HISTORIANS!!

I always thought Starkey was cut from the same roll of material as Hicks and now I am convinced. In an article in The Times, Starkey, who is updating his bigrography on Henry Vlll (I must buy it .....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting is similar as that of his mother's (although only a fragment of Elizabeth's handwriting survives) it follows that she tutored him `'both to read, and as we can see from the handwriting to write too' even though it was unheard of at the time i.e. a queen to teach her children. Have you ever heard such drivel? He continues "Henry's handwriting shows how close he was to females in his youth.....& became emotionally dependent on woman....to put it bluntly he was emotionally incontinent"
Why cant todays historians (well Starkey and Hicks anyway) refrain from all the psychoanalysing and making out they know how someone, dead for 500 or so years was thinking. What a poor way to write a book.
Eileen

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> I always thought Starkey was cut from the same roll of material as Hicks and now I am convinced. In an article in The Times, Starkey, who is updating his bigrography on Henry Vlll

Ooop Sorry about my message being repeated ....for some reason when I click on send I get the your message has been posted et.c, but message does not show up. so I send again...
Oh well...




(I must buy it .....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting is similar as that of his mother's (although only a fragment of Elizabeth's handwriting survives) it follows that she tutored him `'both to read, and as we can see from the handwriting to write too' even though it was unheard of at the time i.e. a queen to teach her children. Have you ever heard such drivel? He continues "Henry's handwriting shows how close he was to females in his youth.....& became emotionally dependent on woman....to put it bluntly he was emotionally incontinent"
> Why cant todays historians (well Starkey and Hicks anyway) refrain from all the psychoanalysing and making out they know how someone, dead for 500 or so years was thinking. What a poor way to write a book.
> Eileen
>

sadly publishers buy what sells to the public. starkey is pandering to the lowest common denominator, the ill informed public. starkey has a "following" for his "historical" television programs. the masses love to bill and coo at those who can wave academic papers and have celebrity.
 
here's a theory for starkey to suck on..perhaps morton tutored both elizabeth of york and henry viii. morton got himself in tight with e4 (he was at his death bed) and then h7 when he fled england after being involved with buckingham's rebellion in the autumn of 1483.
 
h8 would have been about 8 years old when morton died. and rumour has it h8 was being trained for a "career" with the church. who better than the borgia pope's cardinal to tutor a young royal. therein, lies the possibility as to why h8 turned into such a despot.
 
h8 also lived during the era of machavelli. he wrote the prince at that time and circulated it privately amongst friends. one of his friends was ferdinand of aragon, father of henry's first wife. did the father in law supply his daughter and son in law with a copy? is this how both henry and katherine both became such adversarial dragons in the years leading up to their divorce?
 
yes, starkey needs to learn to really evaluate the people and era that he "publishes" it is extremely complex with loads of intermingling subtile connections.
 
the adage, "do as i say, not as i do" must have originated in this time period.
 
roslyn
 
--- On Tue, 3/17/09, eileen <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:

From: eileen <ebatesparrot@...>
Subject: HISTORIANS!!
To:
Received: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 3:26 PM






I always thought Starkey was cut from the same roll of material as Hicks and now I am convinced. In an article in The Times, Starkey, who is updating his bigrography on Henry Vlll (I must buy it .....not) deduces that because Henry's handwriting is similar as that of his mother's (although only a fragment of Elizabeth's handwriting survives) it follows that she tutored him `'both to read, and as we can see from the handwriting to write too' even though it was unheard of at the time i.e. a queen to teach her children. Have you ever heard such drivel? He continues "Henry's handwriting shows how close he was to females in his youth.....& became emotionally dependent on woman....to put it bluntly he was emotionally incontinent"
Why cant todays historians (well Starkey and Hicks anyway) refrain from all the psychoanalysing and making out they know how someone, dead for 500 or so years was thinking. What a poor way to write a book.
Eileen