard's chief supporter, rebels and is executed.
>
>
> The argument of the article is convincing, particularly in view of
> the amount of research has been done of late into the Harrington
> case. I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet read it, which as
> this is the first post mentioning it, probably means the majority of
> you, but the only part of the article I don't like, and it has four
> large pages, is the following:-
>
> "Historians have been tempted to see Stanley's treachery as merely
> the last act in the short and brutal drama that encompassed the reign
> of the most controversial king in English history. Most agree that
> Richard had murdered his two nephews in the Tower of London and that
> heinous crime so shocked the realm, even in those medieval days, that
> his demise was all but assured. The reason he lost the battle of
> Bosworth, they say, was because he had sacrificed support through
> this illegal coup. But...."
>
> Details of the Harrington Stanley feud follow, and Richard's
> honourable part in it.
> I think if we challenge the editor he/she might argue that Hipshon
> says "most agree" and "they say", not that he agrees with these other
> historians?
>
> His last line is...
>
> "When Richard rode into battle, with Harrington by his side, loyalty,
> fidelity, and trust rode with him. Like the golden crown on Richard's
> head they came crashing down to earth."
>
> I for one, wouldn't disagree with that.
> Paul
>
>
> Richard liveth yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: BBC History Magazine Vol 10 No.3 March 2009
2009-03-05 19:47:46
James Harrington, Constable of England, lived until 1497
I don't really buy the gist of the article, as the Stanleys received vast rewards in estates and offices from Richard, dwarfing the petty lordship of Hornby castle.
Sir William believed he was fighting for the true heir, Elizabeth of York (he was executed later for supporting Perkin Warbeck after becoming convinced he was Richard of Shrewsbury); while brother Tom may have just watched from afar as usual and only joined in when the battle was won.
--- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I bought a copy yesterday - not a bad article generally; I agree that the third paragraph which starts "Historians have been tempted.." begins with a re-hash of the Tudor version of history, but it then goes on to the possible reason for the Stanley betrayal - basically their attempt to grab Harrington lands after the head of the Harrington family and his heir fell fighting for York at Wakefield. Richard, not unnaturally, backed the family of his father's ally, and James Harrington rode with him in the fatal charge at Bosworth (the article doesn't say whether he was killed in the battle - anyone know his fate ?).
I don't really buy the gist of the article, as the Stanleys received vast rewards in estates and offices from Richard, dwarfing the petty lordship of Hornby castle.
Sir William believed he was fighting for the true heir, Elizabeth of York (he was executed later for supporting Perkin Warbeck after becoming convinced he was Richard of Shrewsbury); while brother Tom may have just watched from afar as usual and only joined in when the battle was won.
--- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> I bought a copy yesterday - not a bad article generally; I agree that the third paragraph which starts "Historians have been tempted.." begins with a re-hash of the Tudor version of history, but it then goes on to the possible reason for the Stanley betrayal - basically their attempt to grab Harrington lands after the head of the Harrington family and his heir fell fighting for York at Wakefield. Richard, not unnaturally, backed the family of his father's ally, and James Harrington rode with him in the fatal charge at Bosworth (the article doesn't say whether he was killed in the battle - anyone know his fate ?).
Re: BBC History Magazine Vol 10 No.3 March 2009
2009-03-07 12:37:00
Just in case History Magazine choose not to print the letter I emailed them in response to the article I thought you might like to read it here:
David Hipshon's theory about Richard III's defeat at Bosworth was interesting, but hardly new. I have explored this theme in my novel The Harrington Inheritance (to be published by Myrmidon Books).
From my own extensive research I know that when Thomas and John Harrington died at Wakefield, John's daughters Anne and Elizabeth were four and five years old and as they were underage the king gave their wardship to Thomas Stanley who married them to one of his sons and a nephew.
James and Robert Harrington clung to Hornby and there were several attempts by the Stanleys to take possession. On one occasion they did bring up the Mile End cannon from Bristol but that was during the re-adeption of Henry VI and not whilst Richard, duke of Gloucester was at Hornby in March 1470.
The Harrington brothers weren't legally entitled to Hornby, but Richard thought they had a moral entitlement for supporting his father at Wakefield. Edward IV disagreed and after various enquiries he insisted that the Harringtons give up possession of the castle, though it was only in the lead up to the war with France that a compromise was reached.
Hornby was not their main residence though. The Harringtons had long held land at Brearley and Badsworth in Yorkshire. The Harringtons were compensated by Richard with high ranking roles within his household. Robert was in charge of the men who arrested Lord Hastings, for example, and both brothers fought (and survived) at Bosworth. But the Stanleys were aware that the Harringtons were trusted supporters of Richard so it would come as no surprise to see them fighting alongside him. I doubt it was the sight of them alone that prompted the Stanleys' betrayal.
In reference to the comment 'Stanley had still not handed over the lucrative and extensive rights that Robert Harrington claimed in Blackburn and Amounderness', Robert Harrington was married to Isabella Balderstone, the daughter of William Balderstone who owned land in the area. She was a joint heiress with her sister Joan who married John Pilkington. The land was held by them and was never in the possession of the Stanley family until a later date. Isabella's uncle Richard Radcliffe was a completely different person from the Richard Ratcliffe who was a close friend and advisor of Richard III. And may I also point out that the image of 'William Stanley' is that of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, born in 1560. Maybe his clearly Elizabethan clothes should have been a clue?
--- In , "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> James Harrington, Constable of England, lived until 1497
>
> I don't really buy the gist of the article, as the Stanleys received vast rewards in estates and offices from Richard, dwarfing the petty lordship of Hornby castle.
> Sir William believed he was fighting for the true heir, Elizabeth of York (he was executed later for supporting Perkin Warbeck after becoming convinced he was Richard of Shrewsbury); while brother Tom may have just watched from afar as usual and only joined in when the battle was won.
>
> --- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I bought a copy yesterday - not a bad article generally; I agree that the third paragraph which starts "Historians have been tempted.." begins with a re-hash of the Tudor version of history, but it then goes on to the possible reason for the Stanley betrayal - basically their attempt to grab Harrington lands after the head of the Harrington family and his heir fell fighting for York at Wakefield. Richard, not unnaturally, backed the family of his father's ally, and James Harrington rode with him in the fatal charge at Bosworth (the article doesn't say whether he was killed in the battle - anyone know his fate ?).
>
David Hipshon's theory about Richard III's defeat at Bosworth was interesting, but hardly new. I have explored this theme in my novel The Harrington Inheritance (to be published by Myrmidon Books).
From my own extensive research I know that when Thomas and John Harrington died at Wakefield, John's daughters Anne and Elizabeth were four and five years old and as they were underage the king gave their wardship to Thomas Stanley who married them to one of his sons and a nephew.
James and Robert Harrington clung to Hornby and there were several attempts by the Stanleys to take possession. On one occasion they did bring up the Mile End cannon from Bristol but that was during the re-adeption of Henry VI and not whilst Richard, duke of Gloucester was at Hornby in March 1470.
The Harrington brothers weren't legally entitled to Hornby, but Richard thought they had a moral entitlement for supporting his father at Wakefield. Edward IV disagreed and after various enquiries he insisted that the Harringtons give up possession of the castle, though it was only in the lead up to the war with France that a compromise was reached.
Hornby was not their main residence though. The Harringtons had long held land at Brearley and Badsworth in Yorkshire. The Harringtons were compensated by Richard with high ranking roles within his household. Robert was in charge of the men who arrested Lord Hastings, for example, and both brothers fought (and survived) at Bosworth. But the Stanleys were aware that the Harringtons were trusted supporters of Richard so it would come as no surprise to see them fighting alongside him. I doubt it was the sight of them alone that prompted the Stanleys' betrayal.
In reference to the comment 'Stanley had still not handed over the lucrative and extensive rights that Robert Harrington claimed in Blackburn and Amounderness', Robert Harrington was married to Isabella Balderstone, the daughter of William Balderstone who owned land in the area. She was a joint heiress with her sister Joan who married John Pilkington. The land was held by them and was never in the possession of the Stanley family until a later date. Isabella's uncle Richard Radcliffe was a completely different person from the Richard Ratcliffe who was a close friend and advisor of Richard III. And may I also point out that the image of 'William Stanley' is that of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, born in 1560. Maybe his clearly Elizabethan clothes should have been a clue?
--- In , "theblackprussian" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> James Harrington, Constable of England, lived until 1497
>
> I don't really buy the gist of the article, as the Stanleys received vast rewards in estates and offices from Richard, dwarfing the petty lordship of Hornby castle.
> Sir William believed he was fighting for the true heir, Elizabeth of York (he was executed later for supporting Perkin Warbeck after becoming convinced he was Richard of Shrewsbury); while brother Tom may have just watched from afar as usual and only joined in when the battle was won.
>
> --- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > I bought a copy yesterday - not a bad article generally; I agree that the third paragraph which starts "Historians have been tempted.." begins with a re-hash of the Tudor version of history, but it then goes on to the possible reason for the Stanley betrayal - basically their attempt to grab Harrington lands after the head of the Harrington family and his heir fell fighting for York at Wakefield. Richard, not unnaturally, backed the family of his father's ally, and James Harrington rode with him in the fatal charge at Bosworth (the article doesn't say whether he was killed in the battle - anyone know his fate ?).
>
BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 12:36:17
BBC History Magazine has issued a 'Collector's Edition" entitled
'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
read it yet so will delay judgement.
In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
aware of before from Hicks.
The man has completely lost it!
He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
Mr Hicks?
Oh you didn't?
Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
remains of King Richard?
Paul
'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
read it yet so will delay judgement.
In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
aware of before from Hicks.
The man has completely lost it!
He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
Mr Hicks?
Oh you didn't?
Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
remains of King Richard?
Paul
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 13:45:01
Presumably Prof Hicks is a holocaust and climate change denier too, Paul.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: BBC History Magazine
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 12:36:16 PM
BBC History Magazine has issued a 'Collector's Edition" entitled
'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
read it yet so will delay judgement.
In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
aware of before from Hicks.
The man has completely lost it!
He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
Mr Hicks?
Oh you didn't?
Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
remains of King Richard?
Paul
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 13:47:13
Thank you Paul.....Mr. Hicks needs a tennis ball in his mouth - full STOP!
On Mar 8, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
On Mar 8, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
BBC History Magazine has issued a 'Collector's Edition" entitled
'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
read it yet so will delay judgement.
In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
aware of before from Hicks.
The man has completely lost it!
He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
Mr Hicks?
Oh you didn't?
Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
remains of King Richard?
Paul
BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 16:54:28
Meant to say that the 'Collector's Edition' is priced at just under 10UKP...
Paul
Paul
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 17:59:19
Paul, could you post the link? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
Gilda
> On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
>
> BBC History Magazine has issued a 'Collector's Edition" entitled
> 'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
> read it yet so will delay judgement.
> In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
> quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
> aware of before from Hicks.
> The man has completely lost it!
> He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
> Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
> certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
> discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
> contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
> Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
> Mr Hicks?
> Oh you didn't?
> Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
> yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
> remains of King Richard?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Paul Trevor Bale <bale475@...>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
Gilda
> On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
>
> BBC History Magazine has issued a 'Collector's Edition" entitled
> 'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
> read it yet so will delay judgement.
> In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
> quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
> aware of before from Hicks.
> The man has completely lost it!
> He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
> Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
> certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
> discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
> contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
> Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
> Mr Hicks?
> Oh you didn't?
> Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
> yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
> remains of King Richard?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Paul Trevor Bale <bale475@...>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 18:59:46
Gilda
It's a print issue and inside I can only find historyextra.com as the
possible place to find it.
Hope this helps.
Paul
On 08/03/2015 17:59, Gilda Elise gildaevf@...
[] wrote:
> Paul, could you post the link? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
>
> Gilda
>
>
>
>> On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
>>
>> BBC History Magazine has issued a 'Collector's Edition" entitled
>> 'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
>> read it yet so will delay judgement.
>> In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
>> quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
>> aware of before from Hicks.
>> The man has completely lost it!
>> He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
>> Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
>> certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
>> discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
>> contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
>> Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
>> Mr Hicks?
>> Oh you didn't?
>> Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
>> yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
>> remains of King Richard?
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>> Posted by: Paul Trevor Bale <bale475@...>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Gilda Elise <gildaevf@...>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
It's a print issue and inside I can only find historyextra.com as the
possible place to find it.
Hope this helps.
Paul
On 08/03/2015 17:59, Gilda Elise gildaevf@...
[] wrote:
> Paul, could you post the link? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
>
> Gilda
>
>
>
>> On Mar 8, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
>>
>> BBC History Magazine has issued a 'Collector's Edition" entitled
>> 'Richard III - The Full Story of the King Under The Car Park'. Haven;t
>> read it yet so will delay judgement.
>> In the current issue of the BBC History Magazine there are two pages of
>> quotes regarding the dig and post dig research, including one I was not
>> aware of before from Hicks.
>> The man has completely lost it!
>> He writes.."this quest...failed - perhaps because these bones were not
>> Richard's, but those of a non-Plantagent slain between 1455 and 1530;
>> certainly because the issue was prejudged. Suspect radio carbon dating,
>> discrepancies in the evidence found in the wounds and grave, and
>> contrary Y chromosome results - all these were brushed aside."
>> Now when did you study radio carbon dating and DNA chromosome science,
>> Mr Hicks?
>> Oh you didn't?
>> Why are you the only expert, I use the term loosely with regard to
>> yourself, who does not agree that with 99.9% certainty these are the
>> remains of King Richard?
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>> Posted by: Paul Trevor Bale <bale475@...>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Gilda Elise <gildaevf@...>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 19:53:46
Paul it is unbelievable, he is just trying to promote his anti Richard books.I've noticed in Waterstones he has re- printed some old books and written some new books.He and Alison Weir are determined to keep pushing their anti Richard views. It makes me so angry. People on Facebook are very angry too because they have spent nearly £10 on complete rubbish.
Mary
Mary
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-08 20:09:12
I expect that we all feel the same. But my word, the Tudors were gone pretty quickly. While the Plantagenets had a history from The Norman Conquest to the Battle at Bosworth. Surely that time is more important, historically, than the time of the Tudors.
I just do not "get it"!
On Mar 8, 2015, at 2:53 PM, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Mary
On Mar 8, 2015, at 2:53 PM, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Paul it is unbelievable, he is just trying to promote his anti Richard books.I've noticed in Waterstones he has re- printed some old books and written some new books.He and Alison Weir are determined to keep pushing their anti Richard views. It makes me so angry. People on Facebook are very angry too because they have spent nearly £10 on complete rubbish.
Mary
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-09 22:45:27
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 10:36:13
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard uses
small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his life.
Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector after
"seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed
Richard "is clearly determined to seize the throne". His young
nephew Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne
and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
On 09/03/2015 22:45, khafara@... [] wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
On 09/03/2015 22:45, khafara@... [] wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 12:42:57
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
JessFrom: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
JessFrom: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard uses
small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his life.
Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector after
"seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed
Richard "is clearly determined to seize the throne". His young
nephew Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne
and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on
the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
On 09/03/2015 22:45, khafara@...
[] wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and
those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who
plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks
*wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he
and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread
his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks)
obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked
up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's
what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making
Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not
Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny
him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful
employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 12:54:28
I think you are absolutely right Tamara! In a lot of instances the search for fame or money (I think it's fame in Hicks's case) outweighs any real search for truth. If we attack it just enhances their 'celebrity' status. This was bound to happen. H
From: "khafara@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 9 March 2015, 22:45
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
From: "khafara@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 9 March 2015, 22:45
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 13:12:56
Not down at Hicks level I hope you mean.
But what we do not need is another biography of Richard written by somebody who doesn't like or understand him, which I'm very much afraid Chris Skidmore is.
Is he reputable? He's a Tory MP for goodness sake!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: BBC History Magazine
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
But what we do not need is another biography of Richard written by somebody who doesn't like or understand him, which I'm very much afraid Chris Skidmore is.
Is he reputable? He's a Tory MP for goodness sake!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard
uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his
life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector
after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers.
Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to
seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the
Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is
scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own
book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 13:20:18
Yes he studied History at Oxford, and has written a book on Edward
VI and the Amy Robeshart mystery. Photo of him on his website looks
little like him, more like an actors'.
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: BBC History Magazine
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard
uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his
life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector
after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers.
Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to
seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the
Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is
scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own
book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 13:23:06
And again, on his Bosworth book his blurb runs that Richard was
deeply unpopular.
Only amongst his enemies and the few who lost their places at the Edwardian court when Richard became king.
Grrrrr. This stuff has got me so angry when I should be celebrating finding Richard and giving him a decent burial which he so much deserves.
Bloody Tudor lovers!!!!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 13:20, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] wrote:
Yes he studied History at Oxford, and has written a book on Edward VI and the Amy Robeshart mystery. Photo of him on his website looks little like him, more like an actors'.
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Only amongst his enemies and the few who lost their places at the Edwardian court when Richard became king.
Grrrrr. This stuff has got me so angry when I should be celebrating finding Richard and giving him a decent burial which he so much deserves.
Bloody Tudor lovers!!!!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 13:20, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] wrote:
Yes he studied History at Oxford, and has written a book on Edward VI and the Amy Robeshart mystery. Photo of him on his website looks little like him, more like an actors'.
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard
uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe
his life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed
Protector after "seizing" Edward V and
executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed Richard "is
clearly determined to seize the throne". His young nephew
Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne
and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own
book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 13:47:46
Oh dear, oh dear.....yes, depressing to me as well.
On Mar 10, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
On Mar 10, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] <> wrote:
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector
after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 15:00:47
Yes he just selectively churns out what has been said before; nothing new to add. So how does he account for the lovely Fitzalans, who played a major part at Richard's coronation and then changed sides as the wind blew the other way? I recall his argument was aired on here some time ago and I've spent the last part of my life proving that all these people who thought Richard 'unpopular' had significant connections to MB or had had their possessions confiscated by the more popular Edward. Seems the Tudors have better PR Paul, or should I say, sensationalism sells better. It's all about money - always was. Which is why the idealists (and Richard was of course one) get by far the worst deal. People like Skidmore, Licence etc make Tony Pollard look more than reasonable, despite his conclusions, because at least he has tried to reason it out. I still wait for the historian who can explain why Richard killed the princes and then didn't bother to tell anyone - it rather defeats the object. If you're going to take out the issue of dissent then at least let people know you've done it. Otherwise why bother? People hardly threw up their hands in horror and turned their backs on Bolingbroke when Richard II 'died' or Henry VI 'fell over'. H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015, 13:23
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
And again, on his Bosworth book his blurb runs that Richard was deeply unpopular.
Only amongst his enemies and the few who lost their places at the Edwardian court when Richard became king.
Grrrrr. This stuff has got me so angry when I should be celebrating finding Richard and giving him a decent burial which he so much deserves.
Bloody Tudor lovers!!!!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 13:20, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] wrote:
Yes he studied History at Oxford, and has written a book on Edward VI and the Amy Robeshart mystery. Photo of him on his website looks little like him, more like an actors'.
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
On 09/03/2015 22:45, khafara@... [] wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015, 13:23
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
And again, on his Bosworth book his blurb runs that Richard was deeply unpopular.
Only amongst his enemies and the few who lost their places at the Edwardian court when Richard became king.
Grrrrr. This stuff has got me so angry when I should be celebrating finding Richard and giving him a decent burial which he so much deserves.
Bloody Tudor lovers!!!!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 13:20, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] wrote:
Yes he studied History at Oxford, and has written a book on Edward VI and the Amy Robeshart mystery. Photo of him on his website looks little like him, more like an actors'.
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
On 09/03/2015 22:45, khafara@... [] wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 19:09:21
Are any Tory MP's reputable?
Perhaps better than UKIP at least=.
JessFrom: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 13:16
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Perhaps better than UKIP at least=.
JessFrom: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 13:16
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
Not down at Hicks level I hope you mean.
But what we do not need is another biography of Richard written by
somebody who doesn't like or understand him, which I'm very much
afraid Chris Skidmore is.
Is he reputable? He's a Tory MP for goodness sake!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian
janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris
Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so
it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased
for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess
From: Paul
Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard
uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his
life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector
after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers.
Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to
seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the
Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is
scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own
book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-10 21:16:25
Quite. Another thing is the party prince, because of some DNA saying
his increase of a certain isotope after he became king meant he
drank too much and became a glutton.
Yet in the next paragraph we are told of Von Poppelau's writing that the king didn't touch his food but sat talking to him all through dinner. You can only have it both ways when insulting Richard it seems, and don't read what you've just written!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 15:00, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Yes he just selectively churns out what has been said before; nothing new to add. So how does he account for the lovely Fitzalans, who played a major part at Richard's coronation and then changed sides as the wind blew the other way? I recall his argument was aired on here some time ago and I've spent the last part of my life proving that all these people who thought Richard 'unpopular' had significant connections to MB or had had their possessions confiscated by the more popular Edward. Seems the Tudors have better PR Paul, or should I say, sensationalism sells better. It's all about money - always was. Which is why the idealists (and Richard was of course one) get by far the worst deal. People like Skidmore, Licence etc make Tony Pollard look more than reasonable, despite his conclusions, because at least he has tried to reason it out. I still wait for the historian who can explain why Richard killed the princes and then didn't bother to tell anyone - it rather defeats the object. If you're going to take out the issue of dissent then at least let people know you've done it. Otherwise why bother? People hardly threw up their hands in horror and turned their backs on Bolingbroke when Richard II 'died' or Henry VI 'fell over'. H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015, 13:23
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
And again, on his Bosworth book his blurb runs that Richard was deeply unpopular.
Only amongst his enemies and the few who lost their places at the Edwardian court when Richard became king.
Grrrrr. This stuff has got me so angry when I should be celebrating finding Richard and giving him a decent burial which he so much deserves.
Bloody Tudor lovers!!!!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 13:20, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] wrote:
Yes he studied History at Oxford, and has written a book on Edward VI and the Amy Robeshart mystery. Photo of him on his website looks little like him, more like an actors'.
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
On 09/03/2015 22:45, khafara@... [] wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Yet in the next paragraph we are told of Von Poppelau's writing that the king didn't touch his food but sat talking to him all through dinner. You can only have it both ways when insulting Richard it seems, and don't read what you've just written!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 15:00, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Yes he just selectively churns out what has been said before; nothing new to add. So how does he account for the lovely Fitzalans, who played a major part at Richard's coronation and then changed sides as the wind blew the other way? I recall his argument was aired on here some time ago and I've spent the last part of my life proving that all these people who thought Richard 'unpopular' had significant connections to MB or had had their possessions confiscated by the more popular Edward. Seems the Tudors have better PR Paul, or should I say, sensationalism sells better. It's all about money - always was. Which is why the idealists (and Richard was of course one) get by far the worst deal. People like Skidmore, Licence etc make Tony Pollard look more than reasonable, despite his conclusions, because at least he has tried to reason it out. I still wait for the historian who can explain why Richard killed the princes and then didn't bother to tell anyone - it rather defeats the object. If you're going to take out the issue of dissent then at least let people know you've done it. Otherwise why bother? People hardly threw up their hands in horror and turned their backs on Bolingbroke when Richard II 'died' or Henry VI 'fell over'. H
From: "Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015, 13:23
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
And again, on his Bosworth book his blurb runs that Richard was deeply unpopular.
Only amongst his enemies and the few who lost their places at the Edwardian court when Richard became king.
Grrrrr. This stuff has got me so angry when I should be celebrating finding Richard and giving him a decent burial which he so much deserves.
Bloody Tudor lovers!!!!
Paul
On 10/03/2015 13:20, Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... [] wrote:
Yes he studied History at Oxford, and has written a book on Edward VI and the Amy Robeshart mystery. Photo of him on his website looks little like him, more like an actors'.
Was conveyor of seminar on Tudor nobility at Oxford.
Perfect to write about Richard the man whose throne they stole!
No bias there at all!
Paul
Mind you regarding graduating from university, Philippa Gregory graduated in English and look at her books, while Hicks graduated in History studying under Charles Ross, and look at his garbage.....
On 10/03/2015 12:42, Janjovian janjovian@... [] wrote:
Chris Skidmore is also writing a major biography of Richard III so it should be brought to his attention where he is wrong.
At least he is reputable historian, if rather too Tudor biased for my taste, and he does write well.
Not in the same class as Hicks at least.
Jess From: Paul Trevor Bale bale475@... []
Sent: 10/03/2015 10:36
To:
Subject: Re: Re: BBC History Magazine
Will do, unfortunately the BBC magazine special on Richard uses small distortions and incomplete "facts" to describe his life. Richard is a "party prince". He is proclaimed Protector after "seizing" Edward V and executing Rivers. Once Hastings is executed Richard "is clearly determined to seize the throne". His young nephew Richard is placed in the Tower. Richard "seizes the throne and .... Edward V is scrubbed from the records".
I won't go on. You get the drift I'm sure.
This was written by Tory MP Chris Skidmore who has his own book on the Tudors to push.
Need I say more?
Depressing reading for me on a sunny morning.
Paul
On 09/03/2015 22:45, khafara@... [] wrote:
If it's any consolation, Paul, I poked around on the internet and those words of his are nowhere to be found. So only punters who plunked down for this will get exposed to his crapola.
Thing is, I'm betting dollars (or GBP) to doughnuts that Hicks *wants* to bait some Ricardian into publicly roasting him -- he and his allies will see it as free publicity AND a way to spread his garbage. Right now, it's only in that (for most folks) obscure print publication the Beeb put out. But if it gets talked up, even if only to be shot down, the lies get spread, and that's what he cares about. That, and getting a chuckle at making Ricardians jump at his command.
Best to use the old Usenet shunning method of "DNFTEC" -- Do Not Feed The Energy Creature -- on him. He thrives on publicity; deny him his candy, and he'll either wither away or seek gainful employment somewhere.
Tamara
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-11 09:11:27
Michael Hicks should simply be treated like any tantrum throwing brat, shoved in a playpen and ignored. There is no need for anyone to try to demolish him, he is doing a perfectly adequate job all by himself.
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-29 06:37:26
Yep, it's bad news. They have no interest or care about really getting into the mind of Richard. It's easy to pin the blame.
Re: BBC History Magazine
2015-03-29 06:39:18
Ph Gregory just puts spins on stuff - it sells!! Michael Hicks - falls for biased accounts; pretty typical
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.