Starkey strikes again
Starkey strikes again
2011-04-08 10:02:29
After such wonderful notices I just had to get a copy of the new book on Towton 'Fatal Colours" by George Goodwin.
Unfortunately he chose Tudor fan David Starkey to write the introduction which he uses to 'explain' the term Wars of the Roses and the origins of the white and red roses.
Naturally he cannot resist muddying the waters and having a dig at Richard.
He quotes he says Crowland quoting a "contemporary poem"writes that on the 22nd Day of August 1485 'the tusks of the boar were blunted and the red rose, the avenger of the white, shines upon us'.
"The boar was Richard III....while the white rose, avenged by the red, stood for Edward IV's sons, Edward and Richard, who had been usurped and probably murdered by their uncle Richard III".
This disgusts me. I know we at least get a 'probably' from him, which is a minor shift from his definite, but this man was soundly defeated in the Trial of Richard III back in 1984 and still refuses to look closely at the evidence as he continues his worship of the ghastly, tyrannical, and illegitimate Tudor dynasty who he insists were the rightful descendants of the Lancastrians.
The general pleasure that a man was King rather than a boy, and the shock at Richard's defeat in 1485, the treason that defeated him, none of these get a mention of course, nor any of the "facts" that are known about the disappearance of the sons of King Edward, which as we all know, are few and far between.
All this written in a book about the battle that took place in 1461.
I shall be writing to the author requesting in the most forceful terms that he removes these slanderous mentions of the dead monarch, if not the entire 'fanciful' introduction.
If anyone else would like to do the same, the publishers are
Weidenfield & Nicolson
The Orion Publishing Group Ltd,
Orion House
5 Upper Saint Mrtin's Lane
London WC2H 9EA
Unfortunately he chose Tudor fan David Starkey to write the introduction which he uses to 'explain' the term Wars of the Roses and the origins of the white and red roses.
Naturally he cannot resist muddying the waters and having a dig at Richard.
He quotes he says Crowland quoting a "contemporary poem"writes that on the 22nd Day of August 1485 'the tusks of the boar were blunted and the red rose, the avenger of the white, shines upon us'.
"The boar was Richard III....while the white rose, avenged by the red, stood for Edward IV's sons, Edward and Richard, who had been usurped and probably murdered by their uncle Richard III".
This disgusts me. I know we at least get a 'probably' from him, which is a minor shift from his definite, but this man was soundly defeated in the Trial of Richard III back in 1984 and still refuses to look closely at the evidence as he continues his worship of the ghastly, tyrannical, and illegitimate Tudor dynasty who he insists were the rightful descendants of the Lancastrians.
The general pleasure that a man was King rather than a boy, and the shock at Richard's defeat in 1485, the treason that defeated him, none of these get a mention of course, nor any of the "facts" that are known about the disappearance of the sons of King Edward, which as we all know, are few and far between.
All this written in a book about the battle that took place in 1461.
I shall be writing to the author requesting in the most forceful terms that he removes these slanderous mentions of the dead monarch, if not the entire 'fanciful' introduction.
If anyone else would like to do the same, the publishers are
Weidenfield & Nicolson
The Orion Publishing Group Ltd,
Orion House
5 Upper Saint Mrtin's Lane
London WC2H 9EA
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.