I was on a wonderful site: http://www.scribd.com/ We need to contr

For those who don't know this a website which hosts millions of documents, ebooks and essays written by us, the general public. When you do a search of Richard III, you pull up entry after entry based on Shakespeare's Richard III.
I always remember that Thomas More never published his "biography" of Richard III. Though he grew up in Cardinal Morton's household, he must have realized that he knew only part of the story. Richard's conduct at Bosworth, shows much of what is said about him must be a lie. No one who was as brave as Richard was at Bosworth or as loyal as he had been to his brother Edward, could be painted a villain.
Henry Stafford and Henry Tudor both had reasons to kill Edward V and his brother Richard. Thomas More must have a decision to not publish what he must have suspected was propaganda. Unfortunately, William Shakespeare got a hold of it and the rest is theatrical history, but only as valid as Richard's portraits which have been tampered with by Tudor propagandists.
We need to provide essays, monographs and stories which tell about the real Richard. I was glad to find "The Daughter of Time" on the website.
If we don't take a stand the BBC commentator will have the last word. When questioned about Richard III being listed as the 82 greatest Briton. Discounted it by saying, that he had fanatic supporters who overinflated his importance.
My only question, is why have a poll, then immediately contradict when agree with your prejudices.
We should be justly proud of Richard's deserved place of honor(also John Lennon, Emmaline Pankhurst and Alan Turing, though I am at lost to explain Boy George and several atheletes/footballers; also being Irish, Oliver Cromwell) But it is an English poll of Englishman and unlike the BBC commentator respect their choices, though not always understanding them.
I have a few suggestions for essays on "scribd", if someone here was interested: The Tudor Portraits of Richard, which have been falsified to reflect Richard's non existant "crookback", the story of Richard's bravery at Bosworth, even in the face of betrayal or how only Henry Stafford and Henry Tudor profited from the deaths or Edward V and his brother Richard. Remember it was the church which declared them ineligible for the succession(perhaps nobody wanted an extended regency or Royal Minority), Richard had no cause them, because nobody in the subsequent battles took up their cause, certainly not Henry Tudor.

Speaking of which . . . Is it known for sure that it was actually authored
by More? What is the proof?



I have a feeling that if Shakespeare had written something more sympathetic
to Richard, it would have been considered disloyal to the reigning family.
Would you all agree?



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier@...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of bkohatl
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:09 AM
To:
Subject: I was on a wonderful site:
http://www.scribd.com/ We need to contribute.








For those who don't know this a website which hosts millions of documents,
ebooks and essays written by us, the general public. When you do a search of
Richard III, you pull up entry after entry based on Shakespeare's Richard
III.
I always remember that Thomas More never published his "biography" of
Richard III. Though he grew up in Cardinal Morton's household, he must have
realized that he knew only part of the story. Richard's conduct at Bosworth,
shows much of what is said about him must be a lie. No one who was as brave
as Richard was at Bosworth or as loyal as he had been to his brother Edward,
could be painted a villain.
Henry Stafford and Henry Tudor both had reasons to kill Edward V and his
brother Richard. Thomas More must have a decision to not publish what he
must have suspected was propaganda. Unfortunately, William Shakespeare got a
hold of it and the rest is theatrical history, but only as valid as
Richard's portraits which have been tampered with by Tudor propagandists.
We need to provide essays, monographs and stories which tell about the real
Richard. I was glad to find "The Daughter of Time" on the website.
If we don't take a stand the BBC commentator will have the last word. When
questioned about Richard III being listed as the 82 greatest Briton.
Discounted it by saying, that he had fanatic supporters who overinflated his
importance.
My only question, is why have a poll, then immediately contradict when agree
with your prejudices.
We should be justly proud of Richard's deserved place of honor(also John
Lennon, Emmaline Pankhurst and Alan Turing, though I am at lost to explain
Boy George and several atheletes/footballers; also being Irish, Oliver
Cromwell) But it is an English poll of Englishman and unlike the BBC
commentator respect their choices, though not always understanding them.
I have a few suggestions for essays on "scribd", if someone here was
interested: The Tudor Portraits of Richard, which have been falsified to
reflect Richard's non existant "crookback", the story of Richard's bravery
at Bosworth, even in the face of betrayal or how only Henry Stafford and
Henry Tudor profited from the deaths or Edward V and his brother Richard.
Remember it was the church which declared them ineligible for the
succession(perhaps nobody wanted an extended regency or Royal Minority),
Richard had no cause them, because nobody in the subsequent battles took up
their cause, certainly not Henry Tudor.

Hi Johanne - Very quickly, scholars who specialize in Thomas More have concluded from internal evidence in the text that the "History of King Richard III" was written by More (bearing in mind that five versions survived). However, there is much more to say about this and I hope to find time to make a follow-up comment soon.
Regards, Annette

--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of which . . . Is it known for sure that it was actually authored
> by More? What is the proof?
>
>
>
> I have a feeling that if Shakespeare had written something more sympathetic
> to Richard, it would have been considered disloyal to the reigning family.
> Would you all agree?
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier@...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> _____
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of bkohatl
> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:09 AM
> To:
> Subject: I was on a wonderful site:
> http://www.scribd.com/ We need to contribute.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For those who don't know this a website which hosts millions of documents,
> ebooks and essays written by us, the general public. When you do a search of
> Richard III, you pull up entry after entry based on Shakespeare's Richard
> III.
> I always remember that Thomas More never published his "biography" of
> Richard III. Though he grew up in Cardinal Morton's household, he must have
> realized that he knew only part of the story. Richard's conduct at Bosworth,
> shows much of what is said about him must be a lie. No one who was as brave
> as Richard was at Bosworth or as loyal as he had been to his brother Edward,
> could be painted a villain.
> Henry Stafford and Henry Tudor both had reasons to kill Edward V and his
> brother Richard. Thomas More must have a decision to not publish what he
> must have suspected was propaganda. Unfortunately, William Shakespeare got a
> hold of it and the rest is theatrical history, but only as valid as
> Richard's portraits which have been tampered with by Tudor propagandists.
> We need to provide essays, monographs and stories which tell about the real
> Richard. I was glad to find "The Daughter of Time" on the website.
> If we don't take a stand the BBC commentator will have the last word. When
> questioned about Richard III being listed as the 82 greatest Briton.
> Discounted it by saying, that he had fanatic supporters who overinflated his
> importance.
> My only question, is why have a poll, then immediately contradict when agree
> with your prejudices.
> We should be justly proud of Richard's deserved place of honor(also John
> Lennon, Emmaline Pankhurst and Alan Turing, though I am at lost to explain
> Boy George and several atheletes/footballers; also being Irish, Oliver
> Cromwell) But it is an English poll of Englishman and unlike the BBC
> commentator respect their choices, though not always understanding them.
> I have a few suggestions for essays on "scribd", if someone here was
> interested: The Tudor Portraits of Richard, which have been falsified to
> reflect Richard's non existant "crookback", the story of Richard's bravery
> at Bosworth, even in the face of betrayal or how only Henry Stafford and
> Henry Tudor profited from the deaths or Edward V and his brother Richard.
> Remember it was the church which declared them ineligible for the
> succession(perhaps nobody wanted an extended regency or Royal Minority),
> Richard had no cause them, because nobody in the subsequent battles took up
> their cause, certainly not Henry Tudor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Annette -



I ordinarily lurk here, deferring to the much greater knowledge of most of
the regular posters - also RL is keeping me from much on the Internet att.
Suffice it to say that I await your comments with great eagerness! And
anyone else that cares to chime in!



And - thanks for changing the subject line!



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier@...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
annettecarson@...
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 7:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More








Hi Johanne - Very quickly, scholars who specialize in Thomas More have
concluded from internal evidence in the text that the "History of King
Richard III" was written by More (bearing in mind that five versions
survived). However, there is much more to say about this and I hope to find
time to make a follow-up comment soon.
Regards, Annette

--- In richardiiisocietyfo <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[email protected], "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of which . . . Is it known for sure that it was actually authored
> by More? What is the proof?
>
>
>
> I have a feeling that if Shakespeare had written something more
sympathetic
> to Richard, it would have been considered disloyal to the reigning family.
> Would you all agree?
>
>
>
> Johanne
>

--- In , "bkohatl" <bkohatl@...> wrote:
>

> We should be justly proud of Richard's deserved place of honor(also John Lennon, Emmaline Pankhurst and Alan Turing, though I am at lost to explain Boy George and several atheletes/footballers; also being Irish, Oliver Cromwell) But it is an English poll of Englishman and unlike the BBC commentator respect their choices, though not always understanding them.

Oliver Cromwell was not Irish. He was English and born in Huntingdon. At this moment in time I wish we could bring him back!!


> I have a few suggestions for essays on "scribd", if someone here was interested: The Tudor Portraits of Richard, which have been falsified to reflect Richard's non existant "crookback", the story of Richard's bravery at Bosworth, even in the face of betrayal or how only Henry Stafford and Henry Tudor profited from the deaths or Edward V and his brother Richard. Remember it was the church which declared them ineligible for the succession(perhaps nobody wanted an extended regency or Royal Minority), Richard had no cause them, because nobody in the subsequent battles took up their cause, certainly not Henry Tudor.
>

Here I am again, offering what Mr Speaker Martin might call "more pearls of wisdom" ;-) and once more this is stuff covered more fully in my recent book so I have to condense it here. There have been a myriad of theories about Thomas More's "History", and there are many TM scholars who would put me to shame, so my take on the subject is just one of many. But the analysis that appeals to me most is that of historiographer Alison Hanham in "Richard III and His Early Historians" available from the Barton Library. Hanham describes TM's "History" as a satirical drama in which he took the archetype of the evil ruler and wrote an imaginative, didactic literary work, which was a genre he favoured - compare "Utopia". Most of TM's nastier flourishes she attributes to his creative invention (apparently he was much addicted to irony and clever literary jokes). You really need to read Hanham for all this.

For me this explains a lot - for example the five different versions, all unfinished; he wasn't writing history as we understand the term today, or even as Vergil understood the term (i.e. an attempt to record and elucidate events that actually happened - a highly innovative concept at the time). Instead he was undertaking an exercise in creative literature with a moralistic bent. So when he gets his facts and names and dates wrong, this is as irrelevant to his purpose as when Shakespeare gets his facts and names and dates wrong.

Moving on to how TM came to characterize Richard as evil incarnate, my authorities here are Arthur Kincaid and other experts on the late 16th/early 17th-century antiquaries (Buck, Cornwallis, Stow, etc). Kincaid explains that there is written evidence of the existence of a tract hostile to Richard written by our old friend John Morton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII. Morton's tract does not survive, but Buck and Cornwallis refer to it specifically. They both state categorically that it came into the possession of Thomas More, and that he used it in writing his unfinished work on Richard III. This fact, when discovered, led to an unfortunate theory, once popular some time ago, but now discredited, that Morton wrote TM's "History". This is NOT what Kincaid & Co say, but some historians tar them with this brush.

When you look at it from this standpoint, a lot of things fall into place. It's easier to understand why someone like TM would write a load of unsupported, inaccurate and venomous calumnies about a person he never knew: they came from a source that he felt entitled to consider unimpeachable. And, of course, he and Polydore Vergil, who was writing the authorized Tudor version of history around the same time, cross-pollinated each other's work.

Checking facts was an as-yet unknown occupation for creative writers in 1520, but my own theory as to why TM never finished it or took it to a publisher is that maybe one day he heard a few home truths about Richard that didn't accord with Morton's tract; that he began to doubt whether the late king really was the monster he was depicting, and maybe his conscience (or his lawyerly mind) bothered him a little. I don't think it bothered him a lot, or he would have destroyed the stuff. Again I would draw a parallel with Shakespeare: why allow the truth to spoil a good piece of drama?

Anyone wanting to explore this further will find valuable material in Kincaid's edition of Sir George Buck's "History of King Richard III", but you can also find the facts in condensed form in Kincaid's edition of William Cornwallis's "Encomium of Richard III", available from the Richard III Society for a fiver.

But like I say, I offer this only as my take on the conundrum. This theory isn't by any means shared by many other people, and I fully expect to be shot down in flames. David Starkey, of course, thinks Thomas More was a reliable purveyer of historical information and we must believe every word, give or take the occasional booboo. Hands up anyone who believes David Starkey!
Regards, Annette
P.S. Perhaps I should explain that one of the constraints of writing in South Africa is frequent and unpredictable power cuts - I am in the middle of one at the moment. This is particularly inconvenient for posting stuff on the internet, as my connection is lost each time and I can only reconnect after rebooting my notebook.
P.P.S. Thanks to Katy for the best laugh of my day!

--- In , "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier@...> wrote:
> Hi, Annette -
> I ordinarily lurk here, deferring to the much greater knowledge of most of the regular posters - also RL is keeping me from much on the Internet att. Suffice it to say that I await your comments with great eagerness! And anyone else that cares to chime in!
> And - thanks for changing the subject line!
> Johanne

--- In , "annettecarson@..." <ajcarson@...> wrote:


[snip]

> There have been a myriad of theories about Thomas More's "History", and there are many TM scholars who would put me to shame, so my take on the subject is just one of many.

[snip]

Kincaid explains that there is written evidence of the existence of a tract hostile to Richard written by our old friend John Morton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII. Morton's tract does not survive, but Buck and Cornwallis refer to it specifically. They both state categorically that it came into the possession of Thomas More, and that he used it in writing his unfinished work on Richard III. This fact, when discovered, led to an unfortunate theory, once popular some time ago, but now discredited, that Morton wrote TM's "History". This is NOT what Kincaid & Co say, but some historians tar them with this brush..

[snip, snip, snip]

I'd say More more (arrrgh, but it's hard to avoid semi-puns like that, and "the sainted More" loved to pun on his own name) than used Morton's work as source for his own. I'd say he incorporated great gobs of it whole, is more like it. As Gilbert and Sullivan said "Please remember always to call it research."

I was an editor for several decades, and to me it is very obvious that "The History of King Richard III" is the work of two authors with distinctly different styles, one much superior to the other. The writing style changes so abruptly that it almost gives the reader whiplash, in the middle of a page in my copy. The hand-off occurs right after the author tells about the murder of the boys. Change of style, and the narrative backs up to tell that story again in More's characteristic style, which is turgid and repetitious. He tells you what he is going to say, he says it, then he tells you what he said, then he tells you how you ought to react to what he just said. More is considered a great writer because he said he was and the Catholic Church said he was because he was writing stuff favorable to that institution. And he had an admirable posthumous publicity machine in his sons-in-law.

The first section part is the work of the superior writer. The story zips right along, the scene-setting is vivid, there is just enough dialog to make you feel that you are a participant, and there are wonderful convincing details. It's positively cinematic. It ain't Thomas More. You may notice that the Bishop of Ely figures prominently in the story -- it is his strawberries Richard asks, we learn that he dived under a table when steel was drawn, and that he received a little cut on his head. The story is from the Bishop of Ely's point of view. The Bishop of Ely was John Morton.

I presume the author of the first part is Morton. He was known as a gifted writer, though for his legal and ecclesiastical work. He was the principal author and editor, in effect, of the acts at the Parliament of Devils that attainted the Duke of York and his eldest two sons, along with the Earl of Salisbury and the Earl of Warwick (Richard Neville and Richard Neville) in 1459.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Devils

Katy

On 22 May 2009, at 14:48, eileen wrote:

> Oliver Cromwell was not Irish. He was English and born in
> Huntingdon. At this moment in time I wish we could bring him back!!


Yeah, a military dictatorship, no religious freedom as long as you
followed the Puritan way, no public games or entertainment, no
parties, and no Christmas! And lots of killing trips to Ireland to
cut down those terrorist children whose parents went by the name of
Catholics.
Sounds like fun!
Paul


Richard liveth yet

Eileen - firstly, it was the writer who was describing himself as Irish, not Cromwell. Second, although born in England, Cromwell's family origins were Welsh - not something that Wales is very proud of, but a genealogical fact. Thirdly, the only reason for wanting him back now would be to eject the immoral MPs and unlected Prime Minister from Parliament; if he could do that and then depart again it would be useful, but as his next action after closing Parliament was to make himself a military dictator it might be a bit risky !

Richard G

--- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@...> wrote:
>
> Oliver Cromwell was not Irish. He was English and born in
> Huntingdon. At this moment in time I wish we could bring him back!!
>

--- In , "rgcorris" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen - firstly, it was the writer who was describing himself as Irish, not Cromwell.

Richard Ive gone back and read message and ooooops your right.....

Your third point......."....would be to eject immoral MPs etc.,..." thats EXACTLY what I had in mind......

By the by...did you know there is a Oliver Cromwell Society? My neighbour is a member...
eileen





Second, although born in England, Cromwell's family origins were Welsh - not something that Wales is very proud of, but a genealogical fact. Thirdly, the only reason for wanting him back now would be to eject the immoral MPs and unlected Prime Minister from Parliament; if he could do that and then depart again it would be useful, but as his next action after closing Parliament was to make himself a military dictator it might be a bit risky !
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "eileen" <ebatesparrot@> wrote:
> >
> > Oliver Cromwell was not Irish. He was English and born in
> > Huntingdon. At this moment in time I wish we could bring him back!!
> >
>

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>>
>
> Yeah, a military dictatorship, no religious freedom as long as you
> followed the Puritan way, no public games or entertainment, no
> parties, and no Christmas! And lots of killing trips to Ireland to
> cut down those terrorist children whose parents went by the name of
> Catholics.
> Sounds like fun!
> Paul


This is more than a tad OT but I have to point out that there was no religious freedom under Charles I or Charles II either. At least under the Commonwealth there was no state church and no fines for non attendance. You could simply stay away and worship privately in your own home if you wished. Oliver also allowed Jews to return to Britain and practise their religion openly for the first time since 1290.

The Irish business is *way* too complex to be opened here - it needs a whole article, not a post - but it was not as straightforward as popular myth would have it.

Brian W

I always forget that some people take irony as deadly serious.
Sorry folks. An attempt at a humourous response to a post wishing for
the return of Mr Cromwell (who I in reality have a grudging
admiration for) to "sort things out" has been taken seriously.
Tongus in cheeks don't translate on line do they:-)?"
Even with smilies.
Paul



On 5 Jun 2009, at 18:02, Brian Wainwright wrote:

> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, a military dictatorship, no religious freedom as long as you
>> followed the Puritan way, no public games or entertainment, no
>> parties, and no Christmas! And lots of killing trips to Ireland to
>> cut down those terrorist children whose parents went by the name of
>> Catholics.
>> Sounds like fun!
>> Paul
>
>
> This is more than a tad OT but I have to point out that there was
> no religious freedom under Charles I or Charles II either. At least
> under the Commonwealth there was no state church and no fines for
> non attendance. You could simply stay away and worship privately in
> your own home if you wished. Oliver also allowed Jews to return to
> Britain and practise their religion openly for the first time since
> 1290.
>
> The Irish business is *way* too complex to be opened here - it
> needs a whole article, not a post - but it was not as
> straightforward as popular myth would have it.
>
> Brian W
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard liveth yet

Hi Katy,
 
   Might I ask which book you are refering to? There are so many copys by various authors out there. Which copy/edition are you reading from?
 
                                                                    Thanks Kevin


--- On Fri, 5/22/09, oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...> wrote:


From: oregonkaty <oregon_katy@...>
Subject: Re: Sir Thomas More
To:
Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 8:31 PM








--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "annettecarson@ ..." <ajcarson@.. .> wrote:

[snip]

> There have been a myriad of theories about Thomas More's "History", and there are many TM scholars who would put me to shame, so my take on the subject is just one of many.

[snip]

Kincaid explains that there is written evidence of the existence of a tract hostile to Richard written by our old friend John Morton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VII. Morton's tract does not survive, but Buck and Cornwallis refer to it specifically. They both state categorically that it came into the possession of Thomas More, and that he used it in writing his unfinished work on Richard III. This fact, when discovered, led to an unfortunate theory, once popular some time ago, but now discredited, that Morton wrote TM's "History". This is NOT what Kincaid & Co say, but some historians tar them with this brush..

[snip, snip, snip]

I'd say More more (arrrgh, but it's hard to avoid semi-puns like that, and "the sainted More" loved to pun on his own name) than used Morton's work as source for his own. I'd say he incorporated great gobs of it whole, is more like it. As Gilbert and Sullivan said "Please remember always to call it research."

I was an editor for several decades, and to me it is very obvious that "The History of King Richard III" is the work of two authors with distinctly different styles, one much superior to the other. The writing style changes so abruptly that it almost gives the reader whiplash, in the middle of a page in my copy. The hand-off occurs right after the author tells about the murder of the boys. Change of style, and the narrative backs up to tell that story again in More's characteristic style, which is turgid and repetitious.. He tells you what he is going to say, he says it, then he tells you what he said, then he tells you how you ought to react to what he just said. More is considered a great writer because he said he was and the Catholic Church said he was because he was writing stuff favorable to that institution. And he had an admirable posthumous publicity machine in his sons-in-law.

The first section part is the work of the superior writer. The story zips right along, the scene-setting is vivid, there is just enough dialog to make you feel that you are a participant, and there are wonderful convincing details. It's positively cinematic. It ain't Thomas More. You may notice that the Bishop of Ely figures prominently in the story -- it is his strawberries Richard asks, we learn that he dived under a table when steel was drawn, and that he received a little cut on his head. The story is from the Bishop of Ely's point of view. The Bishop of Ely was John Morton.

I presume the author of the first part is Morton. He was known as a gifted writer, though for his legal and ecclesiastical work. He was the principal author and editor, in effect, of the acts at the Parliament of Devils that attainted the Duke of York and his eldest two sons, along with the Earl of Salisbury and the Earl of Warwick (Richard Neville and Richard Neville) in 1459.

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Parliament_ of_Devils

Katy