Buckingham - and beyond
Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 00:18:45
Warren:
Would you like to rejoin "Sceptred Isle" and launch a discussion on Laud etc? I was away for half of last week so I couldn't moderate there as quickly as usual.
Would you like to rejoin "Sceptred Isle" and launch a discussion on Laud etc? I was away for half of last week so I couldn't moderate there as quickly as usual.
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 05:09:46
Well, Stephen, given some of the reactions I am encountering in this forum, would I be wrong in being paranoid enough to think that you are trying to get me OUT of THIS forum because I'm NOT wanted here? We were talking earlier about the "convenience" of such things as the discovery of Edward IV's pre-contract by Richard when he found out about it, and I may be paranoid enough to think that your invitation is just too "convenient" to take at face value! Thanks anyway, though!
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Warren:
>
> Would you like to rejoin "Sceptred Isle" and launch a discussion on Laud etc? I was away for half of last week so I couldn't moderate there as quickly as usual.
>
>
>
--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Warren:
>
> Would you like to rejoin "Sceptred Isle" and launch a discussion on Laud etc? I was away for half of last week so I couldn't moderate there as quickly as usual.
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 15:42:42
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages, opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 16:57:11
Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard, if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know, will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived, rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook. Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule, conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen. Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages, opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard, if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know, will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived, rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook. Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule, conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen. Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages, opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 17:35:25
every one has a delete button. i do not enjoy the OT posts for the most part. i have endured them and have considered leaving because of them.
i am not a fan of facebook or other social networks. a great many of the OT posts would more rightly belong there. for some odd reason i am people's facebook contact lists..and occassionally get invites because of this. another annoyance.
i am here because of my research, and i don't mind rehashing the already known. i enjoy sharing and learning, not seemingly endless kudos and thank you's.
yes there are people who publically state they are leaving, and a significant number who just quietly go away. i have been tempted to unsubcribe several times in the last couple of years...quietly.
if you look at the archives over the past 5 or 6 years, you will see a definite change in direction of this forum..led mostly by one or two people over the last couple of years.
yes it nice to know there are some good fiction writers on the forum who's works are based in this era's area of research..but not monthly and weekly updates.
a non-fiction work for this era is significantly different (in my opinion) and well worth commentary and discussion. it expands our knowledge.
the fiction works rehash the already known, and serve to possibly enlighten the uninformed mass market.
so..we can all be sociable and Tolerant reqardless of how a discussion is presented.
i have witnessed other newcomers being driven off. i have even questioned one such person with regards to the size of their muck raking stick.
the members all have one thing in common an interest in richard iii. i don't care how they present it. i love a spirited discussion. something one frequently experiences when involved with academia.
so there ya go. two diverse opinions. i think we can all agree to disagree on assorted occassions..and simply make use of a delete button when we read something that offends our delicate palates.
we are not required to participate in any discussion..no matter how it is presented.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To: "" <>
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 11:57 AM
Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard, if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know, will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived, rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook. Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule, conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen. Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages, opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
i am not a fan of facebook or other social networks. a great many of the OT posts would more rightly belong there. for some odd reason i am people's facebook contact lists..and occassionally get invites because of this. another annoyance.
i am here because of my research, and i don't mind rehashing the already known. i enjoy sharing and learning, not seemingly endless kudos and thank you's.
yes there are people who publically state they are leaving, and a significant number who just quietly go away. i have been tempted to unsubcribe several times in the last couple of years...quietly.
if you look at the archives over the past 5 or 6 years, you will see a definite change in direction of this forum..led mostly by one or two people over the last couple of years.
yes it nice to know there are some good fiction writers on the forum who's works are based in this era's area of research..but not monthly and weekly updates.
a non-fiction work for this era is significantly different (in my opinion) and well worth commentary and discussion. it expands our knowledge.
the fiction works rehash the already known, and serve to possibly enlighten the uninformed mass market.
so..we can all be sociable and Tolerant reqardless of how a discussion is presented.
i have witnessed other newcomers being driven off. i have even questioned one such person with regards to the size of their muck raking stick.
the members all have one thing in common an interest in richard iii. i don't care how they present it. i love a spirited discussion. something one frequently experiences when involved with academia.
so there ya go. two diverse opinions. i think we can all agree to disagree on assorted occassions..and simply make use of a delete button when we read something that offends our delicate palates.
we are not required to participate in any discussion..no matter how it is presented.
roslyn
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To: "" <>
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 11:57 AM
Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard, if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know, will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived, rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook. Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule, conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen. Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages, opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 18:07:24
Judy
I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
really shouldn't happen on this forum.
As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
hate him!".
I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
(individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
the 'atheist' analogy.
Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
parliament.
I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
up!
I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
infection. Being unwell is no fun!
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
really shouldn't happen on this forum.
As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
hate him!".
I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
(individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
the 'atheist' analogy.
Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
parliament.
I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
up!
I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
infection. Being unwell is no fun!
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 18:36:26
Well said, Karen! I will quote the saying again: "People with fixed delusions become agressive when challenged." When people become so emotionally invested in an historical narrative that they lose their tempers, attack (directly or indirectly) other people, and "pick up their marbles and go home" when they can't get "their way," it becomes obvious that there is something MORE than a discussion of history at stake.
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 18:44:18
Well, that's not exactly what I saidŠ
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:36:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Well said, Karen! I will quote the saying again: "People with fixed
delusions become agressive when challenged." When people become so
emotionally invested in an historical narrative that they lose their
tempers, attack (directly or indirectly) other people, and "pick up their
marbles and go home" when they can't get "their way," it becomes obvious
that there is something MORE than a discussion of history at stake.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:36:24 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Well said, Karen! I will quote the saying again: "People with fixed
delusions become agressive when challenged." When people become so
emotionally invested in an historical narrative that they lose their
tempers, attack (directly or indirectly) other people, and "pick up their
marbles and go home" when they can't get "their way," it becomes obvious
that there is something MORE than a discussion of history at stake.
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Karen Clark
<Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 19:00:25
Dear Karen,
Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.
Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy
I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
really shouldn't happen on this forum.
As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
hate him!".
I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
(individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
the 'atheist' analogy.
Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
parliament.
I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
up!
I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
infection. Being unwell is no fun!
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.
Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy
I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
really shouldn't happen on this forum.
As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
hate him!".
I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
(individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
the 'atheist' analogy.
Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
parliament.
I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
up!
I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
infection. Being unwell is no fun!
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
will we?
But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
quietly slipped out the back door.
Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
presentation accordingly.
As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
nail.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
opinions and information.
I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
answering all your questions.
I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
opinion) and try not pick fights.
As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
about it's members.
Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
A good week to all!
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 20:00:19
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 20:25:37
For myself, I became intrigued with Richard *because* I thought he was
innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
verified.
And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
they have one.)
Gilda
On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
> acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
> What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
> takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
> verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
> one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
> IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Karen,
>>
>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
>> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
>> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
>> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
>> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
>> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
>> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
>> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
>> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
>> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
>> not go about, abusing anyone.
>>
>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
>> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
>> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
>> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
>> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
>> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
>> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>
>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
>> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
>> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Judy
>>
>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
>> on any
>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
>> the
>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>> Wars of
>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>> discuss
>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>> made any
>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
>> up ideas
>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>> with, I
>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
>> anything, I feel
>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>> This
>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>
>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>> something I
>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
>> something else
>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>> kind of
>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
>> facebook
>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>> Michael
>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
>> You
>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>> quite
>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>> same
>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>> responded
>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
>> agree. As I
>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
>> they valued
>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> hate him!".
>>
>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>> have not
>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
>> the same
>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
>> anyone letting
>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>> this 'us'
>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>> behind
>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
>> think that
>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>> things get
>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>> sufficient
>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>
>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
>> are some
>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>> they
>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>> forum
>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
>> need to be
>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
>> one does.)
>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
>> liken belief
>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
>> to be
>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
>> did are,
>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>
>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>> this is
>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>> bits.
>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>> contentious. You
>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
>> told that
>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>> blog
>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> parliament.
>>
>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
>> I'd like to
>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
>> as others
>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>> There's a
>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>> stuff!) I'd
>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>> training,
>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>> I've said
>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
>> to speak
>> up!
>>
>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
>> actually quite
>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>> haven't been
>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
>> chest
>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: ""
>> <>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
>> It's not
>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>> presented and
>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>> virtual
>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
>> been no
>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>> hence
>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>
>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>> the
>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
>> have born
>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>> say
>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
>> to
>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>> There are
>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
>> never know,
>> will we?
>>
>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
>> to win
>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
>> "ganging up" on
>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
>> many just
>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>
>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
>> and Warren
>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>> whom
>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>> Facebook.
>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>
>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>> rule,
>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>> points
>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>> them or
>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
>> would listen.
>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>
>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
>> what the
>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
>> done it" is
>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>> give a
>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>> your
>> presentation accordingly.
>>
>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
>> looks like a
>> nail.
>>
>> Judy
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>
>> To: "
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> <
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>> although I
>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>> messages,
>> opinions and information.
>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>> pick
>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>> courteous in
>> answering all your questions.
>>
>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
>> fact that
>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
>> me that
>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>> and
>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>
>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>> III, not
>> about it's members.
>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
>> discussion and
>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>
>> A good week to all!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
verified.
And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
they have one.)
Gilda
On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
> acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
> What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
> takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
> verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
> one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
> IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Karen,
>>
>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
>> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
>> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
>> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
>> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
>> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
>> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
>> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
>> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
>> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
>> not go about, abusing anyone.
>>
>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
>> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
>> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
>> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
>> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
>> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
>> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>
>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
>> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
>> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Judy
>>
>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
>> on any
>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
>> the
>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>> Wars of
>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>> discuss
>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>> made any
>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
>> up ideas
>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>> with, I
>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
>> anything, I feel
>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>> This
>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>
>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>> something I
>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
>> something else
>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>> kind of
>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>> Michael
>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
>> You
>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>> quite
>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>> same
>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>> responded
>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
>> agree. As I
>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
>> they valued
>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> hate him!".
>>
>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>> have not
>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
>> the same
>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
>> anyone letting
>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>> this 'us'
>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>> behind
>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
>> think that
>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>> things get
>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>> sufficient
>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>
>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
>> are some
>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>> they
>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>> forum
>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
>> need to be
>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
>> one does.)
>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
>> liken belief
>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
>> to be
>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
>> did are,
>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>
>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>> this is
>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>> bits.
>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>> contentious. You
>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
>> told that
>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>> blog
>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> parliament.
>>
>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
>> I'd like to
>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
>> as others
>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>> There's a
>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>> stuff!) I'd
>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>> training,
>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>> I've said
>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
>> to speak
>> up!
>>
>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
>> actually quite
>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>> haven't been
>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
>> chest
>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>> Reply-To: <>
>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> To: ""
>> <>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
>> It's not
>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>> presented and
>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>> virtual
>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
>> been no
>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>> hence
>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>
>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>> the
>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
>> have born
>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>> say
>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
>> to
>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>> There are
>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
>> never know,
>> will we?
>>
>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
>> to win
>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
>> "ganging up" on
>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
>> many just
>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>
>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
>> and Warren
>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>> whom
>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>> Facebook.
>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>
>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>> rule,
>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>> points
>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>> them or
>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
>> would listen.
>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>
>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
>> what the
>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
>> done it" is
>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>> give a
>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>> your
>> presentation accordingly.
>>
>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
>> looks like a
>> nail.
>>
>> Judy
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>
>> To: "
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> <
>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>> although I
>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>> messages,
>> opinions and information.
>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>> pick
>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>> courteous in
>> answering all your questions.
>>
>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
>> fact that
>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
>> me that
>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>> and
>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>
>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>> III, not
>> about it's members.
>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
>> discussion and
>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>
>> A good week to all!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 20:30:47
I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina Sidonia
and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his hope
that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
justice, however belatedly, should matter."
If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent and
thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in the
young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate of
at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out there.
And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
possibilities.
Maria
ejbronte@...
(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm
> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that
> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and
> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support
> of Richard's innocence. ý Trying to change this will be - must be -
> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that
> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even
> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be
> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ý
>
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you
> take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ý
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
> any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made
> any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
> ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with,
> I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
> feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something
> I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
> else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
> As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
> valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have
> not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
> letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this
> 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
> that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things
> get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
> some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to
> be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
> does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
> belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
> are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious.
> You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
> like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
> others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's
> a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!)
> I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've
> said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
> speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
> quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't
> been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
> not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented
> and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There
> are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
> know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
> win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
> up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
> just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
> Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
> listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
> the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it"
> is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
> like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although
> I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous
> in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
> that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III,
> not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina Sidonia
and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his hope
that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
justice, however belatedly, should matter."
If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent and
thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in the
young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate of
at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out there.
And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
possibilities.
Maria
ejbronte@...
(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm
> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that
> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and
> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support
> of Richard's innocence. ý Trying to change this will be - must be -
> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that
> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even
> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be
> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ý
>
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you
> take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ý
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
> any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made
> any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
> ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with,
> I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
> feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something
> I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
> else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
> As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
> valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have
> not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
> letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this
> 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
> that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things
> get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
> some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to
> be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
> does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
> belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
> are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious.
> You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
> like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
> others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's
> a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!)
> I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've
> said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
> speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
> quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't
> been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
> not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented
> and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There
> are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
> know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
> win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
> up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
> just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
> Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
> listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
> the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it"
> is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
> like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although
> I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous
> in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
> that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III,
> not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 20:49:34
here's a challenge for you warren
produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 20:52:13
Brief intervention.
To be innocent you must have a crime. Prosecutors need evidence to make an arrest.
All that apart the idea of a Jack the Ripper Society cracks me up, though I wonder what all those people who nightly walk the streets he murdered in think? :-)
Paul
On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:25, Gilda Felt wrote:
> For myself, I became intrigued with Richard *because* I thought he was
> innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
> but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
> more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
> prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
> verified.
>
> And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
> monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
> certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
> they have one.)
>
> Gilda
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
>> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
>> acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
>> What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
>> takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
>> verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
>> one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
>> IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Karen,
>>>
>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
>>> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
>>> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
>>> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
>>> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
>>> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
>>> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
>>> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
>>> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
>>> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
>>> not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>
>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
>>> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
>>> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
>>> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
>>> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
>>> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
>>> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>>
>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
>>> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
>>> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> Â
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
>>> on any
>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>>> seeming
>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
>>> the
>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>>> strong
>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>> Wars of
>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>>> views I
>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>> discuss
>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>> made any
>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
>>> up ideas
>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>> with, I
>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
>>> anything, I feel
>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>> This
>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>
>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>> something I
>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
>>> something else
>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>> kind of
>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
>>> facebook
>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>> Michael
>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>>> despise
>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
>>> You
>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>> quite
>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>> same
>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>> responded
>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>>> accepted
>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
>>> agree. As I
>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>>> books at
>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>>> wouldn't
>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
>>> they valued
>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>>> Kendall! I
>>> hate him!".
>>>
>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>> have not
>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
>>> the same
>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
>>> anyone letting
>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>> this 'us'
>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>> behind
>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
>>> think that
>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>> things get
>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>> sufficient
>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>
>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
>>> are some
>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>> they
>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>> forum
>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
>>> need to be
>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
>>> one does.)
>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
>>> liken belief
>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
>>> to be
>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
>>> did are,
>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>>> without
>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>>> issues
>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>> this is
>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>>> others,
>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>> bits.
>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>> contentious. You
>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
>>> told that
>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>> blog
>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>> parliament.
>>>
>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>>> conversation
>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
>>> I'd like to
>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
>>> as others
>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>> There's a
>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>> stuff!) I'd
>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>> training,
>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>>> wasn't
>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>> I've said
>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
>>> to speak
>>> up!
>>>
>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
>>> actually quite
>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>> haven't been
>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
>>> chest
>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: ""
>>> <>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
>>> It's not
>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>> presented and
>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>> virtual
>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
>>> been no
>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>> hence
>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>
>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>>> Richard,
>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>> the
>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
>>> have born
>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>> say
>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
>>> to
>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>> There are
>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
>>> never know,
>>> will we?
>>>
>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
>>> to win
>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
>>> "ganging up" on
>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
>>> many just
>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>
>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
>>> and Warren
>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>> whom
>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>> Facebook.
>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>
>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>> rule,
>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>> points
>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>>> guilty of
>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>> them or
>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
>>> would listen.
>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>
>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
>>> what the
>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
>>> done it" is
>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>> give a
>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>> your
>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>
>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
>>> looks like a
>>> nail.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>> To: "
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>> <
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>> although I
>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>> messages,
>>> opinions and information.
>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>> pick
>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>> courteous in
>>> answering all your questions.
>>>
>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
>>> fact that
>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
>>> me that
>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>> and
>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>>> personal
>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>
>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>> III, not
>>> about it's members.
>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
>>> discussion and
>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>
>>> A good week to all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
To be innocent you must have a crime. Prosecutors need evidence to make an arrest.
All that apart the idea of a Jack the Ripper Society cracks me up, though I wonder what all those people who nightly walk the streets he murdered in think? :-)
Paul
On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:25, Gilda Felt wrote:
> For myself, I became intrigued with Richard *because* I thought he was
> innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
> but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
> more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
> prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
> verified.
>
> And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
> monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
> certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
> they have one.)
>
> Gilda
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
>> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
>> acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
>> What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
>> takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
>> verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
>> one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
>> IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Karen,
>>>
>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
>>> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
>>> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
>>> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
>>> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
>>> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
>>> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
>>> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
>>> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
>>> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
>>> not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>
>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
>>> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
>>> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
>>> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
>>> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
>>> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
>>> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>>
>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
>>> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
>>> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> Â
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
>>> on any
>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>>> seeming
>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
>>> the
>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>>> strong
>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>> Wars of
>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>>> views I
>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>> discuss
>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>> made any
>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
>>> up ideas
>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>> with, I
>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
>>> anything, I feel
>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>> This
>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>
>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>> something I
>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
>>> something else
>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>> kind of
>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>> Michael
>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>>> despise
>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
>>> You
>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>> quite
>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>> same
>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>> responded
>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>>> accepted
>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
>>> agree. As I
>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>>> books at
>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>>> wouldn't
>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
>>> they valued
>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>>> Kendall! I
>>> hate him!".
>>>
>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>> have not
>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
>>> the same
>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
>>> anyone letting
>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>> this 'us'
>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>> behind
>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
>>> think that
>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>> things get
>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>> sufficient
>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>
>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
>>> are some
>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>> they
>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>> forum
>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
>>> need to be
>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
>>> one does.)
>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
>>> liken belief
>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
>>> to be
>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
>>> did are,
>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>>> without
>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>>> issues
>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>> this is
>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>>> others,
>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>> bits.
>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>> contentious. You
>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
>>> told that
>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>> blog
>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>> parliament.
>>>
>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>>> conversation
>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
>>> I'd like to
>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
>>> as others
>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>> There's a
>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>> stuff!) I'd
>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>> training,
>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>>> wasn't
>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>> I've said
>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
>>> to speak
>>> up!
>>>
>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
>>> actually quite
>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>> haven't been
>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
>>> chest
>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: ""
>>> <>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
>>> It's not
>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>> presented and
>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>> virtual
>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
>>> been no
>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>> hence
>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>
>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>>> Richard,
>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>> the
>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
>>> have born
>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>> say
>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
>>> to
>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>> There are
>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
>>> never know,
>>> will we?
>>>
>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
>>> to win
>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
>>> "ganging up" on
>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
>>> many just
>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>
>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
>>> and Warren
>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>> whom
>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>> Facebook.
>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>
>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>> rule,
>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>> points
>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>>> guilty of
>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>> them or
>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
>>> would listen.
>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>
>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
>>> what the
>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
>>> done it" is
>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>> give a
>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>> your
>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>
>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
>>> looks like a
>>> nail.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>> To: "
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>> <
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>> although I
>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>> messages,
>>> opinions and information.
>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>> pick
>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>> courteous in
>>> answering all your questions.
>>>
>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
>>> fact that
>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
>>> me that
>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>> and
>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>>> personal
>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>
>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>> III, not
>>> about it's members.
>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
>>> discussion and
>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>
>>> A good week to all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 20:58:19
The "why" is simple. The Richard III Society was founded to clear Richard's name. No more no less. That it has evolved into a more professional organization is, of course, wonderful. But there you have it in the proverbial nutshell. Whether it's possible for you to accept this, coming in, is a question in itself. This group includes a wide range of people with an equally wide range of beliefs. Yet I hazard to say most of them lean toward, at worst, Not proven, and a great many (for many reasons) prefer to believe Richard innocent. Since the world at large is either indifferent to the matter or swayed by old Shakepearean ideas, you can surely understand how it's nice to have a civilized place to come and discuss ideas without having to argue. We do plenty of that outside.
Occasional debate is good. It keeps us sharp and focussed, for when we walk out the door and face a hostile world. But I'm a bit old and tired for a automatic weapon at point blank range. We cannot absolutely prove Richard didn't have his nephews killed any more than you can prove he did. And that's after on-TV review by scholars, conducted by British jurisprudence, followed by - twice, I believe - review by members of the US Supreme Court. Argue all one likes, there's not enough evidence to prove anything. And so we are left only with opinion. No one has (to my knowledge) said you're not entitled to yours.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Occasional debate is good. It keeps us sharp and focussed, for when we walk out the door and face a hostile world. But I'm a bit old and tired for a automatic weapon at point blank range. We cannot absolutely prove Richard didn't have his nephews killed any more than you can prove he did. And that's after on-TV review by scholars, conducted by British jurisprudence, followed by - twice, I believe - review by members of the US Supreme Court. Argue all one likes, there's not enough evidence to prove anything. And so we are left only with opinion. No one has (to my knowledge) said you're not entitled to yours.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: ""
> <>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 21:04:31
I normally just lurk as I am here to learn, but I had to come out of the shadows to thank you for the information you included below about William Stanley. This paragraph has me thinking in a different direction than before concerning some information I had on this topic...which is always fun.
Thanks Maria!!
Margie
________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina Sidonia
and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his hope
that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
justice, however belatedly, should matter."
If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent and
thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in the
young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate of
at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out there.
And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
possibilities.
Maria
ejbronte@...
(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm
> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that
> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and
> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support
> of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be -
> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that
> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even
> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be
> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you
> take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
> any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made
> any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
> ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with,
> I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
> feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something
> I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
> else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
> As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
> valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have
> not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
> letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this
> 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
> that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things
> get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
> some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to
> be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
> does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
> belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
> are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious.
> You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
> like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
> others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's
> a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!)
> I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've
> said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
> speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
> quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't
> been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
> not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented
> and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There
> are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
> know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
> win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
> up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
> just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
> Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
> listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
> the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it"
> is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
> like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although
> I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous
> in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
> that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III,
> not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Thanks Maria!!
Margie
________________________________
From: Maria Torres <ejbronte@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina Sidonia
and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his hope
that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
justice, however belatedly, should matter."
If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent and
thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in the
young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate of
at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out there.
And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
possibilities.
Maria
ejbronte@...
(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm
> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that
> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and
> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support
> of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be -
> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that
> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even
> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be
> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you
> take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
> any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made
> any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
> ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with,
> I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
> feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something
> I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
> else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
> As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
> valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have
> not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
> letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this
> 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
> that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things
> get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
> some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to
> be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
> does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
> belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
> are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious.
> You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
> like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
> others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's
> a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!)
> I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've
> said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
> speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
> quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't
> been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
> not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented
> and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There
> are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
> know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
> win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
> up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
> just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
> Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
> listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
> the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it"
> is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
> like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although
> I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous
> in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
> that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III,
> not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 21:06:35
Do you believe that, after all of the work of "Ricardians" for over a century now (going back at least as far as Gardiner,) that Richard is STILL viewed as a "monster" by most historians? Is there the SAME need now to "restore Richard's reputation" that there was a century ago?
Is there a category BETWEEN "monster" and "knight in shining armor" in which Richard could legitimately be placed?
--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> For myself, I became intrigued with Richard *because* I thought he was
> innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
> but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
> more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
> prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
> verified.
>
> And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
> monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
> certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
> they have one.)
>
> Gilda
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> > of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
> > acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
> > What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
> > takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
> > verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
> > one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
> > IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Karen,
> >>
> >> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
> >> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
> >> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
> >> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
> >> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
> >> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
> >> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
> >> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
> >> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
> >> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
> >> not go about, abusing anyone.
> >>
> >> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
> >> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
> >> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
> >> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
> >> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
> >> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
> >> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
> >> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
> >>
> >> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
> >> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
> >> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
> >> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >>
> >> Judy
> >> Â
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Judy
> >>
> >> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
> >> on any
> >> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> >> seeming
> >> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
> >> the
> >> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> >> strong
> >> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
> >> Wars of
> >> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> >> views I
> >> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
> >> discuss
> >> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
> >> made any
> >> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> >> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
> >> up ideas
> >> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
> >> with, I
> >> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
> >> anything, I feel
> >> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
> >> This
> >> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >>
> >> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
> >> something I
> >> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
> >> something else
> >> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
> >> kind of
> >> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> >> facebook
> >> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
> >> Michael
> >> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> >> despise
> >> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
> >> You
> >> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
> >> quite
> >> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
> >> same
> >> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
> >> responded
> >> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> >> accepted
> >> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
> >> agree. As I
> >> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> >> books at
> >> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> >> wouldn't
> >> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
> >> they valued
> >> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> >> Kendall! I
> >> hate him!".
> >>
> >> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
> >> have not
> >> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
> >> the same
> >> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> >> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
> >> anyone letting
> >> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
> >> this 'us'
> >> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
> >> behind
> >> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
> >> think that
> >> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
> >> things get
> >> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
> >> sufficient
> >> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >>
> >> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> >> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
> >> are some
> >> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
> >> they
> >> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
> >> forum
> >> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
> >> need to be
> >> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
> >> one does.)
> >> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
> >> liken belief
> >> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
> >> to be
> >> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
> >> did are,
> >> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> >> without
> >> the 'atheist' analogy.
> >>
> >> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> >> issues
> >> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
> >> this is
> >> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> >> others,
> >> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
> >> bits.
> >> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
> >> contentious. You
> >> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
> >> told that
> >> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
> >> blog
> >> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> >> parliament.
> >>
> >> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> >> conversation
> >> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
> >> I'd like to
> >> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
> >> as others
> >> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
> >> There's a
> >> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
> >> stuff!) I'd
> >> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
> >> training,
> >> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> >> wasn't
> >> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
> >> I've said
> >> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
> >> to speak
> >> up!
> >>
> >> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
> >> actually quite
> >> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
> >> haven't been
> >> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
> >> chest
> >> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >>
> >> Karen
> >>
> >> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> >> Reply-To: <>
> >> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> >> To: ""
> >> <>
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>
> >> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
> >> It's not
> >> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
> >> presented and
> >> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
> >> virtual
> >> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
> >> been no
> >> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> >> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> >> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
> >> hence
> >> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >>
> >> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> >> Richard,
> >> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
> >> the
> >> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
> >> have born
> >> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
> >> say
> >> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
> >> to
> >> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
> >> There are
> >> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
> >> never know,
> >> will we?
> >>
> >> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> >> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
> >> to win
> >> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
> >> "ganging up" on
> >> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
> >> many just
> >> quietly slipped out the back door.
> >>
> >> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
> >> and Warren
> >> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
> >> whom
> >> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
> >> Facebook.
> >> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >>
> >> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> >> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
> >> rule,
> >> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
> >> points
> >> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> >> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> >> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> >> guilty of
> >> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
> >> them or
> >> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
> >> would listen.
> >> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >>
> >> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
> >> what the
> >> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
> >> done it" is
> >> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
> >> give a
> >> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
> >> your
> >> presentation accordingly.
> >>
> >> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
> >> looks like a
> >> nail.
> >>
> >> Judy
> >>
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >>>
> >> To: "
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> <
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
> >> although I
> >> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
> >> messages,
> >> opinions and information.
> >> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> >> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> >> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
> >> pick
> >> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
> >> courteous in
> >> answering all your questions.
> >>
> >> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
> >> fact that
> >> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> >> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
> >> me that
> >> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> >> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
> >> and
> >> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> >> personal
> >> opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >>
> >> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
> >> III, not
> >> about it's members.
> >> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
> >> discussion and
> >> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >>
> >> A good week to all!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Is there a category BETWEEN "monster" and "knight in shining armor" in which Richard could legitimately be placed?
--- In , Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> For myself, I became intrigued with Richard *because* I thought he was
> innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
> but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
> more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
> prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
> verified.
>
> And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
> monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
> certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
> they have one.)
>
> Gilda
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
>
> > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> > of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
> > acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
> > What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
> > takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
> > verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
> > one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
> > IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
> > <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Karen,
> >>
> >> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
> >> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
> >> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
> >> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
> >> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
> >> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
> >> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
> >> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
> >> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
> >> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
> >> not go about, abusing anyone.
> >>
> >> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
> >> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
> >> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
> >> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
> >> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
> >> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
> >> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
> >> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
> >>
> >> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
> >> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
> >> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
> >> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >>
> >> Judy
> >> Â
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Judy
> >>
> >> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
> >> on any
> >> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> >> seeming
> >> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
> >> the
> >> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> >> strong
> >> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
> >> Wars of
> >> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> >> views I
> >> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
> >> discuss
> >> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
> >> made any
> >> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> >> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
> >> up ideas
> >> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
> >> with, I
> >> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
> >> anything, I feel
> >> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
> >> This
> >> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >>
> >> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
> >> something I
> >> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
> >> something else
> >> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
> >> kind of
> >> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> >> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
> >> Michael
> >> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> >> despise
> >> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
> >> You
> >> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
> >> quite
> >> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
> >> same
> >> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
> >> responded
> >> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> >> accepted
> >> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
> >> agree. As I
> >> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> >> books at
> >> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> >> wouldn't
> >> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
> >> they valued
> >> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> >> Kendall! I
> >> hate him!".
> >>
> >> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
> >> have not
> >> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
> >> the same
> >> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> >> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
> >> anyone letting
> >> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
> >> this 'us'
> >> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
> >> behind
> >> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
> >> think that
> >> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
> >> things get
> >> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
> >> sufficient
> >> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >>
> >> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> >> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
> >> are some
> >> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
> >> they
> >> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
> >> forum
> >> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
> >> need to be
> >> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
> >> one does.)
> >> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
> >> liken belief
> >> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
> >> to be
> >> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
> >> did are,
> >> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> >> without
> >> the 'atheist' analogy.
> >>
> >> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> >> issues
> >> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
> >> this is
> >> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> >> others,
> >> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
> >> bits.
> >> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
> >> contentious. You
> >> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
> >> told that
> >> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
> >> blog
> >> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> >> parliament.
> >>
> >> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> >> conversation
> >> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
> >> I'd like to
> >> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
> >> as others
> >> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
> >> There's a
> >> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
> >> stuff!) I'd
> >> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
> >> training,
> >> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> >> wasn't
> >> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
> >> I've said
> >> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
> >> to speak
> >> up!
> >>
> >> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
> >> actually quite
> >> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
> >> haven't been
> >> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
> >> chest
> >> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >>
> >> Karen
> >>
> >> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> >> Reply-To: <>
> >> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> >> To: ""
> >> <>
> >> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>
> >> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
> >> It's not
> >> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
> >> presented and
> >> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
> >> virtual
> >> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
> >> been no
> >> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> >> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> >> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
> >> hence
> >> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >>
> >> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> >> Richard,
> >> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
> >> the
> >> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
> >> have born
> >> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
> >> say
> >> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
> >> to
> >> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
> >> There are
> >> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
> >> never know,
> >> will we?
> >>
> >> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> >> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
> >> to win
> >> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
> >> "ganging up" on
> >> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
> >> many just
> >> quietly slipped out the back door.
> >>
> >> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
> >> and Warren
> >> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
> >> whom
> >> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
> >> Facebook.
> >> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >>
> >> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> >> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
> >> rule,
> >> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
> >> points
> >> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> >> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> >> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> >> guilty of
> >> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
> >> them or
> >> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
> >> would listen.
> >> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >>
> >> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
> >> what the
> >> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
> >> done it" is
> >> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
> >> give a
> >> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
> >> your
> >> presentation accordingly.
> >>
> >> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
> >> looks like a
> >> nail.
> >>
> >> Judy
> >>
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >>>
> >> To: "
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >> <
> >> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
> >> although I
> >> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
> >> messages,
> >> opinions and information.
> >> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> >> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> >> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
> >> pick
> >> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
> >> courteous in
> >> answering all your questions.
> >>
> >> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
> >> fact that
> >> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> >> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
> >> me that
> >> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> >> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
> >> and
> >> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> >> personal
> >> opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >>
> >> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
> >> III, not
> >> about it's members.
> >> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
> >> discussion and
> >> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >>
> >> A good week to all!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 21:12:05
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence.  Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÂÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÂÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence.  Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÂÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÂÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 21:13:58
Paul, someone is living in your house. They disappear, and are never seen again. Are you saying that YOU are not a "legitimate" suspect in their disappearance?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Brief intervention.
> To be innocent you must have a crime. Prosecutors need evidence to make an arrest.
>
> All that apart the idea of a Jack the Ripper Society cracks me up, though I wonder what all those people who nightly walk the streets he murdered in think? :-)
>
> Paul
>
> On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:25, Gilda Felt wrote:
>
> > For myself, I became intrigued with Richard *because* I thought he was
> > innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
> > but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
> > more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
> > prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
> > verified.
> >
> > And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
> > monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
> > certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
> > they have one.)
> >
> > Gilda
> >
> >
> > On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> >> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> >> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
> >> acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
> >> What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
> >> takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
> >> verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
> >> one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
> >> IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
> >>
> >> --- In , Judy Thomson
> >> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Karen,
> >>>
> >>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
> >>> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
> >>> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
> >>> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
> >>> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
> >>> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
> >>> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
> >>> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
> >>> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
> >>> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
> >>> not go about, abusing anyone.
> >>>
> >>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
> >>> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
> >>> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
> >>> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
> >>> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
> >>> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
> >>> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
> >>> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
> >>>
> >>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
> >>> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
> >>> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
> >>> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >>>
> >>> Judy
> >>> Â
> >>> Loyaulte me lie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>> Judy
> >>>
> >>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
> >>> on any
> >>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> >>> seeming
> >>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
> >>> the
> >>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> >>> strong
> >>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
> >>> Wars of
> >>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> >>> views I
> >>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
> >>> discuss
> >>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
> >>> made any
> >>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> >>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
> >>> up ideas
> >>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
> >>> with, I
> >>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
> >>> anything, I feel
> >>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
> >>> This
> >>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >>>
> >>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
> >>> something I
> >>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
> >>> something else
> >>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
> >>> kind of
> >>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> >>> facebook
> >>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
> >>> Michael
> >>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> >>> despise
> >>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
> >>> You
> >>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
> >>> quite
> >>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
> >>> same
> >>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
> >>> responded
> >>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> >>> accepted
> >>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
> >>> agree. As I
> >>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> >>> books at
> >>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> >>> wouldn't
> >>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
> >>> they valued
> >>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> >>> Kendall! I
> >>> hate him!".
> >>>
> >>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
> >>> have not
> >>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
> >>> the same
> >>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> >>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
> >>> anyone letting
> >>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
> >>> this 'us'
> >>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
> >>> behind
> >>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
> >>> think that
> >>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
> >>> things get
> >>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
> >>> sufficient
> >>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> >>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
> >>> are some
> >>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
> >>> they
> >>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
> >>> forum
> >>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
> >>> need to be
> >>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
> >>> one does.)
> >>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
> >>> liken belief
> >>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
> >>> to be
> >>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
> >>> did are,
> >>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> >>> without
> >>> the 'atheist' analogy.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> >>> issues
> >>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
> >>> this is
> >>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> >>> others,
> >>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
> >>> bits.
> >>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
> >>> contentious. You
> >>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
> >>> told that
> >>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
> >>> blog
> >>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> >>> parliament.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> >>> conversation
> >>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
> >>> I'd like to
> >>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
> >>> as others
> >>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
> >>> There's a
> >>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
> >>> stuff!) I'd
> >>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
> >>> training,
> >>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> >>> wasn't
> >>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
> >>> I've said
> >>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
> >>> to speak
> >>> up!
> >>>
> >>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
> >>> actually quite
> >>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
> >>> haven't been
> >>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
> >>> chest
> >>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >>>
> >>> Karen
> >>>
> >>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> >>> Reply-To: <>
> >>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> >>> To: ""
> >>> <>
> >>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
> >>> It's not
> >>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
> >>> presented and
> >>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
> >>> virtual
> >>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
> >>> been no
> >>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> >>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> >>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
> >>> hence
> >>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >>>
> >>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> >>> Richard,
> >>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
> >>> the
> >>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
> >>> have born
> >>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
> >>> say
> >>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
> >>> to
> >>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
> >>> There are
> >>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
> >>> never know,
> >>> will we?
> >>>
> >>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> >>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
> >>> to win
> >>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
> >>> "ganging up" on
> >>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
> >>> many just
> >>> quietly slipped out the back door.
> >>>
> >>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
> >>> and Warren
> >>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
> >>> whom
> >>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
> >>> Facebook.
> >>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >>>
> >>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> >>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
> >>> rule,
> >>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
> >>> points
> >>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> >>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> >>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> >>> guilty of
> >>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
> >>> them or
> >>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
> >>> would listen.
> >>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >>>
> >>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
> >>> what the
> >>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
> >>> done it" is
> >>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
> >>> give a
> >>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
> >>> your
> >>> presentation accordingly.
> >>>
> >>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
> >>> looks like a
> >>> nail.
> >>>
> >>> Judy
> >>>
> >>> Loyaulte me lie
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >>>>
> >>> To: "
> >>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >>> <
> >>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
> >>> although I
> >>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
> >>> messages,
> >>> opinions and information.
> >>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> >>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> >>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
> >>> pick
> >>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
> >>> courteous in
> >>> answering all your questions.
> >>>
> >>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
> >>> fact that
> >>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> >>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
> >>> me that
> >>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> >>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
> >>> and
> >>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> >>> personal
> >>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >>>
> >>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
> >>> III, not
> >>> about it's members.
> >>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
> >>> discussion and
> >>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >>>
> >>> A good week to all!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Brief intervention.
> To be innocent you must have a crime. Prosecutors need evidence to make an arrest.
>
> All that apart the idea of a Jack the Ripper Society cracks me up, though I wonder what all those people who nightly walk the streets he murdered in think? :-)
>
> Paul
>
> On 30 Jul 2012, at 20:25, Gilda Felt wrote:
>
> > For myself, I became intrigued with Richard *because* I thought he was
> > innocent. Granted, my first book on the subject was Thomas Costain's,
> > but what I read made me want to read more, and the more I read the
> > more that belief was reinforced. I can't prove it, but no one can
> > prove the reverse, either. A lot of the fact will never be able to be
> > verified.
> >
> > And why in the world would I be that interested in someone I thought a
> > monster? Yeah, I'll read a book about Jack the Ripper or Hitler, but I
> > certainly wouldn't because a member of their Societies (if, indeed,
> > they have one.)
> >
> > Gilda
> >
> >
> > On Jul 30, 2012, at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach wrote:
> >
> >> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> >> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or
> >> acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say?
> >> What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this
> >> takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to
> >> verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that
> >> one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it
> >> IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
> >>
> >> --- In , Judy Thomson
> >> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Karen,
> >>>
> >>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
> >>> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It
> >>> was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the
> >>> board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing
> >>> that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best
> >>> of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than
> >>> type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
> >>> subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian
> >>> W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my
> >>> opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do
> >>> not go about, abusing anyone.
> >>>
> >>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
> >>> support of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be -
> >>> must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
> >>> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if
> >>> that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their
> >>> lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
> >>> comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and
> >>> unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
> >>>
> >>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
> >>> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
> >>> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the
> >>> end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >>>
> >>> Judy
> >>> Â
> >>> Loyaulte me lie
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>> Judy
> >>>
> >>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white
> >>> on any
> >>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
> >>> seeming
> >>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
> >>> the
> >>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
> >>> strong
> >>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
> >>> Wars of
> >>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
> >>> views I
> >>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
> >>> discuss
> >>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
> >>> made any
> >>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> >>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
> >>> up ideas
> >>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
> >>> with, I
> >>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
> >>> anything, I feel
> >>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
> >>> This
> >>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >>>
> >>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
> >>> something I
> >>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
> >>> something else
> >>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
> >>> kind of
> >>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> >>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
> >>> Michael
> >>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> >>> despise
> >>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
> >>> You
> >>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
> >>> quite
> >>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
> >>> same
> >>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
> >>> responded
> >>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> >>> accepted
> >>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
> >>> agree. As I
> >>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
> >>> books at
> >>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
> >>> wouldn't
> >>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
> >>> they valued
> >>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> >>> Kendall! I
> >>> hate him!".
> >>>
> >>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
> >>> have not
> >>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
> >>> the same
> >>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> >>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
> >>> anyone letting
> >>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
> >>> this 'us'
> >>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
> >>> behind
> >>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
> >>> think that
> >>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
> >>> things get
> >>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
> >>> sufficient
> >>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> >>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
> >>> are some
> >>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
> >>> they
> >>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
> >>> forum
> >>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
> >>> need to be
> >>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-
> >>> one does.)
> >>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
> >>> liken belief
> >>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
> >>> to be
> >>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
> >>> did are,
> >>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> >>> without
> >>> the 'atheist' analogy.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
> >>> issues
> >>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
> >>> this is
> >>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
> >>> others,
> >>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
> >>> bits.
> >>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
> >>> contentious. You
> >>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
> >>> told that
> >>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
> >>> blog
> >>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> >>> parliament.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> >>> conversation
> >>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
> >>> I'd like to
> >>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
> >>> as others
> >>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
> >>> There's a
> >>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
> >>> stuff!) I'd
> >>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
> >>> training,
> >>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
> >>> wasn't
> >>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
> >>> I've said
> >>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
> >>> to speak
> >>> up!
> >>>
> >>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
> >>> actually quite
> >>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
> >>> haven't been
> >>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
> >>> chest
> >>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >>>
> >>> Karen
> >>>
> >>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> >>> Reply-To: <>
> >>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> >>> To: ""
> >>> <>
> >>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
> >>> It's not
> >>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
> >>> presented and
> >>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
> >>> virtual
> >>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
> >>> been no
> >>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> >>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> >>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
> >>> hence
> >>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >>>
> >>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
> >>> Richard,
> >>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
> >>> the
> >>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
> >>> have born
> >>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
> >>> say
> >>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this
> >>> to
> >>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
> >>> There are
> >>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
> >>> never know,
> >>> will we?
> >>>
> >>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> >>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way
> >>> to win
> >>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
> >>> "ganging up" on
> >>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
> >>> many just
> >>> quietly slipped out the back door.
> >>>
> >>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
> >>> and Warren
> >>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
> >>> whom
> >>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
> >>> Facebook.
> >>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >>>
> >>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> >>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
> >>> rule,
> >>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
> >>> points
> >>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> >>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> >>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> >>> guilty of
> >>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
> >>> them or
> >>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
> >>> would listen.
> >>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >>>
> >>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
> >>> what the
> >>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
> >>> done it" is
> >>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
> >>> give a
> >>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
> >>> your
> >>> presentation accordingly.
> >>>
> >>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
> >>> looks like a
> >>> nail.
> >>>
> >>> Judy
> >>>
> >>> Loyaulte me lie
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >>>>
> >>> To: "
> >>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> >>> <
> >>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> >>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
> >>> although I
> >>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
> >>> messages,
> >>> opinions and information.
> >>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> >>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> >>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
> >>> pick
> >>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
> >>> courteous in
> >>> answering all your questions.
> >>>
> >>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
> >>> fact that
> >>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> >>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
> >>> me that
> >>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> >>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
> >>> and
> >>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> >>> personal
> >>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >>>
> >>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
> >>> III, not
> >>> about it's members.
> >>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
> >>> discussion and
> >>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >>>
> >>> A good week to all!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
The end
2012-07-30 21:38:42
To all:
I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other members contributions have been.
The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this violated that request.
Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and start an attack again with his views.
Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make, probably the second time in the Forums history.
Regards,
Neil
.
>
I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other members contributions have been.
The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this violated that request.
Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and start an attack again with his views.
Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make, probably the second time in the Forums history.
Regards,
Neil
.
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 21:51:03
a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-30 22:12:15
Since Shrek is one of my all time favorite movies, I'd like to bring up
a minor but relevant point about Lord Farquaad--from Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Farquaad> :
There is some speculation that Lord Farquaad's appearance may be
inspired by Michael Eisner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner>
, the then-CEO of The Walt Disney Company
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company> , owing to
producer Jeffrey Katzenberg
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg> 's animosity toward
his former employer
So, it's most likely coincidental if Farquaad's appearance resembles the
r3 NPG portrait. [:D]
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was.
he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was
caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children
who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
> Â
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis
or ill informed fail to know the truth.
> Â
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as"
portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public
"authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
> Â
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who
richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading
a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he
knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@... wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@...
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that
Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the
"Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and
white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is
the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about
which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified
by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the
crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
wrote:
> >
> > here's a challenge for you warren
> > produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty
of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more,
shakespeare, et al.
> > ÂÂ
> > i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with
official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the
deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> > ÂÂ
> > i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also
join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap
sheet".
> > ÂÂ
> > g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the
challenge?
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting
like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does
Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY
from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into
the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for
"other purposes."
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Karen,
> > >
> > > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation
of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
"regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it
all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and
his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> > >
> > > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
support of Richard's innocence.  Trying to change this
will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's
how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more
rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the
last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill
in the dots on our own.ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end,
the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or
white on any
> > > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is
the seeming
> > > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
the
> > > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a
very strong
> > > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
Wars of
> > > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and
white views I
> > > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
discuss
> > > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
made any
> > > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of
the
> > > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
up ideas
> > > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
with, I
> > > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
anything, I feel
> > > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be
quiet. This
> > > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> > >
> > > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
something I
> > > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
something else
> > > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
kind of
> > > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
facebook
> > > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
Michael
> > > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
despise
> > > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
You
> > > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
quite
> > > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
same
> > > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
responded
> > > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
accepted
> > > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
agree. As I
> > > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate
his books at
> > > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But
I wouldn't
> > > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
they valued
> > > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
Kendall! I
> > > hate him!".
> > >
> > > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
have not
> > > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
the same
> > > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that
is
> > > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
anyone letting
> > > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
this 'us'
> > > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
behind
> > > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
think that
> > > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
things get
> > > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
sufficient
> > > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> > >
> > > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if
members
> > > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
are some
> > > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared,
then they
> > > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
forum
> > > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
need to be
> > > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know.
No-one does.)
> > > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
liken belief
> > > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
to be
> > > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
did are,
> > > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
without
> > > the 'atheist' analogy.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to
debate issues
> > > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
this is
> > > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening
to others,
> > > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
bits.
> > > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
contentious. You
> > > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
told that
> > > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
blog
> > > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick
to
> > > parliament.
> > >
> > > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
conversation
> > > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
I'd like to
> > > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
as others
> > > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
There's a
> > > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
stuff!) I'd
> > > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
training,
> > > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I
said wasn't
> > > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
I've said
> > > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
to speak
> > > up!
> > >
> > > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
actually quite
> > > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
haven't been
> > > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
chest
> > > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > > To: ""
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
It's not
> > > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
presented and
> > > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
virtual
> > > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
been no
> > > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in
no
> > > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or
even
> > > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around
here, hence
> > > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> > >
> > > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion
on Richard,
> > > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White
on the
> > > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
have born
> > > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't
even say
> > > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing
this to
> > > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
There are
> > > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
never know,
> > > will we?
> > >
> > > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have
perceived,
> > > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no
way to win
> > > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
"ganging up" on
> > > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
many just
> > > quietly slipped out the back door.
> > >
> > > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
and Warren
> > > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael
Hicks, whom
> > > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
Facebook.
> > > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> > >
> > > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious
and
> > > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
rule,
> > > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
points
> > > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old,
established
> > > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard
totally
> > > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
guilty of
> > > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
them or
> > > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
would listen.
> > > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with
sources.
> > >
> > > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
what the
> > > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
done it" is
> > > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
give a
> > > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
your
> > > presentation accordingly.
> > >
> > > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
looks like a
> > > nail.
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > To: "
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > >
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
although I
> > > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
messages,
> > > opinions and information.
> > > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong
but I
> > > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This
is a
> > > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here
to pick
> > > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
courteous in
> > > answering all your questions.
> > >
> > > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
fact that
> > > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not
to
> > > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
me that
> > > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a
favour and
> > > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
personal
> > > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> > >
> > > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
III, not
> > > about it's members.
> > > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
discussion and
> > > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> > >
> > > A good week to all!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
a minor but relevant point about Lord Farquaad--from Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Farquaad> :
There is some speculation that Lord Farquaad's appearance may be
inspired by Michael Eisner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner>
, the then-CEO of The Walt Disney Company
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company> , owing to
producer Jeffrey Katzenberg
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg> 's animosity toward
his former employer
So, it's most likely coincidental if Farquaad's appearance resembles the
r3 NPG portrait. [:D]
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was.
he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was
caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children
who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
> Â
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis
or ill informed fail to know the truth.
> Â
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as"
portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public
"authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
> Â
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who
richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading
a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he
knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@... wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@...
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that
Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the
"Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and
white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is
the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about
which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified
by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the
crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
wrote:
> >
> > here's a challenge for you warren
> > produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty
of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more,
shakespeare, et al.
> > ÂÂ
> > i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with
official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the
deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> > ÂÂ
> > i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also
join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap
sheet".
> > ÂÂ
> > g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the
challenge?
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting
like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does
Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY
from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into
the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for
"other purposes."
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Karen,
> > >
> > > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation
of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
"regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it
all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and
his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> > >
> > > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
support of Richard's innocence.  Trying to change this
will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's
how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more
rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the
last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill
in the dots on our own.ÂÂÂ
> > >
> > > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end,
the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or
white on any
> > > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is
the seeming
> > > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
the
> > > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a
very strong
> > > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
Wars of
> > > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and
white views I
> > > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
discuss
> > > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
made any
> > > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of
the
> > > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
up ideas
> > > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
with, I
> > > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
anything, I feel
> > > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be
quiet. This
> > > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> > >
> > > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
something I
> > > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
something else
> > > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
kind of
> > > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> > > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
Michael
> > > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
despise
> > > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
You
> > > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
quite
> > > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
same
> > > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
responded
> > > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
accepted
> > > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
agree. As I
> > > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate
his books at
> > > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But
I wouldn't
> > > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
they valued
> > > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
Kendall! I
> > > hate him!".
> > >
> > > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
have not
> > > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
the same
> > > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that
is
> > > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
anyone letting
> > > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
this 'us'
> > > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
behind
> > > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
think that
> > > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
things get
> > > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
sufficient
> > > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> > >
> > > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if
members
> > > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
are some
> > > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared,
then they
> > > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
forum
> > > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
need to be
> > > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know.
No-one does.)
> > > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
liken belief
> > > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
to be
> > > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
did are,
> > > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
without
> > > the 'atheist' analogy.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to
debate issues
> > > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
this is
> > > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening
to others,
> > > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
bits.
> > > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
contentious. You
> > > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
told that
> > > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
blog
> > > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick
to
> > > parliament.
> > >
> > > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
conversation
> > > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
I'd like to
> > > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
as others
> > > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
There's a
> > > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
stuff!) I'd
> > > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
training,
> > > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I
said wasn't
> > > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
I've said
> > > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
to speak
> > > up!
> > >
> > > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
actually quite
> > > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
haven't been
> > > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
chest
> > > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > > To: ""
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
It's not
> > > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
presented and
> > > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
virtual
> > > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
been no
> > > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in
no
> > > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or
even
> > > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around
here, hence
> > > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> > >
> > > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion
on Richard,
> > > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White
on the
> > > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
have born
> > > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't
even say
> > > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing
this to
> > > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
There are
> > > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
never know,
> > > will we?
> > >
> > > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have
perceived,
> > > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no
way to win
> > > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
"ganging up" on
> > > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
many just
> > > quietly slipped out the back door.
> > >
> > > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
and Warren
> > > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael
Hicks, whom
> > > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
Facebook.
> > > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> > >
> > > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious
and
> > > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
rule,
> > > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
points
> > > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old,
established
> > > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard
totally
> > > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
guilty of
> > > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
them or
> > > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
would listen.
> > > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with
sources.
> > >
> > > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
what the
> > > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
done it" is
> > > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
give a
> > > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
your
> > > presentation accordingly.
> > >
> > > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
looks like a
> > > nail.
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > To: "
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > >
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
although I
> > > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
messages,
> > > opinions and information.
> > > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong
but I
> > > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This
is a
> > > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here
to pick
> > > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
courteous in
> > > answering all your questions.
> > >
> > > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
fact that
> > > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not
to
> > > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
me that
> > > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a
favour and
> > > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
personal
> > > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> > >
> > > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
III, not
> > > about it's members.
> > > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
discussion and
> > > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> > >
> > > A good week to all!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The end
2012-07-30 23:38:42
Bless you.
--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
>
> To all:
>
> I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other members contributions have been.
>
> The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this violated that request.
>
> Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and start an attack again with his views.
>
> Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make, probably the second time in the Forums history.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> .
>
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , Neil Trump <neil.trump@...> wrote:
>
>
> To all:
>
> I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other members contributions have been.
>
> The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this violated that request.
>
> Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and start an attack again with his views.
>
> Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make, probably the second time in the Forums history.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil
>
> .
>
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: The end
2012-07-31 01:18:29
I agree. This kerfuffle reminds of this quote that's attributed to
Kissinger, among others:
"Academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low ..."
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> Bless you.
>
> --- In , Neil Trump neil.trump@
wrote:
> >
> >
> > To all:
> >
> > I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give
him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my
response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other
members contributions have been.
> >
> > The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The
first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The
forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this
violated that request.
> >
> > Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet
with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position
on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and
start an attack again with his views.
> >
> > Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence
until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make,
probably the second time in the Forums history.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > .
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Kissinger, among others:
"Academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low ..."
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , "oregon_katy"
<oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
> Bless you.
>
> --- In , Neil Trump neil.trump@
wrote:
> >
> >
> > To all:
> >
> > I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give
him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my
response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other
members contributions have been.
> >
> > The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The
first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The
forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this
violated that request.
> >
> > Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet
with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position
on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and
start an attack again with his views.
> >
> > Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence
until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make,
probably the second time in the Forums history.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Neil
> >
> > .
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 02:58:09
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was 'Šby Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was 'Šby Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 03:00:29
Maria, re Perkin. Have you read Ann Wroe's book? I've just finished it and
found it excellent. Stanley's involvement in the plot is a puzzle to be
sure!
Karen
On 31/07/12 5:30 AM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
>Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
>comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
>them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina
>Sidonia
>and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his
>hope
>that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
>would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
>justice, however belatedly, should matter."
>
>If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
>blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
>discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
>possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
>an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
>without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
>all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent
>and
>thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
>stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
>
>For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
>Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
>said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in
>the
>young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
>beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
>question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
>keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate
>of
>at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out
>there.
>
>And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
>favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
>some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
>possibilities.
>
>Maria
>ejbronte@...
>(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach
><warrenmalach@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
>> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
>> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
>> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
>> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the
>>realm
>> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
>>partisanship,
>> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other
>>purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Karen,
>> >
>> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
>> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
>> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
>>that
>> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
>> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
>> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
>> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
>>and
>> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
>> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
>> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>> >
>> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>support
>> of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be -
>> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you
>>that
>> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
>> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful?
>>Even
>> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things
>>must be
>> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>looks
>> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing.
>>What
>> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love
>>you
>> take is equal to the love you make."
>> >
>> > Judy
>> > Â
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
>> any
>> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>Wars of
>> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>discuss
>> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>made
>> any
>> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
>> ideas
>> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>with,
>> I
>> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
>> feel
>> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>This
>> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>> >
>> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>something
>> I
>> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
>> else
>> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>kind of
>> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>Michael
>> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>quite
>> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>same
>> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>responded
>> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
>> As I
>> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
>> valued
>> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> > hate him!".
>> >
>> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>have
>> not
>> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the
>>same
>> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
>> letting
>> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>this
>> 'us'
>> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>behind
>> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
>> that
>> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>things
>> get
>> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>sufficient
>> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>> >
>> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
>> some
>> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>they
>> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>forum
>> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need
>>to
>> be
>> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
>> does.)
>> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
>> belief
>> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to
>>be
>> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
>> are,
>> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> > the 'atheist' analogy.
>> >
>> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>this is
>> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>bits.
>> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>contentious.
>> You
>> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told
>>that
>> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>blog
>> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> > parliament.
>> >
>> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
>> like to
>> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
>> others
>> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>There's
>> a
>> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>stuff!)
>> I'd
>> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>training,
>> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>I've
>> said
>> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
>> speak
>> > up!
>> >
>> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
>> quite
>> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>haven't
>> been
>> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>
>> > Reply-To: <>
>> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> > To: ""
>> > <>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
>> not
>> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>presented
>> and
>> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>virtual
>> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been
>>no
>> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>hence
>> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>> >
>> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>the
>> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have
>>born
>> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>say
>> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>There
>> are
>> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
>> know,
>> > will we?
>> >
>> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
>> win
>> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
>> up" on
>> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
>> just
>> > quietly slipped out the back door.
>> >
>> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
>> Warren
>> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>whom
>> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>Facebook.
>> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>> >
>> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>rule,
>> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>points
>> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>them or
>> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
>> listen.
>> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>> >
>> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
>> the
>> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done
>>it"
>> is
>> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>give a
>> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>your
>> > presentation accordingly.
>> >
>> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
>> like a
>> > nail.
>> >
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>
>> > >
>> > To: "
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>although
>> I
>> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>messages,
>> > opinions and information.
>> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>pick
>> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>courteous
>> in
>> > answering all your questions.
>> >
>> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
>> that
>> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me
>>that
>> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>and
>> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
>> >
>> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>III,
>> not
>> > about it's members.
>> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion
>>and
>> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>> >
>> > A good week to all!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
found it excellent. Stanley's involvement in the plot is a puzzle to be
sure!
Karen
On 31/07/12 5:30 AM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
>Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
>comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
>them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina
>Sidonia
>and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his
>hope
>that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
>would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
>justice, however belatedly, should matter."
>
>If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
>blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
>discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
>possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
>an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
>without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
>all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent
>and
>thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
>stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
>
>For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
>Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
>said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in
>the
>young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
>beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
>question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
>keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate
>of
>at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out
>there.
>
>And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
>favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
>some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
>possibilities.
>
>Maria
>ejbronte@...
>(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach
><warrenmalach@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
>> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
>> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
>> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
>> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the
>>realm
>> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
>>partisanship,
>> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other
>>purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Karen,
>> >
>> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
>> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
>> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
>>that
>> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
>> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
>> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
>> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
>>and
>> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
>> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
>> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>> >
>> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>support
>> of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be -
>> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you
>>that
>> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
>> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful?
>>Even
>> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things
>>must be
>> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>looks
>> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing.
>>What
>> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love
>>you
>> take is equal to the love you make."
>> >
>> > Judy
>> > Â
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
>> any
>> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>Wars of
>> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>discuss
>> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>made
>> any
>> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
>> ideas
>> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>with,
>> I
>> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
>> feel
>> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>This
>> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>> >
>> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>something
>> I
>> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
>> else
>> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>kind of
>> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>Michael
>> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>quite
>> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>same
>> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>responded
>> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
>> As I
>> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
>> valued
>> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> > hate him!".
>> >
>> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>have
>> not
>> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the
>>same
>> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
>> letting
>> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>this
>> 'us'
>> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>behind
>> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
>> that
>> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>things
>> get
>> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>sufficient
>> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>> >
>> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
>> some
>> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>they
>> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>forum
>> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need
>>to
>> be
>> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
>> does.)
>> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
>> belief
>> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to
>>be
>> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
>> are,
>> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> > the 'atheist' analogy.
>> >
>> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>this is
>> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>bits.
>> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>contentious.
>> You
>> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told
>>that
>> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>blog
>> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> > parliament.
>> >
>> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
>> like to
>> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
>> others
>> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>There's
>> a
>> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>stuff!)
>> I'd
>> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>training,
>> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>I've
>> said
>> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
>> speak
>> > up!
>> >
>> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
>> quite
>> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>haven't
>> been
>> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>
>> > Reply-To: <>
>> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> > To: ""
>> > <>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
>> not
>> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>presented
>> and
>> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>virtual
>> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been
>>no
>> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>hence
>> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>> >
>> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>the
>> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have
>>born
>> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>say
>> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>There
>> are
>> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
>> know,
>> > will we?
>> >
>> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
>> win
>> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
>> up" on
>> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
>> just
>> > quietly slipped out the back door.
>> >
>> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
>> Warren
>> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>whom
>> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>Facebook.
>> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>> >
>> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>rule,
>> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>points
>> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>them or
>> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
>> listen.
>> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>> >
>> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
>> the
>> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done
>>it"
>> is
>> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>give a
>> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>your
>> > presentation accordingly.
>> >
>> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
>> like a
>> > nail.
>> >
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>
>> > >
>> > To: "
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>although
>> I
>> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>messages,
>> > opinions and information.
>> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>pick
>> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>courteous
>> in
>> > answering all your questions.
>> >
>> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
>> that
>> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me
>>that
>> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>and
>> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
>> >
>> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>III,
>> not
>> > about it's members.
>> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion
>>and
>> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>> >
>> > A good week to all!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 03:05:51
Hi karen. I have it but haven't given it a read yet because of theatre stuff and prepping my play. I have some calm time in august and plan to concentrate on it then!
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Sender:
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:00:17
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Maria, re Perkin. Have you read Ann Wroe's book? I've just finished it and
found it excellent. Stanley's involvement in the plot is a puzzle to be
sure!
Karen
On 31/07/12 5:30 AM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
>Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
>comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
>them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina
>Sidonia
>and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his
>hope
>that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
>would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
>justice, however belatedly, should matter."
>
>If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
>blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
>discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
>possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
>an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
>without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
>all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent
>and
>thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
>stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
>
>For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
>Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
>said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in
>the
>young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
>beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
>question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
>keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate
>of
>at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out
>there.
>
>And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
>favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
>some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
>possibilities.
>
>Maria
>ejbronte@...
>(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach
><warrenmalach@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
>> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
>> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
>> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
>> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the
>>realm
>> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
>>partisanship,
>> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other
>>purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Karen,
>> >
>> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
>> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
>> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
>>that
>> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
>> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
>> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
>> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
>>and
>> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
>> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
>> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>> >
>> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>support
>> of Richard's innocence. ý Trying to change this will be - must be -
>> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you
>>that
>> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
>> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful?
>>Even
>> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things
>>must be
>> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ý
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>looks
>> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing.
>>What
>> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love
>>you
>> take is equal to the love you make."
>> >
>> > Judy
>> > ý
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > ý
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
>> any
>> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>Wars of
>> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>discuss
>> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>made
>> any
>> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
>> ideas
>> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>with,
>> I
>> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
>> feel
>> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>This
>> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>> >
>> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>something
>> I
>> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
>> else
>> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>kind of
>> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>Michael
>> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>quite
>> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>same
>> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>responded
>> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
>> As I
>> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
>> valued
>> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> > hate him!".
>> >
>> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>have
>> not
>> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the
>>same
>> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
>> letting
>> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>this
>> 'us'
>> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>behind
>> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
>> that
>> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>things
>> get
>> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>sufficient
>> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>> >
>> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
>> some
>> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>they
>> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>forum
>> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need
>>to
>> be
>> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
>> does.)
>> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
>> belief
>> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to
>>be
>> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
>> are,
>> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> > the 'atheist' analogy.
>> >
>> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>this is
>> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>bits.
>> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>contentious.
>> You
>> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told
>>that
>> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>blog
>> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> > parliament.
>> >
>> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
>> like to
>> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
>> others
>> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>There's
>> a
>> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>stuff!)
>> I'd
>> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>training,
>> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>I've
>> said
>> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
>> speak
>> > up!
>> >
>> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
>> quite
>> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>haven't
>> been
>> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>
>> > Reply-To: <>
>> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> > To: ""
>> > <>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
>> not
>> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>presented
>> and
>> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>virtual
>> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been
>>no
>> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>hence
>> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>> >
>> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>the
>> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have
>>born
>> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>say
>> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>There
>> are
>> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
>> know,
>> > will we?
>> >
>> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
>> win
>> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
>> up" on
>> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
>> just
>> > quietly slipped out the back door.
>> >
>> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
>> Warren
>> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>whom
>> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>Facebook.
>> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>> >
>> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>rule,
>> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>points
>> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>them or
>> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
>> listen.
>> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>> >
>> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
>> the
>> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done
>>it"
>> is
>> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>give a
>> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>your
>> > presentation accordingly.
>> >
>> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
>> like a
>> > nail.
>> >
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>
>> > >
>> > To: "
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>although
>> I
>> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>messages,
>> > opinions and information.
>> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>pick
>> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>courteous
>> in
>> > answering all your questions.
>> >
>> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
>> that
>> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me
>>that
>> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>and
>> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
>> >
>> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>III,
>> not
>> > about it's members.
>> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion
>>and
>> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>> >
>> > A good week to all!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
Sender:
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:00:17
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Maria, re Perkin. Have you read Ann Wroe's book? I've just finished it and
found it excellent. Stanley's involvement in the plot is a puzzle to be
sure!
Karen
On 31/07/12 5:30 AM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
>I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
>Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
>comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
>them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina
>Sidonia
>and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his
>hope
>that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
>would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
>justice, however belatedly, should matter."
>
>If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
>blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
>discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
>possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
>an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
>without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
>all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent
>and
>thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
>stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
>
>For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
>Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
>said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in
>the
>young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
>beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
>question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
>keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate
>of
>at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out
>there.
>
>And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
>favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
>some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
>possibilities.
>
>Maria
>ejbronte@...
>(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach
><warrenmalach@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
>> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
>> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
>> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
>> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the
>>realm
>> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
>>partisanship,
>> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other
>>purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Karen,
>> >
>> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
>> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
>> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
>>that
>> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
>> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
>> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
>> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
>>and
>> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
>> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
>> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>> >
>> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>support
>> of Richard's innocence. ý Trying to change this will be - must be -
>> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you
>>that
>> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
>> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful?
>>Even
>> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things
>>must be
>> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ý
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>looks
>> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing.
>>What
>> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love
>>you
>> take is equal to the love you make."
>> >
>> > Judy
>> > ý
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > ý
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
>> any
>> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>Wars of
>> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>discuss
>> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>made
>> any
>> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
>> ideas
>> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>with,
>> I
>> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
>> feel
>> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>This
>> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>> >
>> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>something
>> I
>> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
>> else
>> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>kind of
>> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>Michael
>> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>quite
>> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>same
>> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>responded
>> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
>> As I
>> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
>> valued
>> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> > hate him!".
>> >
>> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>have
>> not
>> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the
>>same
>> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
>> letting
>> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>this
>> 'us'
>> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>behind
>> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
>> that
>> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>things
>> get
>> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>sufficient
>> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>> >
>> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
>> some
>> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>they
>> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>forum
>> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need
>>to
>> be
>> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
>> does.)
>> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
>> belief
>> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to
>>be
>> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
>> are,
>> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> > the 'atheist' analogy.
>> >
>> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>this is
>> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>bits.
>> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>contentious.
>> You
>> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told
>>that
>> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>blog
>> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> > parliament.
>> >
>> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
>> like to
>> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
>> others
>> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>There's
>> a
>> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>stuff!)
>> I'd
>> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>training,
>> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>I've
>> said
>> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
>> speak
>> > up!
>> >
>> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
>> quite
>> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>haven't
>> been
>> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>
>> > Reply-To: <>
>> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> > To: ""
>> > <>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
>> not
>> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>presented
>> and
>> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>virtual
>> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been
>>no
>> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>hence
>> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>> >
>> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>the
>> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have
>>born
>> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>say
>> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>There
>> are
>> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
>> know,
>> > will we?
>> >
>> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
>> win
>> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
>> up" on
>> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
>> just
>> > quietly slipped out the back door.
>> >
>> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
>> Warren
>> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>whom
>> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>Facebook.
>> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>> >
>> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>rule,
>> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>points
>> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>them or
>> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
>> listen.
>> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>> >
>> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
>> the
>> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done
>>it"
>> is
>> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>give a
>> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>your
>> > presentation accordingly.
>> >
>> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
>> like a
>> > nail.
>> >
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>
>> > >
>> > To: "
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>although
>> I
>> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>messages,
>> > opinions and information.
>> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>pick
>> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>courteous
>> in
>> > answering all your questions.
>> >
>> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
>> that
>> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me
>>that
>> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>and
>> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
>> >
>> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>III,
>> not
>> > about it's members.
>> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion
>>and
>> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>> >
>> > A good week to all!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 04:09:58
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 04:26:46
Judy,
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 05:29:46
r3 was known for his short stature, he was a bad guy according to the tudors &co. shakespeare made richard immortal..and because of this he an all time movie villian. i do not believe it was a co-incidence that there a caricature of richard was used...sadly.
the 15thC was the end of the era with regards to witches, wizards and fairytales. farquaad..was ending the era of fairy tale creatures..including shrek. he wanted to murder shrek to get to fiona. it is rumoured richard killed anne's first husband..edward, son of margaret d'anjou. in english/british "history" richard is the most evil king...and then there is the imagery..the similarity of farquaad and richard..in clothing, hairstyle and facial features.
i believe it is not a coincidence that r3 was used to portray the ultimate evil guy in shrek.
why not use h7..if you look at his portrait vs richard..which one is more scarey/evil looking?
why? because h7 is even less known. yet..h7 was also murderous..provably so. he was greedy, stingy and paranoid..and a liar/manipulator.
it is interesting that shakespeare never wrote a history of h7. you have to wonder if there are nuances to h7's true charactor in the bard's portrayal of richard.
even a 2011 theatre review..offers this opinion
The hilarious star is Nigel Harman. As dastardly mini-villain Lord Farquaad, he spends most of the show on his knees, doing mind-bogglingly lubricious dance and exercise routines with the aid of a pair of fake little yellow-stockinged legs, which have to be seen to be believed. Post-'EastEnders', Harman has done plenty of meritorious straight theatre (Pinter's 'Caretaker', Richard Greenberg's 'Three Days of Rain'). But it's here as a vertically challenged camp tyrant with delusions of Olivier's Richard III that he truly expresses himself.
http://www.timeout.com/london/theatre/event/82691/shrek-the-musical
i also loved shrek..but not the image of farquaad..it always annoys me. thankfully farquaad has very few moments in front of the camera. i also love john lithgow, who voiced farquaad. i giggle and gafaw nightly to the reruns of third rock from the sun.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 5:12 PM
Since Shrek is one of my all time favorite movies, I'd like to bring up
a minor but relevant point about Lord Farquaad--from Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Farquaad> :
There is some speculation that Lord Farquaad's appearance may be
inspired by Michael Eisner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner>
, the then-CEO of The Walt Disney Company
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company> , owing to
producer Jeffrey Katzenberg
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg> 's animosity toward
his former employer
So, it's most likely coincidental if Farquaad's appearance resembles the
r3 NPG portrait. [:D]
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was.
he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was
caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children
who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
> Â
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis
or ill informed fail to know the truth.
> Â
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as"
portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public
"authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
> Â
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who
richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading
a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he
knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@... wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@...
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that
Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the
"Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and
white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is
the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about
which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified
by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the
crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
wrote:
> >
> > here's a challenge for you warren
> > produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty
of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more,
shakespeare, et al.
> > ÃÂ
> > i'll be happy to refuteÃÂ many of the allegationsÃÂ with
official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the
deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> > ÃÂ
> > i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also
join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap
sheet".
> > ÃÂ
> > g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the
challenge?
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting
like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does
Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY
from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into
the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for
"other purposes."
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Karen,
> > >
> > > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation
of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
"regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it
all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and
his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> > >
> > > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
support of Richard's innocence. Ã’â¬aàTrying to change this
will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's
how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more
rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the
last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill
in the dots on our own.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end,
the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or
white on any
> > > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is
the seeming
> > > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
the
> > > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a
very strong
> > > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
Wars of
> > > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and
white views I
> > > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
discuss
> > > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
made any
> > > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of
the
> > > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
up ideas
> > > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
with, I
> > > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
anything, I feel
> > > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be
quiet. This
> > > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> > >
> > > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
something I
> > > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
something else
> > > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
kind of
> > > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
facebook
> > > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
Michael
> > > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
despise
> > > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
You
> > > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
quite
> > > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
same
> > > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
responded
> > > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
accepted
> > > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
agree. As I
> > > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate
his books at
> > > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But
I wouldn't
> > > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
they valued
> > > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
Kendall! I
> > > hate him!".
> > >
> > > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
have not
> > > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
the same
> > > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that
is
> > > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
anyone letting
> > > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
this 'us'
> > > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
behind
> > > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
think that
> > > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
things get
> > > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
sufficient
> > > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> > >
> > > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if
members
> > > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
are some
> > > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared,
then they
> > > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
forum
> > > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
need to be
> > > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know.
No-one does.)
> > > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
liken belief
> > > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
to be
> > > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
did are,
> > > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
without
> > > the 'atheist' analogy.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to
debate issues
> > > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
this is
> > > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening
to others,
> > > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
bits.
> > > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
contentious. You
> > > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
told that
> > > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
blog
> > > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick
to
> > > parliament.
> > >
> > > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
conversation
> > > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
I'd like to
> > > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
as others
> > > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
There's a
> > > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
stuff!) I'd
> > > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
training,
> > > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I
said wasn't
> > > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
I've said
> > > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
to speak
> > > up!
> > >
> > > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
actually quite
> > > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
haven't been
> > > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
chest
> > > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > > To: ""
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
It's not
> > > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
presented and
> > > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
virtual
> > > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
been no
> > > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in
no
> > > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or
even
> > > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around
here, hence
> > > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> > >
> > > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion
on Richard,
> > > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White
on the
> > > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
have born
> > > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't
even say
> > > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing
this to
> > > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
There are
> > > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
never know,
> > > will we?
> > >
> > > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have
perceived,
> > > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no
way to win
> > > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
"ganging up" on
> > > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
many just
> > > quietly slipped out the back door.
> > >
> > > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
and Warren
> > > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael
Hicks, whom
> > > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
Facebook.
> > > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> > >
> > > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious
and
> > > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
rule,
> > > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
points
> > > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old,
established
> > > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard
totally
> > > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
guilty of
> > > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
them or
> > > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
would listen.
> > > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with
sources.
> > >
> > > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
what the
> > > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
done it" is
> > > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
give a
> > > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
your
> > > presentation accordingly.
> > >
> > > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
looks like a
> > > nail.
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > To: "
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > >
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
although I
> > > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
messages,
> > > opinions and information.
> > > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong
but I
> > > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This
is a
> > > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here
to pick
> > > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
courteous in
> > > answering all your questions.
> > >
> > > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
fact that
> > > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not
to
> > > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
me that
> > > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a
favour and
> > > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
personal
> > > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> > >
> > > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
III, not
> > > about it's members.
> > > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
discussion and
> > > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> > >
> > > A good week to all!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
the 15thC was the end of the era with regards to witches, wizards and fairytales. farquaad..was ending the era of fairy tale creatures..including shrek. he wanted to murder shrek to get to fiona. it is rumoured richard killed anne's first husband..edward, son of margaret d'anjou. in english/british "history" richard is the most evil king...and then there is the imagery..the similarity of farquaad and richard..in clothing, hairstyle and facial features.
i believe it is not a coincidence that r3 was used to portray the ultimate evil guy in shrek.
why not use h7..if you look at his portrait vs richard..which one is more scarey/evil looking?
why? because h7 is even less known. yet..h7 was also murderous..provably so. he was greedy, stingy and paranoid..and a liar/manipulator.
it is interesting that shakespeare never wrote a history of h7. you have to wonder if there are nuances to h7's true charactor in the bard's portrayal of richard.
even a 2011 theatre review..offers this opinion
The hilarious star is Nigel Harman. As dastardly mini-villain Lord Farquaad, he spends most of the show on his knees, doing mind-bogglingly lubricious dance and exercise routines with the aid of a pair of fake little yellow-stockinged legs, which have to be seen to be believed. Post-'EastEnders', Harman has done plenty of meritorious straight theatre (Pinter's 'Caretaker', Richard Greenberg's 'Three Days of Rain'). But it's here as a vertically challenged camp tyrant with delusions of Olivier's Richard III that he truly expresses himself.
http://www.timeout.com/london/theatre/event/82691/shrek-the-musical
i also loved shrek..but not the image of farquaad..it always annoys me. thankfully farquaad has very few moments in front of the camera. i also love john lithgow, who voiced farquaad. i giggle and gafaw nightly to the reruns of third rock from the sun.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 5:12 PM
Since Shrek is one of my all time favorite movies, I'd like to bring up
a minor but relevant point about Lord Farquaad--from Wikipedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Farquaad> :
There is some speculation that Lord Farquaad's appearance may be
inspired by Michael Eisner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner>
, the then-CEO of The Walt Disney Company
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company> , owing to
producer Jeffrey Katzenberg
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg> 's animosity toward
his former employer
So, it's most likely coincidental if Farquaad's appearance resembles the
r3 NPG portrait. [:D]
Joan
---
This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
Awards
Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was.
he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was
caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children
who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
> Â
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis
or ill informed fail to know the truth.
> Â
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as"
portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public
"authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
> Â
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who
richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading
a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he
knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@... wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@...
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that
Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the
"Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and
white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is
the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about
which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified
by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the
crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
wrote:
> >
> > here's a challenge for you warren
> > produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty
of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more,
shakespeare, et al.
> > ÃÂ
> > i'll be happy to refuteÃÂ many of the allegationsÃÂ with
official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the
deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> > ÃÂ
> > i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also
join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap
sheet".
> > ÃÂ
> > g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the
challenge?
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting
like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does
Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY
from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into
the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for
"other purposes."
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Karen,
> > >
> > > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation
of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
"regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it
all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and
his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> > >
> > > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
support of Richard's innocence. Ã’â¬aàTrying to change this
will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's
how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more
rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the
last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill
in the dots on our own.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > >
> > > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end,
the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or
white on any
> > > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is
the seeming
> > > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
the
> > > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a
very strong
> > > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
Wars of
> > > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and
white views I
> > > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
discuss
> > > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
made any
> > > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of
the
> > > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
up ideas
> > > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
with, I
> > > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
anything, I feel
> > > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be
quiet. This
> > > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> > >
> > > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
something I
> > > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
something else
> > > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
kind of
> > > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> > > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
Michael
> > > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
despise
> > > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
You
> > > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
quite
> > > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
same
> > > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
responded
> > > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
accepted
> > > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
agree. As I
> > > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate
his books at
> > > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But
I wouldn't
> > > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
they valued
> > > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
Kendall! I
> > > hate him!".
> > >
> > > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
have not
> > > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
the same
> > > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that
is
> > > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
anyone letting
> > > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
this 'us'
> > > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
behind
> > > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
think that
> > > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
things get
> > > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
sufficient
> > > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> > >
> > > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if
members
> > > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
are some
> > > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared,
then they
> > > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
forum
> > > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
need to be
> > > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know.
No-one does.)
> > > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
liken belief
> > > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
to be
> > > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
did are,
> > > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
without
> > > the 'atheist' analogy.
> > >
> > > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to
debate issues
> > > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
this is
> > > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening
to others,
> > > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
bits.
> > > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
contentious. You
> > > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
told that
> > > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
blog
> > > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick
to
> > > parliament.
> > >
> > > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
conversation
> > > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
I'd like to
> > > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
as others
> > > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
There's a
> > > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
stuff!) I'd
> > > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
training,
> > > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I
said wasn't
> > > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
I've said
> > > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
to speak
> > > up!
> > >
> > > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
actually quite
> > > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
haven't been
> > > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
chest
> > > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> > >
> > > Karen
> > >
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > Reply-To:
> > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > > To: ""
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
beyond
> > >
> > > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
It's not
> > > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
presented and
> > > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
virtual
> > > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
been no
> > > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in
no
> > > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or
even
> > > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around
here, hence
> > > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> > >
> > > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion
on Richard,
> > > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White
on the
> > > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
have born
> > > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't
even say
> > > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing
this to
> > > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
There are
> > > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
never know,
> > > will we?
> > >
> > > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have
perceived,
> > > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no
way to win
> > > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
"ganging up" on
> > > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
many just
> > > quietly slipped out the back door.
> > >
> > > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
and Warren
> > > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael
Hicks, whom
> > > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
Facebook.
> > > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> > >
> > > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious
and
> > > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
rule,
> > > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
points
> > > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old,
established
> > > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard
totally
> > > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
guilty of
> > > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
them or
> > > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
would listen.
> > > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with
sources.
> > >
> > > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
what the
> > > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
done it" is
> > > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
give a
> > > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
your
> > > presentation accordingly.
> > >
> > > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
looks like a
> > > nail.
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > To: "
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > >
> > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
although I
> > > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
messages,
> > > opinions and information.
> > > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong
but I
> > > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This
is a
> > > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here
to pick
> > > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
courteous in
> > > answering all your questions.
> > >
> > > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
fact that
> > > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not
to
> > > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
me that
> > > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a
favour and
> > > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
personal
> > > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> > >
> > > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
III, not
> > > about it's members.
> > > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
discussion and
> > > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> > >
> > > A good week to all!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 10:26:55
I'm loathe to step into this, but I think there's been an outrageous case of misreading with regard to Karen's posts, which I've always found nuanced, intelligent and resistant to any agendas. And I say this as someone whose views on Richard are probably closer to the "mainstream" on this forum than those of of Karen herself. (Warren's, which were deliberately provocative, are a different matter entirely.)
Where I agree with her absolutely is that character is revealed in shades of grey, not black and white. To adopt any stance that's resolutely pro or anti is bad history and bad studentship of human nature. This is even more the case when there is such a paucity of evidence as to motivations and actions. With Richard, you can perhaps trace a through-line as to how he would "likely" have behaved, or, indeed, would have *wished* to behave in ideal circumstances. But I tend to subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory of history and, as a genuine machiavel once said, "stuff happens". Events are rarely a carefully planned and self-evidently explicable sequence of cause and effect but more, to quote Alan Bennett in 'The History Boys', "just one ******* thing after another". With so much remaining unknown, no one is wise to make categorical pronouncements and Karen's proselytising (as some people seem to see it) goes no further than
that.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 4:26
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy,
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Where I agree with her absolutely is that character is revealed in shades of grey, not black and white. To adopt any stance that's resolutely pro or anti is bad history and bad studentship of human nature. This is even more the case when there is such a paucity of evidence as to motivations and actions. With Richard, you can perhaps trace a through-line as to how he would "likely" have behaved, or, indeed, would have *wished* to behave in ideal circumstances. But I tend to subscribe to the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory of history and, as a genuine machiavel once said, "stuff happens". Events are rarely a carefully planned and self-evidently explicable sequence of cause and effect but more, to quote Alan Bennett in 'The History Boys', "just one ******* thing after another". With so much remaining unknown, no one is wise to make categorical pronouncements and Karen's proselytising (as some people seem to see it) goes no further than
that.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 4:26
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy,
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 10:29:30
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 11:54:18
Thanks, Jonathan. I appreciate your words enormously.
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:26:52 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
I'm loathe to step into this, but I think there's been an outrageous case of
misreading with regard to Karen's posts, which I've always found nuanced,
intelligent and resistant to any agendas. And I say this as someone whose
views on Richard are probably closer to the "mainstream" on this forum than
those of of Karen herself. (Warren's, which were deliberately provocative,
are a different matter entirely.)
Where I agree with her absolutely is that character is revealed in shades of
grey, not black and white. To adopt any stance that's resolutely pro or
anti is bad history and bad studentship of human nature. This is even more
the case when there is such a paucity of evidence as to motivations and
actions. With Richard, you can perhaps trace a through-line as to how he
would "likely" have behaved, or, indeed, would have *wished* to behave in
ideal circumstances. But I tend to subscribe to the cock-up rather than
conspiracy theory of history and, as a genuine machiavel once said, "stuff
happens". Events are rarely a carefully planned and self-evidently
explicable sequence of cause and effect but more, to quote Alan Bennett in
'The History Boys', "just one ******* thing after another". With so much
remaining unknown, no one is wise to make categorical pronouncements and
Karen's proselytising (as some people seem to see it) goes no further than
that.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 4:26
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy,
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...
<mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:26:52 +0100 (BST)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
I'm loathe to step into this, but I think there's been an outrageous case of
misreading with regard to Karen's posts, which I've always found nuanced,
intelligent and resistant to any agendas. And I say this as someone whose
views on Richard are probably closer to the "mainstream" on this forum than
those of of Karen herself. (Warren's, which were deliberately provocative,
are a different matter entirely.)
Where I agree with her absolutely is that character is revealed in shades of
grey, not black and white. To adopt any stance that's resolutely pro or
anti is bad history and bad studentship of human nature. This is even more
the case when there is such a paucity of evidence as to motivations and
actions. With Richard, you can perhaps trace a through-line as to how he
would "likely" have behaved, or, indeed, would have *wished* to behave in
ideal circumstances. But I tend to subscribe to the cock-up rather than
conspiracy theory of history and, as a genuine machiavel once said, "stuff
happens". Events are rarely a carefully planned and self-evidently
explicable sequence of cause and effect but more, to quote Alan Bennett in
'The History Boys', "just one ******* thing after another". With so much
remaining unknown, no one is wise to make categorical pronouncements and
Karen's proselytising (as some people seem to see it) goes no further than
that.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 4:26
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy,
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...
<mailto:judygerard.thomson%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com>
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com>
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 13:05:59
I read Perkin when it first came out - must re read it. I thought it was superb. Personally I think it was far more likely that he was, rather than wasn't, Richard. The alternative, that he may have been an illegitimate child of Edward IV (or even Margaret of Burgundy) is interesting.
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 3:00
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Maria, re Perkin. Have you read Ann Wroe's book? I've just finished it and
found it excellent. Stanley's involvement in the plot is a puzzle to be
sure!
Karen
On 31/07/12 5:30 AM, "Maria Torres" <mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com> wrote:
>I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
>Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
>comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
>them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina
>Sidonia
>and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his
>hope
>that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
>would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
>justice, however belatedly, should matter."
>
>If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
>blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
>discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
>possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
>an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
>without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
>all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent
>and
>thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
>stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
>
>For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
>Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
>said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in
>the
>young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
>beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
>question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
>keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate
>of
>at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out
>there.
>
>And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
>favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
>some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
>possibilities.
>
>Maria
>mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com
>(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach
><mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
>> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
>> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
>> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
>> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the
>>realm
>> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
>>partisanship,
>> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other
>>purposes."
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Karen,
>> >
>> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
>> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
>> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
>>that
>> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
>> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
>> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
>> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
>>and
>> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
>> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
>> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>> >
>> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>support
>> of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be -
>> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you
>>that
>> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
>> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful?
>>Even
>> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things
>>must be
>> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>looks
>> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing.
>>What
>> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love
>>you
>> take is equal to the love you make."
>> >
>> > Judy
>> > Â
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>
>> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
>> any
>> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>Wars of
>> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>discuss
>> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>made
>> any
>> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
>> ideas
>> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>with,
>> I
>> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
>> feel
>> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>This
>> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>> >
>> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>something
>> I
>> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
>> else
>> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>kind of
>> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>Michael
>> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>quite
>> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>same
>> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>responded
>> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
>> As I
>> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
>> valued
>> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> > hate him!".
>> >
>> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>have
>> not
>> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the
>>same
>> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
>> letting
>> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>this
>> 'us'
>> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>behind
>> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
>> that
>> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>things
>> get
>> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>sufficient
>> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>> >
>> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
>> some
>> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>they
>> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>forum
>> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need
>>to
>> be
>> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
>> does.)
>> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
>> belief
>> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to
>>be
>> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
>> are,
>> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> > the 'atheist' analogy.
>> >
>> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>this is
>> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>bits.
>> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>contentious.
>> You
>> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told
>>that
>> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>blog
>> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> > parliament.
>> >
>> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
>> like to
>> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
>> others
>> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>There's
>> a
>> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>stuff!)
>> I'd
>> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>training,
>> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>I've
>> said
>> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
>> speak
>> > up!
>> >
>> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
>> quite
>> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>haven't
>> been
>> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>
>> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
>> not
>> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>presented
>> and
>> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>virtual
>> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been
>>no
>> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>hence
>> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>> >
>> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>the
>> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have
>>born
>> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>say
>> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>There
>> are
>> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
>> know,
>> > will we?
>> >
>> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
>> win
>> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
>> up" on
>> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
>> just
>> > quietly slipped out the back door.
>> >
>> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
>> Warren
>> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>whom
>> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>Facebook.
>> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>> >
>> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>rule,
>> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>points
>> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>them or
>> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
>> listen.
>> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>> >
>> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
>> the
>> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done
>>it"
>> is
>> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>give a
>> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>your
>> > presentation accordingly.
>> >
>> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
>> like a
>> > nail.
>> >
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>
>> > >
>> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>although
>> I
>> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>messages,
>> > opinions and information.
>> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>pick
>> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>courteous
>> in
>> > answering all your questions.
>> >
>> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
>> that
>> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me
>>that
>> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>and
>> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
>> >
>> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>III,
>> not
>> > about it's members.
>> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion
>>and
>> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>> >
>> > A good week to all!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 3:00
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Maria, re Perkin. Have you read Ann Wroe's book? I've just finished it and
found it excellent. Stanley's involvement in the plot is a puzzle to be
sure!
Karen
On 31/07/12 5:30 AM, "Maria Torres" <mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com> wrote:
>I like Garrett Mattingly's observation at the end of his book about the
>Armada. Notable in all of his books (that I've read) for attempting to
>comprehend motives and actions from the perspective of those performing
>them, he happened to come up with a very sympathetic view of Medina
>Sidonia
>and his impossible mission. In his epilogue, he briefly discusses his
>hope
>that Medina Sidonia will be seen in a better light. Not, he says, that it
>would matter at this point to Medina Sidonia. But "to the living, to do
>justice, however belatedly, should matter."
>
>If Richard is not guilty of shedding, or of planning to shed, his nephews'
>blood, it is important to us, as living human souls, to do our best to
>discover this. We should do it intelligently, and as objectively as
>possible. However, as human souls, it is rarely possible to study or take
>an interest in anything without coming to and/or emerging from that thing
>without an agenda of some sort. The agenda may change. It may not. At
>all points, we owe it to ourselves and to our subject to be intelligent
>and
>thorough and open-minded, and to, from time to time, review our current
>stance(s) to study how or why we have or have not changed.
>
>For my part, I was convinced that there was a very open question about
>Richard when I read that William Stanley, commenting on Perkin Warbeck,
>said that, if Warbeck proved to be young Richard, he would not stand in
>the
>young man's way. For this comment, the usually-astute Sir William was
>beheaded by Henry VII. And I reflected on this comment, and I had a
>question: if William Stanley, he of the Stanley family, which excelled at
>keeping on top of events; if William Stanley was in doubt about the fate
>of
>at least one of Edward's sons, then there definitely was a doubt out
>there.
>
>And because of this doubt, I give Richard the benefit of it; and I choose
>favor the possibility of one or both boys being sent out of the country
>some time after September or October 1483. I am, however, open to other
>possibilities.
>
>Maria
>mailto:ejbronte%40gmail.com
>(who, despite the email address, favors Anne over all the Bronte siblings)
>
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:00 PM, warrenmalach
><mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
>> Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
>> "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
>> "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
>> "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the
>>realm
>> of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
>>partisanship,
>> only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other
>>purposes."
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson
>> <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Karen,
>> >
>> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my
>> mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
>> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
>>that
>> time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of
>> Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
>> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
>> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
>>and
>> therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all
>> flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his
>> unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>> >
>> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
>>support
>> of Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be -
>> frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you
>>that
>> they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What
>> will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful?
>>Even
>> as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things
>>must be
>> left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>>
>> >
>> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
>>looks
>> slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing.
>>What
>> was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love
>>you
>> take is equal to the love you make."
>> >
>> > Judy
>> > Â
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
>>
>> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on
>> any
>> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the
>> seeming
>> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very
>> strong
>> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
>>Wars of
>> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white
>> views I
>> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
>>discuss
>> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
>>made
>> any
>> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up
>> ideas
>> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
>>with,
>> I
>> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I
>> feel
>> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet.
>>This
>> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>> >
>> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
>>something
>> I
>> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something
>> else
>> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
>>kind of
>> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
>>Michael
>> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
>> despise
>> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
>>quite
>> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
>>same
>> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
>>responded
>> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
>> accepted
>> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree.
>> As I
>> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his
>> books at
>> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I
>> wouldn't
>> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they
>> valued
>> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
>> Kendall! I
>> > hate him!".
>> >
>> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
>>have
>> not
>> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the
>>same
>> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone
>> letting
>> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
>>this
>> 'us'
>> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
>>behind
>> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think
>> that
>> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
>>things
>> get
>> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
>>sufficient
>> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>> >
>> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are
>> some
>> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then
>>they
>> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
>>forum
>> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need
>>to
>> be
>> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one
>> does.)
>> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken
>> belief
>> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to
>>be
>> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did
>> are,
>> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
>> without
>> > the 'atheist' analogy.
>> >
>> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate
>> issues
>> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
>>this is
>> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to
>> others,
>> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
>>bits.
>> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
>>contentious.
>> You
>> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told
>>that
>> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
>>blog
>> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>> > parliament.
>> >
>> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
>> conversation
>> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd
>> like to
>> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as
>> others
>> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
>>There's
>> a
>> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
>>stuff!)
>> I'd
>> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
>>training,
>> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said
>> wasn't
>> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
>>I've
>> said
>> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to
>> speak
>> > up!
>> >
>> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually
>> quite
>> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
>>haven't
>> been
>> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>> >
>> > Karen
>> >
>> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>>
>> > Reply-To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's
>> not
>> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
>>presented
>> and
>> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
>>virtual
>> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been
>>no
>> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here,
>>hence
>> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>> >
>> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on
>> Richard,
>> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on
>>the
>> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have
>>born
>> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even
>>say
>> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
>>There
>> are
>> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never
>> know,
>> > will we?
>> >
>> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to
>> win
>> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging
>> up" on
>> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many
>> just
>> > quietly slipped out the back door.
>> >
>> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and
>> Warren
>> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks,
>>whom
>> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
>>Facebook.
>> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>> >
>> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
>>rule,
>> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
>>points
>> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
>> guilty of
>> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
>>them or
>> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would
>> listen.
>> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>> >
>> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what
>> the
>> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done
>>it"
>> is
>> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
>>give a
>> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
>>your
>> > presentation accordingly.
>> >
>> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks
>> like a
>> > nail.
>> >
>> > Judy
>> >
>> > Loyaulte me lie
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>
>> > >
>> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
>>although
>> I
>> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
>>messages,
>> > opinions and information.
>> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to
>>pick
>> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
>>courteous
>> in
>> > answering all your questions.
>> >
>> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact
>> that
>> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me
>>that
>> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour
>>and
>> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
>> personal
>> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
>> >
>> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
>>III,
>> not
>> > about it's members.
>> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion
>>and
>> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>> >
>> > A good week to all!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 14:12:55
To be honest, Karen, I don't know a meaning for "troll" other than Tolkien's or the creatures that hide under Norwegian bridges.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy,
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy,
It's not that I took your words to heart, more that I've seen the effect
that this particular accusation has on others. Suggesting that two, three or
more people are really one person is effectively accusing them (all and
individually) of trolling. I don't troll. And my feelings towards you are as
neutral as yours are towards me. I understand that Hicks' Richard III book
upsets people. I have it but have not yet read it. But his work on Warwick
and Clarence is pretty good (and I'm very picky when it comes to Warwick!).
As I said on facebook, I agree with the generally negative opinions of his
Anne Nevill book. But if someone's caused you personal upset, whoever they
are, it can be hard to get past that, I know. I will probably continue
citing Hicks re Clarence, if only because there's no-one else done nearly so
much research! You said that you thought I was 'bullying' you in my
response. If that's how it came across, I apologise. But that's not how it
was meant. My opinions, like yours, are more a matter of reading, research
and experience than choice and conscience, but I will take your words as
they were intended.
Karen
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: ""
<>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Dear Karen,
And you find these words...grossly insulting? They were, as I recall, the
slap-dash preamble to my opinion of Hicks, which isn't at all good. (And
originated under circumstances unrelated to Richard III.) When I insult
people, trust me, there's no question as to Why and Wherefor. Even so, I do
apologize if you took it so much to heart. I meant it without vitriol. I
don't even know you; my feelings toward you are neutral, and your opinions
are entirely a matter of your own conscience and choice.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...
<mailto:Ragged_staff%40bigpond.com> >
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Judy, I'm not trying to 'awaken' anyone from their 'ignorance'. All I'm
trying to do is express my views, and my interpretation of events. Being
friendly hasn't helped, sadly. Your remark on facebook was '`by Warren, and
later by Karen. Perhaps they really are the same person?' I didn't
'conflate' this. Those were your words. And, as I've said, you are entirely
entitled to your opinion of Hicks, or anything else for that matter. Can I
please be entitled to mine? It would be nice.
Karen
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...
<mailto:warrenmalach%40yahoo.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:00:17 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of
Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like
"defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's
"innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the
"sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of
"the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship,
only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Judy Thomson
<judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Karen,
>
> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention
of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth
that
you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing
almost
indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see
red
under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe,
rather
than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my
subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under
whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael
Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>
> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of
Richard's innocence. Â Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating
for
you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened
from
their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it
make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed
the
comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished,
and
we fill in the dots on our own.Â
>
> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks
slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What
was it
Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is
equal
to the love you make."
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...>
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Â
> Judy
>
> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>
> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> hate him!".
>
> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>
> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> the 'atheist' analogy.
>
> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> parliament.
>
> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> up!
>
> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>
> Karen
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>
> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> will we?
>
> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> quietly slipped out the back door.
>
> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>
> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>
> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> presentation accordingly.
>
> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> nail.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@... <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> >
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> opinions and information.
> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> answering all your questions.
>
> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>
> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> about it's members.
> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>
> A good week to all!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 14:44:27
it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 15:18:42
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> it is, unless the
performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
ways than one.
Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> it is, unless the
performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
ways than one.
Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
roslyn
--- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To: "" <>
Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
Jonathan
________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
--- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
To:
Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> here's a challenge for you warren
> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
> Â
> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> Â
> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
> Â
> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Karen,
> >
> > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> >
> > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
> >
> > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Judy
> >
> > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
> > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
> > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
> > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
> > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
> > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
> > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
> > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
> > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
> > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
> > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
> > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
> > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
> > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> >
> > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
> > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
> > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
> > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
> > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
> > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
> > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
> > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
> > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
> > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
> > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
> > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
> > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
> > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
> > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
> > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
> > hate him!".
> >
> > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
> > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
> > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
> > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
> > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
> > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
> > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
> > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
> > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
> > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> >
> > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
> > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
> > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
> > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
> > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
> > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
> > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
> > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
> > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
> > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
> > the 'atheist' analogy.
> >
> > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
> > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
> > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
> > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
> > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
> > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
> > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
> > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
> > parliament.
> >
> > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
> > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
> > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
> > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
> > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
> > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
> > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
> > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
> > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
> > up!
> >
> > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
> > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
> > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
> > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Reply-To: <>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
> > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
> > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
> > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
> > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
> > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
> > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
> > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> >
> > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
> > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
> > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
> > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
> > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
> > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
> > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
> > will we?
> >
> > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
> > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
> > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
> > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
> > quietly slipped out the back door.
> >
> > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
> > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
> > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
> > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> >
> > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
> > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
> > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
> > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
> > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
> > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
> > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
> > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
> > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
> >
> > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
> > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
> > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
> > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
> > presentation accordingly.
> >
> > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
> > nail.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > >
> > To: "
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > <
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> >
> >
> > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
> > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
> > opinions and information.
> > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
> > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
> > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
> > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
> > answering all your questions.
> >
> > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
> > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
> > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
> > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
> > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
> > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> >
> > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
> > about it's members.
> > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
> > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> >
> > A good week to all!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Shakespeare
2012-07-31 15:52:04
I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>> it is, unless the
> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
> ways than one.
> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>
> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>
> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>
>
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>
> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> here's a challenge for you warren
>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>> Â
>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>> Â
>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>> Â
>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>> Â
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Karen,
>>>
>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>
>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>
>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>> hate him!".
>>>
>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>
>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>> parliament.
>>>
>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>> up!
>>>
>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: ""
>>> <>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>
>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>> will we?
>>>
>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>
>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>
>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>
>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>
>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>> nail.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>> To: "
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>> <
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>> opinions and information.
>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>> answering all your questions.
>>>
>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>
>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>> about it's members.
>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>
>>> A good week to all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>> it is, unless the
> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
> ways than one.
> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>
> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>
> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>
>
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>
> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> here's a challenge for you warren
>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>> Â
>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>> Â
>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>> Â
>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>> Â
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Karen,
>>>
>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>
>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>
>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>> hate him!".
>>>
>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>
>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>> parliament.
>>>
>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>> up!
>>>
>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: ""
>>> <>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>
>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>> will we?
>>>
>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>
>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>
>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>
>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>
>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>> nail.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>> To: "
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>> <
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>> opinions and information.
>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>> answering all your questions.
>>>
>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>
>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>> about it's members.
>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>
>>> A good week to all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 16:25:35
I wish they'd do the same for Macbeth!
Karen
> it is, unless the
performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do
what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
ways than one.
Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the
fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the
Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any
dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of
Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's.
Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via
Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years
ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of
Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one
of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a
Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body -
without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage
production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I
suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen,
his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
Jonathan
Karen
> it is, unless the
performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do
what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
ways than one.
Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the
fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the
Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any
dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of
Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's.
Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via
Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years
ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of
Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one
of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a
Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body -
without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage
production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I
suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen,
his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
Jonathan
Re: Shakespeare
2012-07-31 16:29:38
It's very subjective with all these things certainly. I've only seen/heard video/audio excepts of Sher, though I've admired him in other things. But McKellen, I found, totally re-invented the play and brought out lines and nuances that I'd never noticed before. As for him being a cold fish, that was very much the interpretation he went for. Had the chance to interview him when I was doing some academic work, and he couldn't have been more generous with his time, nor helpful with his analysis. I found - and, again, this is totally subjective - that he created a character that was utterly psychologically real, which I'd thought impossible with that play. And the level of technical skill he employed to convey the impression that he'd been lighting cigarettes and putting on a thirties army uniform for years with just one functioning arm was extraordinary.
Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
Jonathan
P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
Subject: Re: Shakespeare
I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>> it is, unless the
> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
> ways than one.
> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>
> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>
> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>
>
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>
> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> here's a challenge for you warren
>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>> Â
>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>> Â
>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>> Â
>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>> Â
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Karen,
>>>
>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>
>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>
>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>> hate him!".
>>>
>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>
>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>> parliament.
>>>
>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>> up!
>>>
>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: ""
>>> <>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>
>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>> will we?
>>>
>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>
>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>
>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>
>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>
>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>> nail.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>> To: "
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>> <
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>> opinions and information.
>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>> answering all your questions.
>>>
>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>
>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>> about it's members.
>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>
>>> A good week to all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
Jonathan
P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
Subject: Re: Shakespeare
I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>> it is, unless the
> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
> ways than one.
> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
>
> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>
> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>
> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>
> roslyn
>
> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To: "" <>
> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>
>
>
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>
> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>
>
> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>
> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>
> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>
> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>
> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>
>
>
> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>> here's a challenge for you warren
>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>> Â
>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>> Â
>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>> Â
>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>> Â
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Karen,
>>>
>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>
>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>
>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>
>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>> hate him!".
>>>
>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>
>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>> parliament.
>>>
>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>> up!
>>>
>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> Reply-To: <>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: ""
>>> <>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>
>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>> will we?
>>>
>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>
>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>
>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>
>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>
>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>> nail.
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>
>>> To: "
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>> <
>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>> opinions and information.
>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>> answering all your questions.
>>>
>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>
>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>> about it's members.
>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>
>>> A good week to all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Buckingham - and beyond
2012-07-31 21:19:00
Seems to me Shakespeare's RIII villan has more in common with the historical Henry VII or Buckingham than the historical Richard III.
While the historical Richard, duke of Gloucester, was establishing Edward IV's authority in the North and defeating the Scots, the historical Henry VII and Buckingham were sidelined. They had a lot more time to simmer resentments and rebellions than Gloucester did.
In Henry VI, Pt. III, Shakespeare's Richard character has a scene that's useful to quote when someone claims Shakespeare is historically accurate:
While Edward and Clarence are arguing about who did the most to win a victory for the duke of York, Richard throws Clifford's head at York's feet and says: "Speak thou for me, and tell them what I did."
The historical Richard was 2 years old at the time that Clifford was actually killed. The historical Richard was nearly 8 years old at the time Shakespeare's scene represents. That makes a roughly 6 year gap for the Shakespeare character to keep the severed head that he throws at his father's feet. Good melodrama for Elizabethan audiences. A great example of the foggy boundary between fact and fiction for history students.
Marion
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> r3 was known for his short stature, he was a bad guy according to the tudors &co. shakespeare made richard immortal..and because of this he an all time movie villian. i do not believe it was a co-incidence that there a caricature of richard was used...sadly.
> Â
> the 15thC was the end of the era with regards to witches, wizards and fairytales.   farquaad..was ending the era of fairy tale creatures..including shrek. he wanted to murder shrek to get to fiona. it is rumoured richard killed anne's first husband..edward, son of margaret d'anjou. in english/british "history" richard is the most evil king...and then there is the imagery..the similarity of farquaad and richard..in clothing, hairstyle and facial features.
> Â
> i believe it is not a coincidence that r3 was used to portray the ultimate evil guy in shrek.
> Â
> why not use h7..if you look at his portrait vs richard..which one is more scarey/evil looking?
> why? because h7 is even less known. yet..h7 was also murderous..provably so. he was greedy, stingy and paranoid..and a liar/manipulator.
> Â
> it is interesting that shakespeare never wrote a history of h7. you have to wonder if there are nuances to h7's true charactor in the bard's portrayal of richard.
> Â
> even a 2011 theatre review..offers this opinion
> Â
> The hilarious star is Nigel Harman. As dastardly mini-villain Lord Farquaad, he spends most of the show on his knees, doing mind-bogglingly lubricious dance and exercise routines with the aid of a pair of fake little yellow-stockinged legs, which have to be seen to be believed. Post-'EastEnders', Harman has done plenty of meritorious straight theatre (Pinter's 'Caretaker', Richard Greenberg's 'Three Days of Rain'). But it's here as a vertically challenged camp tyrant with delusions of Olivier's Richard III that he truly expresses himself.
> Â
> http://www.timeout.com/london/theatre/event/82691/shrek-the-musical
>
> Â
> i also loved shrek..but not the image of farquaad..it always annoys me. thankfully farquaad has very few moments in front of the camera. i also love john lithgow, who voiced farquaad. i giggle and gafaw nightly to the reruns of third rock from the sun.
> Â
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 5:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Since Shrek is one of my all time favorite movies, I'd like to bring up
> a minor but relevant point about Lord Farquaad--from Wikipedia
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Farquaad> :
> There is some speculation that Lord Farquaad's appearance may be
> inspired by Michael Eisner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner>
> , the then-CEO of The Walt Disney Company
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company> , owing to
> producer Jeffrey Katzenberg
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg> 's animosity toward
> his former employer
> So, it's most likely coincidental if Farquaad's appearance resembles the
> r3 NPG portrait. [:D]
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was.
> he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was
> caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children
> who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
> > Â
> > productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis
> or ill informed fail to know the truth.
> > Â
> > so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as"
> portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public
> "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
> > Â
> > within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who
> richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading
> a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he
> knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that
> Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the
> "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and
> white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is
> the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about
> which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified
> by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> > WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the
> crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > here's a challenge for you warren
> > > produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty
> of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more,
> shakespeare, et al.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with
> official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the
> deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also
> join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap
> sheet".
> > > ÂÂ
> > > g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the
> challenge?
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > > To:
> > > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting
> like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does
> Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY
> from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into
> the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
> partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for
> "other purposes."
> > >
> > > --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Karen,
> > > >
> > > > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
> that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation
> of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
> and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it
> all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and
> his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> > > >
> > > > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
> support of Richard's innocence. ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ Trying to change this
> will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's
> how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more
> rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the
> last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill
> in the dots on our own.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end,
> the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
> beyond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or
> white on any
> > > > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is
> the seeming
> > > > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
> the
> > > > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a
> very strong
> > > > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
> Wars of
> > > > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and
> white views I
> > > > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
> discuss
> > > > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
> made any
> > > > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of
> the
> > > > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
> up ideas
> > > > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
> with, I
> > > > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
> anything, I feel
> > > > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be
> quiet. This
> > > > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> > > >
> > > > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
> something I
> > > > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
> something else
> > > > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
> kind of
> > > > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> facebook
> > > > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
> Michael
> > > > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> despise
> > > > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
> You
> > > > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
> quite
> > > > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
> same
> > > > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
> responded
> > > > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> accepted
> > > > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
> agree. As I
> > > > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate
> his books at
> > > > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But
> I wouldn't
> > > > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
> they valued
> > > > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> Kendall! I
> > > > hate him!".
> > > >
> > > > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
> have not
> > > > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
> the same
> > > > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that
> is
> > > > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
> anyone letting
> > > > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
> this 'us'
> > > > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
> behind
> > > > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
> think that
> > > > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
> things get
> > > > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
> sufficient
> > > > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if
> members
> > > > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
> are some
> > > > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared,
> then they
> > > > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
> forum
> > > > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
> need to be
> > > > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know.
> No-one does.)
> > > > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
> liken belief
> > > > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
> to be
> > > > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
> did are,
> > > > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> without
> > > > the 'atheist' analogy.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to
> debate issues
> > > > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
> this is
> > > > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening
> to others,
> > > > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
> bits.
> > > > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
> contentious. You
> > > > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
> told that
> > > > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
> blog
> > > > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick
> to
> > > > parliament.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> conversation
> > > > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
> I'd like to
> > > > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
> as others
> > > > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
> There's a
> > > > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
> stuff!) I'd
> > > > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
> training,
> > > > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I
> said wasn't
> > > > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
> I've said
> > > > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
> to speak
> > > > up!
> > > >
> > > > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
> actually quite
> > > > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
> haven't been
> > > > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
> chest
> > > > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > To: ""
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
> beyond
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
> It's not
> > > > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
> presented and
> > > > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
> virtual
> > > > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
> been no
> > > > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in
> no
> > > > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or
> even
> > > > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around
> here, hence
> > > > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> > > >
> > > > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion
> on Richard,
> > > > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White
> on the
> > > > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
> have born
> > > > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't
> even say
> > > > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing
> this to
> > > > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
> There are
> > > > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
> never know,
> > > > will we?
> > > >
> > > > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have
> perceived,
> > > > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no
> way to win
> > > > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
> "ganging up" on
> > > > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
> many just
> > > > quietly slipped out the back door.
> > > >
> > > > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
> and Warren
> > > > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael
> Hicks, whom
> > > > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
> Facebook.
> > > > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> > > >
> > > > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious
> and
> > > > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
> rule,
> > > > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
> points
> > > > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old,
> established
> > > > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard
> totally
> > > > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> guilty of
> > > > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
> them or
> > > > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
> would listen.
> > > > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with
> sources.
> > > >
> > > > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
> what the
> > > > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
> done it" is
> > > > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
> give a
> > > > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
> your
> > > > presentation accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
> looks like a
> > > > nail.
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: "
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > >
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
> although I
> > > > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
> messages,
> > > > opinions and information.
> > > > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong
> but I
> > > > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This
> is a
> > > > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here
> to pick
> > > > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
> courteous in
> > > > answering all your questions.
> > > >
> > > > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
> fact that
> > > > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not
> to
> > > > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
> me that
> > > > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > > > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a
> favour and
> > > > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> personal
> > > > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> > > >
> > > > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
> III, not
> > > > about it's members.
> > > > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
> discussion and
> > > > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> > > >
> > > > A good week to all!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
While the historical Richard, duke of Gloucester, was establishing Edward IV's authority in the North and defeating the Scots, the historical Henry VII and Buckingham were sidelined. They had a lot more time to simmer resentments and rebellions than Gloucester did.
In Henry VI, Pt. III, Shakespeare's Richard character has a scene that's useful to quote when someone claims Shakespeare is historically accurate:
While Edward and Clarence are arguing about who did the most to win a victory for the duke of York, Richard throws Clifford's head at York's feet and says: "Speak thou for me, and tell them what I did."
The historical Richard was 2 years old at the time that Clifford was actually killed. The historical Richard was nearly 8 years old at the time Shakespeare's scene represents. That makes a roughly 6 year gap for the Shakespeare character to keep the severed head that he throws at his father's feet. Good melodrama for Elizabethan audiences. A great example of the foggy boundary between fact and fiction for history students.
Marion
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> r3 was known for his short stature, he was a bad guy according to the tudors &co. shakespeare made richard immortal..and because of this he an all time movie villian. i do not believe it was a co-incidence that there a caricature of richard was used...sadly.
> Â
> the 15thC was the end of the era with regards to witches, wizards and fairytales.   farquaad..was ending the era of fairy tale creatures..including shrek. he wanted to murder shrek to get to fiona. it is rumoured richard killed anne's first husband..edward, son of margaret d'anjou. in english/british "history" richard is the most evil king...and then there is the imagery..the similarity of farquaad and richard..in clothing, hairstyle and facial features.
> Â
> i believe it is not a coincidence that r3 was used to portray the ultimate evil guy in shrek.
> Â
> why not use h7..if you look at his portrait vs richard..which one is more scarey/evil looking?
> why? because h7 is even less known. yet..h7 was also murderous..provably so. he was greedy, stingy and paranoid..and a liar/manipulator.
> Â
> it is interesting that shakespeare never wrote a history of h7. you have to wonder if there are nuances to h7's true charactor in the bard's portrayal of richard.
> Â
> even a 2011 theatre review..offers this opinion
> Â
> The hilarious star is Nigel Harman. As dastardly mini-villain Lord Farquaad, he spends most of the show on his knees, doing mind-bogglingly lubricious dance and exercise routines with the aid of a pair of fake little yellow-stockinged legs, which have to be seen to be believed. Post-'EastEnders', Harman has done plenty of meritorious straight theatre (Pinter's 'Caretaker', Richard Greenberg's 'Three Days of Rain'). But it's here as a vertically challenged camp tyrant with delusions of Olivier's Richard III that he truly expresses himself.
> Â
> http://www.timeout.com/london/theatre/event/82691/shrek-the-musical
>
> Â
> i also loved shrek..but not the image of farquaad..it always annoys me. thankfully farquaad has very few moments in front of the camera. i also love john lithgow, who voiced farquaad. i giggle and gafaw nightly to the reruns of third rock from the sun.
> Â
> Â
>
> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: joanszechtman <u2nohoo@...>
> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> To:
> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 5:12 PM
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Since Shrek is one of my all time favorite movies, I'd like to bring up
> a minor but relevant point about Lord Farquaad--from Wikipedia
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Farquaad> :
> There is some speculation that Lord Farquaad's appearance may be
> inspired by Michael Eisner <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Eisner>
> , the then-CEO of The Walt Disney Company
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walt_Disney_Company> , owing to
> producer Jeffrey Katzenberg
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg> 's animosity toward
> his former employer
> So, it's most likely coincidental if Farquaad's appearance resembles the
> r3 NPG portrait. [:D]
>
> Joan
> ---
> This Time--General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie Book
> Awards
> Loyalty Binds Me--recommended by Midwest Book reviews
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/> --trailer <http://youtu.be/O49HPSN08NI>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was.
> he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was
> caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children
> who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
> > Â
> > productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis
> or ill informed fail to know the truth.
> > Â
> > so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as"
> portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public
> "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
> > Â
> > within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who
> richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading
> a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he
> knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
> >
> > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > To:
> > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that
> Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the
> "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and
> white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is
> the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about
> which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified
> by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
> > WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the
> crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
> >
> > --- In , fayre rose fayreroze@
> wrote:
> > >
> > > here's a challenge for you warren
> > > produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty
> of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more,
> shakespeare, et al.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with
> official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the
> deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also
> join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap
> sheet".
> > > ÂÂ
> > > g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the
> challenge?
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach warrenmalach@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: warrenmalach warrenmalach@
> > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > > To:
> > > Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced
> of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting
> like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does
> Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY
> from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into
> the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such
> partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for
> "other purposes."
> > >
> > > --- In , Judy Thomson
> <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Karen,
> > > >
> > > > Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted)
> my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was
> objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at
> that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation
> of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I
> recused myself to another universe, rather than type something
> "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark,
> and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it
> all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and
> his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
> > > >
> > > > It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in
> support of Richard's innocence. ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ Trying to change this
> will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so
> important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's
> how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more
> rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the
> last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill
> in the dots on our own.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside,
> looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a
> thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end,
> the love you take is equal to the love you make."
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
> beyond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or
> white on any
> > > > issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is
> the seeming
> > > > dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over
> the
> > > > discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a
> very strong
> > > > motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the
> Wars of
> > > > the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and
> white views I
> > > > perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather
> discuss
> > > > these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has
> made any
> > > > 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of
> the
> > > > hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring
> up ideas
> > > > that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal
> with, I
> > > > don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss
> anything, I feel
> > > > that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be
> quiet. This
> > > > really shouldn't happen on this forum.
> > > >
> > > > As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to
> something I
> > > > said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to
> something else
> > > > with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some
> kind of
> > > > fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your
> > > > comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking
> Michael
> > > > Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and
> despise
> > > > whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice!
> You
> > > > certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated
> quite
> > > > clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the
> same
> > > > person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I
> responded
> > > > with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I
> accepted
> > > > totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't
> agree. As I
> > > > said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate
> his books at
> > > > all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But
> I wouldn't
> > > > write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something
> they valued
> > > > from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting
> Kendall! I
> > > > hate him!".
> > > >
> > > > I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I
> have not
> > > > and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is
> the same
> > > > courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that
> is
> > > > 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without
> anyone letting
> > > > me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of
> this 'us'
> > > > and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone
> behind
> > > > their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't
> think that
> > > > was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope
> things get
> > > > better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't
> sufficient
> > > > reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if
> members
> > > > (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there
> are some
> > > > aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared,
> then they
> > > > should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this
> forum
> > > > that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the
> need to be
> > > > quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know.
> No-one does.)
> > > > I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You
> liken belief
> > > > in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me,
> to be
> > > > frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who
> did are,
> > > > in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to
> without
> > > > the 'atheist' analogy.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to
> debate issues
> > > > without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But
> this is
> > > > what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening
> to others,
> > > > disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other
> bits.
> > > > None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately
> contentious. You
> > > > talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm
> told that
> > > > they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my
> blog
> > > > where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick
> to
> > > > parliament.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the
> conversation
> > > > without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced.
> I'd like to
> > > > share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can,
> as others
> > > > do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s.
> There's a
> > > > lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating
> stuff!) I'd
> > > > also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my
> training,
> > > > research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I
> said wasn't
> > > > hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things
> I've said
> > > > here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid
> to speak
> > > > up!
> > > >
> > > > I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're
> actually quite
> > > > good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I
> haven't been
> > > > in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty
> chest
> > > > infection. Being unwell is no fun!
> > > >
> > > > Karen
> > > >
> > > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > > Reply-To:
> > > > Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > To: ""
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and
> beyond
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make.
> It's not
> > > > the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's
> presented and
> > > > the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a
> virtual
> > > > barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have
> been no
> > > > ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in
> no
> > > > perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or
> even
> > > > general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around
> here, hence
> > > > the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
> > > >
> > > > Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion
> on Richard,
> > > > if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White
> on the
> > > > issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may
> have born
> > > > responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't
> even say
> > > > their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing
> this to
> > > > happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey.
> There are
> > > > also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll
> never know,
> > > > will we?
> > > >
> > > > But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have
> perceived,
> > > > rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no
> way to win
> > > > friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of
> "ganging up" on
> > > > people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how
> many just
> > > > quietly slipped out the back door.
> > > >
> > > > Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you
> and Warren
> > > > were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael
> Hicks, whom
> > > > I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on
> Facebook.
> > > > Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
> > > >
> > > > The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious
> and
> > > > provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a
> rule,
> > > > conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No
> points
> > > > are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old,
> established
> > > > neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard
> totally
> > > > innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him
> guilty of
> > > > killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out"
> them or
> > > > encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we
> would listen.
> > > > Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with
> sources.
> > > >
> > > > The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless
> what the
> > > > literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He
> done it" is
> > > > a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to
> give a
> > > > talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust
> your
> > > > presentation accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything
> looks like a
> > > > nail.
> > > >
> > > > Judy
> > > >
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
> > > > >
> > > > To: "
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> > > >
> > > > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and
> although I
> > > > don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members
> messages,
> > > > opinions and information.
> > > > I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong
> but I
> > > > couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This
> is a
> > > > Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here
> to pick
> > > > arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very
> courteous in
> > > > answering all your questions.
> > > >
> > > > I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the
> fact that
> > > > you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not
> to
> > > > exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to
> me that
> > > > you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
> > > > intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a
> favour and
> > > > bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your
> personal
> > > > opinion) and try not pick fights.
> > > >
> > > > As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard
> III, not
> > > > about it's members.
> > > > Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of
> discussion and
> > > > would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
> > > >
> > > > A good week to all!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: The end
2012-08-01 11:05:58
Thank you Neil
________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:38
Subject: The end
To all:
I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other members contributions have been.
The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this violated that request.
Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and start an attack again with his views.
Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make, probably the second time in the Forums history.
Regards,
Neil
.
>
________________________________
From: Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:38
Subject: The end
To all:
I have just terminated the membership of Warren. I wanted to give him an opportunity to change and add value to the forum, but with my response over the weekender to him, it was clearly discarded as other members contributions have been.
The final decision was based on two emails he sent this evening. The first was to ask about members reasons for being a Ricardian etc. The forum states it is a place to discuss Richard and his time, this violated that request.
Secondly and more importantly, Fayre Rose laid down the gauntlet with a reasonable request/challenge to defend himself about his position on Richard. The response was basically not to accept the challenge and start an attack again with his views.
Sorry if the agony was protracted but I just had to sit on the fence until such time I was comfortable with the decision I had to make, probably the second time in the Forums history.
Regards,
Neil
.
>
Re: Shakespeare
2012-08-01 11:36:42
Yes Jonathan, it is indeed subjective, but I think the main thing missing from Ian's Richard was he wasn't sexy, and he has to be to seduce so many people, female and male. Ian is indeed a charmer, so personally I have nothing against him, and Tony Sher replied to a fan letter I wrote him after the preview I saw, and I have only ever written one fan letter before, to Charlton Heston after Ben-Hur. He invited me to come round next time I came, and when I did he took me on stage and then to dinner at the Dirty Duck in Stratford, where most of the cast were imbibing after the show. I also got a by-line in an article he wrote for the Observer when he quoted my letter. I can't now remember exactly what I said, but it was similar to your comment, along the lines of "Shakespeare wrote a brilliantly funny morality play, and without it I doubt the Richard the Third Society would have been formed and the king's reputation in history been restored".
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:29, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> It's very subjective with all these things certainly. I've only seen/heard video/audio excepts of Sher, though I've admired him in other things. But McKellen, I found, totally re-invented the play and brought out lines and nuances that I'd never noticed before. As for him being a cold fish, that was very much the interpretation he went for. Had the chance to interview him when I was doing some academic work, and he couldn't have been more generous with his time, nor helpful with his analysis. I found - and, again, this is totally subjective - that he created a character that was utterly psychologically real, which I'd thought impossible with that play. And the level of technical skill he employed to convey the impression that he'd been lighting cigarettes and putting on a thirties army uniform for years with just one functioning arm was extraordinary.
>
> Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
>
> I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
>
> Jonathan
>
> P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>
> I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
> The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
> Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
> i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
> As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
> Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>> it is, unless the
>> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
>> ways than one.
>> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
>> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
>> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>>
>> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>>
>> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To: "" <>
>> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>
>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>>
>> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>>
>> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>>
>> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
>> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>>
>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> here's a challenge for you warren
>>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>>> Â
>>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>>> Â
>>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>>> Â
>>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>>> Â
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To:
>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>>
>>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Karen,
>>>>
>>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>>
>>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>>
>>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>>> hate him!".
>>>>
>>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>>> parliament.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>>> up!
>>>>
>>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>>
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>>> Reply-To: <>
>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> To: ""
>>>> <>
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>>
>>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>>> will we?
>>>>
>>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>>
>>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>>
>>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>>
>>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>>> nail.
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>> To: "
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>>> <
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>>> opinions and information.
>>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>>> answering all your questions.
>>>>
>>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>>
>>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>>> about it's members.
>>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>>
>>>> A good week to all!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:29, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> It's very subjective with all these things certainly. I've only seen/heard video/audio excepts of Sher, though I've admired him in other things. But McKellen, I found, totally re-invented the play and brought out lines and nuances that I'd never noticed before. As for him being a cold fish, that was very much the interpretation he went for. Had the chance to interview him when I was doing some academic work, and he couldn't have been more generous with his time, nor helpful with his analysis. I found - and, again, this is totally subjective - that he created a character that was utterly psychologically real, which I'd thought impossible with that play. And the level of technical skill he employed to convey the impression that he'd been lighting cigarettes and putting on a thirties army uniform for years with just one functioning arm was extraordinary.
>
> Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
>
> I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
>
> Jonathan
>
> P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>
> I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
> The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
> Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
> i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
> As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
> Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>> it is, unless the
>> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
>> ways than one.
>> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
>> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
>> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>>
>> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>>
>> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To: "" <>
>> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>
>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>>
>> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>>
>> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>>
>> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
>> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>>
>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> here's a challenge for you warren
>>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>>> Â
>>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>>> Â
>>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>>> Â
>>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>>> Â
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To:
>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>>
>>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Karen,
>>>>
>>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>>
>>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>>
>>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>>> hate him!".
>>>>
>>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>>> parliament.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>>> up!
>>>>
>>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>>
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>>> Reply-To: <>
>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> To: ""
>>>> <>
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>>
>>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>>> will we?
>>>>
>>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>>
>>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>>
>>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>>
>>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>>> nail.
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>> To: "
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>>> <
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>>> opinions and information.
>>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>>> answering all your questions.
>>>>
>>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>>
>>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>>> about it's members.
>>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>>
>>>> A good week to all!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Shakespeare
2012-08-01 13:32:12
Hmm... Interesting. I agree McKellen wasn't sexy in the role, but there were so many other gains (the clarity with which social classes were defined; the reactions of the citizenry - never has "Marry, we were sent for to the justices" sounded so ominous; a real sense of creeping and all encompassing dread; oh - andthe best staging of the nightmare sequence I've ever seen, complete with barbed wire crown) that I didn't miss that. I suppose Olivier was sexy - and certainly outrageously flirtatious. But that's not been a quality I've associated with many modern Richards. Simon Russell Beale didn't have it, nor did David Troughton... Jacobi played it as black comedy. Robert Lindsay was rather stolid... Kevin Spacey, possibly, though I didn't like what I heard about that production, not least the fact that Sam Mendes handled it almost as a re-cast revival of his earlier one with SRB. And although Mark Rylance looks to be doing interesting
things - probably too interesting! - I don't think he's a sexy Richard, either
Actually, for that kind of quality, I'd be interested to see Andrew Scott do it. He was a rather manic Moriarty in 'Sherlock', but he read Gloucester beautifully in a couple of excerpts in Simon Schama's recent series on Shakespeare. Genuine edginess and barely supressed violence disconcertingly combined with deep soulful eyes.
Lovely to hear how friendly Antony Sher was. Thank you for sharing that.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 21:23
Subject: Re: Shakespeare
Yes Jonathan, it is indeed subjective, but I think the main thing missing from Ian's Richard was he wasn't sexy, and he has to be to seduce so many people, female and male. Ian is indeed a charmer, so personally I have nothing against him, and Tony Sher replied to a fan letter I wrote him after the preview I saw, and I have only ever written one fan letter before, to Charlton Heston after Ben-Hur. He invited me to come round next time I came, and when I did he took me on stage and then to dinner at the Dirty Duck in Stratford, where most of the cast were imbibing after the show. I also got a by-line in an article he wrote for the Observer when he quoted my letter. I can't now remember exactly what I said, but it was similar to your comment, along the lines of "Shakespeare wrote a brilliantly funny morality play, and without it I doubt the Richard the Third Society would have been formed and the king's reputation in history been restored".
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:29, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> It's very subjective with all these things certainly. I've only seen/heard video/audio excepts of Sher, though I've admired him in other things. But McKellen, I found, totally re-invented the play and brought out lines and nuances that I'd never noticed before. As for him being a cold fish, that was very much the interpretation he went for. Had the chance to interview him when I was doing some academic work, and he couldn't have been more generous with his time, nor helpful with his analysis. I found - and, again, this is totally subjective - that he created a character that was utterly psychologically real, which I'd thought impossible with that play. And the level of technical skill he employed to convey the impression that he'd been lighting cigarettes and putting on a thirties army uniform for years with just one functioning arm was extraordinary.
>
> Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
>
> I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
>
> Jonathan
>
> P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>
> I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
> The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
> Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
> i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
> As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
> Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>> it is, unless the
>> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
>> ways than one.
>> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
>> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
>> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>>
>> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>>
>> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To: "" <>
>> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>
>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>>
>> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>>
>> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>>
>> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
>> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>>
>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> here's a challenge for you warren
>>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>>> Â
>>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>>> Â
>>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>>> Â
>>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>>> Â
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To:
>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>>
>>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Karen,
>>>>
>>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>>
>>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>>
>>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>>> hate him!".
>>>>
>>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>>> parliament.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>>> up!
>>>>
>>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>>
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>>> Reply-To: <>
>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> To: ""
>>>> <>
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>>
>>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>>> will we?
>>>>
>>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>>
>>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>>
>>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>>
>>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>>> nail.
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>> To: "
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>>> <
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>>> opinions and information.
>>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>>> answering all your questions.
>>>>
>>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>>
>>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>>> about it's members.
>>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>>
>>>> A good week to all!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
things - probably too interesting! - I don't think he's a sexy Richard, either
Actually, for that kind of quality, I'd be interested to see Andrew Scott do it. He was a rather manic Moriarty in 'Sherlock', but he read Gloucester beautifully in a couple of excerpts in Simon Schama's recent series on Shakespeare. Genuine edginess and barely supressed violence disconcertingly combined with deep soulful eyes.
Lovely to hear how friendly Antony Sher was. Thank you for sharing that.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 21:23
Subject: Re: Shakespeare
Yes Jonathan, it is indeed subjective, but I think the main thing missing from Ian's Richard was he wasn't sexy, and he has to be to seduce so many people, female and male. Ian is indeed a charmer, so personally I have nothing against him, and Tony Sher replied to a fan letter I wrote him after the preview I saw, and I have only ever written one fan letter before, to Charlton Heston after Ben-Hur. He invited me to come round next time I came, and when I did he took me on stage and then to dinner at the Dirty Duck in Stratford, where most of the cast were imbibing after the show. I also got a by-line in an article he wrote for the Observer when he quoted my letter. I can't now remember exactly what I said, but it was similar to your comment, along the lines of "Shakespeare wrote a brilliantly funny morality play, and without it I doubt the Richard the Third Society would have been formed and the king's reputation in history been restored".
Paul
On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:29, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> It's very subjective with all these things certainly. I've only seen/heard video/audio excepts of Sher, though I've admired him in other things. But McKellen, I found, totally re-invented the play and brought out lines and nuances that I'd never noticed before. As for him being a cold fish, that was very much the interpretation he went for. Had the chance to interview him when I was doing some academic work, and he couldn't have been more generous with his time, nor helpful with his analysis. I found - and, again, this is totally subjective - that he created a character that was utterly psychologically real, which I'd thought impossible with that play. And the level of technical skill he employed to convey the impression that he'd been lighting cigarettes and putting on a thirties army uniform for years with just one functioning arm was extraordinary.
>
> Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
>
> I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
>
> Jonathan
>
> P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>
> I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
> The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
> Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
> i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
> As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
> Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>> it is, unless the
>> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
>> ways than one.
>> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
>> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
>> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>>
>> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>>
>> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>>
>> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To: "" <>
>> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>
>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>>
>> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>
>>
>> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>>
>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>>
>> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>>
>> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>> To:
>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
>> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>>
>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> here's a challenge for you warren
>>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>>> Â
>>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>>> Â
>>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>>> Â
>>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>>> Â
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To:
>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>>
>>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Karen,
>>>>
>>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>>
>>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ÃÂ
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>>
>>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>>> hate him!".
>>>>
>>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>>> parliament.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>>> up!
>>>>
>>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>>
>>>> Karen
>>>>
>>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>>> Reply-To: <>
>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> To: ""
>>>> <>
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>>
>>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>>> will we?
>>>>
>>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>>
>>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>>
>>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>>
>>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>>> nail.
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>
>>>> To: "
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>>> <
>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>>> opinions and information.
>>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>>> answering all your questions.
>>>>
>>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>>
>>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>>> about it's members.
>>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>>
>>>> A good week to all!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Shakespeare
2012-08-01 16:39:17
I saw Ralph Fiennes playing Edgar in King Lear at Stratford and ran into him in the street later, accosted him, had a nice chat and told him I thought his Edgar a dry run for Richard, and that he really should take it on. He unfortunately hasn't, but I think a few years ago he would have been wonderful.
I'm interested in whatever Andrew Scott does. He is a fascinating actor.
Paul
On 1 Aug 2012, at 12:50, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Hmm... Interesting. I agree McKellen wasn't sexy in the role, but there were so many other gains (the clarity with which social classes were defined; the reactions of the citizenry - never has "Marry, we were sent for to the justices" sounded so ominous; a real sense of creeping and all encompassing dread; oh - andthe best staging of the nightmare sequence I've ever seen, complete with barbed wire crown) that I didn't miss that. I suppose Olivier was sexy - and certainly outrageously flirtatious. But that's not been a quality I've associated with many modern Richards. Simon Russell Beale didn't have it, nor did David Troughton... Jacobi played it as black comedy. Robert Lindsay was rather stolid... Kevin Spacey, possibly, though I didn't like what I heard about that production, not least the fact that Sam Mendes handled it almost as a re-cast revival of his earlier one with SRB. And although Mark Rylance looks to be doing interesting
> things - probably too interesting! - I don't think he's a sexy Richard, either
>
>
> Actually, for that kind of quality, I'd be interested to see Andrew Scott do it. He was a rather manic Moriarty in 'Sherlock', but he read Gloucester beautifully in a couple of excerpts in Simon Schama's recent series on Shakespeare. Genuine edginess and barely supressed violence disconcertingly combined with deep soulful eyes.
>
> Lovely to hear how friendly Antony Sher was. Thank you for sharing that.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 21:23
> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>
> Yes Jonathan, it is indeed subjective, but I think the main thing missing from Ian's Richard was he wasn't sexy, and he has to be to seduce so many people, female and male. Ian is indeed a charmer, so personally I have nothing against him, and Tony Sher replied to a fan letter I wrote him after the preview I saw, and I have only ever written one fan letter before, to Charlton Heston after Ben-Hur. He invited me to come round next time I came, and when I did he took me on stage and then to dinner at the Dirty Duck in Stratford, where most of the cast were imbibing after the show. I also got a by-line in an article he wrote for the Observer when he quoted my letter. I can't now remember exactly what I said, but it was similar to your comment, along the lines of "Shakespeare wrote a brilliantly funny morality play, and without it I doubt the Richard the Third Society would have been formed and the king's reputation in history been restored".
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:29, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
>> It's very subjective with all these things certainly. I've only seen/heard video/audio excepts of Sher, though I've admired him in other things. But McKellen, I found, totally re-invented the play and brought out lines and nuances that I'd never noticed before. As for him being a cold fish, that was very much the interpretation he went for. Had the chance to interview him when I was doing some academic work, and he couldn't have been more generous with his time, nor helpful with his analysis. I found - and, again, this is totally subjective - that he created a character that was utterly psychologically real, which I'd thought impossible with that play. And the level of technical skill he employed to convey the impression that he'd been lighting cigarettes and putting on a thirties army uniform for years with just one functioning arm was extraordinary.
>>
>> Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
>>
>> I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
>> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>>
>> I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
>> The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
>> Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
>> i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
>> As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
>> Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>>> it is, unless the
>>> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
>>> ways than one.
>>> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
>>> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
>>> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>>>
>>> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>>>
>>> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>>>
>>> roslyn
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>>
>>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>>>
>>> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>>>
>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>>>
>>> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>>>
>>> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To:
>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
>>> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>>>
>>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> here's a challenge for you warren
>>>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>>>> Â
>>>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>>>> Â
>>>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>>>> Â
>>>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>> To:
>>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>>>
>>>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Karen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>>>
>>>>> Judy
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>> Judy
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>>>> hate him!".
>>>>>
>>>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>>>> parliament.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>>>> up!
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>>>> Reply-To: <>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> To: ""
>>>>> <>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>>>
>>>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>>>> will we?
>>>>>
>>>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>>>
>>>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>>>> nail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Judy
>>>>>
>>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> To: "
>>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>>>> <
>>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>>>> opinions and information.
>>>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>>>> answering all your questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>>>> about it's members.
>>>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> A good week to all!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
I'm interested in whatever Andrew Scott does. He is a fascinating actor.
Paul
On 1 Aug 2012, at 12:50, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Hmm... Interesting. I agree McKellen wasn't sexy in the role, but there were so many other gains (the clarity with which social classes were defined; the reactions of the citizenry - never has "Marry, we were sent for to the justices" sounded so ominous; a real sense of creeping and all encompassing dread; oh - andthe best staging of the nightmare sequence I've ever seen, complete with barbed wire crown) that I didn't miss that. I suppose Olivier was sexy - and certainly outrageously flirtatious. But that's not been a quality I've associated with many modern Richards. Simon Russell Beale didn't have it, nor did David Troughton... Jacobi played it as black comedy. Robert Lindsay was rather stolid... Kevin Spacey, possibly, though I didn't like what I heard about that production, not least the fact that Sam Mendes handled it almost as a re-cast revival of his earlier one with SRB. And although Mark Rylance looks to be doing interesting
> things - probably too interesting! - I don't think he's a sexy Richard, either
>
>
> Actually, for that kind of quality, I'd be interested to see Andrew Scott do it. He was a rather manic Moriarty in 'Sherlock', but he read Gloucester beautifully in a couple of excerpts in Simon Schama's recent series on Shakespeare. Genuine edginess and barely supressed violence disconcertingly combined with deep soulful eyes.
>
> Lovely to hear how friendly Antony Sher was. Thank you for sharing that.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 21:23
> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>
> Yes Jonathan, it is indeed subjective, but I think the main thing missing from Ian's Richard was he wasn't sexy, and he has to be to seduce so many people, female and male. Ian is indeed a charmer, so personally I have nothing against him, and Tony Sher replied to a fan letter I wrote him after the preview I saw, and I have only ever written one fan letter before, to Charlton Heston after Ben-Hur. He invited me to come round next time I came, and when I did he took me on stage and then to dinner at the Dirty Duck in Stratford, where most of the cast were imbibing after the show. I also got a by-line in an article he wrote for the Observer when he quoted my letter. I can't now remember exactly what I said, but it was similar to your comment, along the lines of "Shakespeare wrote a brilliantly funny morality play, and without it I doubt the Richard the Third Society would have been formed and the king's reputation in history been restored".
> Paul
>
> On 31 Jul 2012, at 16:29, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
>> It's very subjective with all these things certainly. I've only seen/heard video/audio excepts of Sher, though I've admired him in other things. But McKellen, I found, totally re-invented the play and brought out lines and nuances that I'd never noticed before. As for him being a cold fish, that was very much the interpretation he went for. Had the chance to interview him when I was doing some academic work, and he couldn't have been more generous with his time, nor helpful with his analysis. I found - and, again, this is totally subjective - that he created a character that was utterly psychologically real, which I'd thought impossible with that play. And the level of technical skill he employed to convey the impression that he'd been lighting cigarettes and putting on a thirties army uniform for years with just one functioning arm was extraordinary.
>>
>> Re the cold fish thing, maybe that contributed to the second "wooing scene" with Elizabeth coming across more strongly than the first with Anne. The former's normally seen as a pale re-tread of the latter, but I liked the change in emphasis. McKellen opposite Clare Higgins in that was like witnessing the ultimate battle of wills, with a black-clad rank of soldiers looking on. And when Elizabeth exits, all the men share a little laugh.
>>
>> I sent McKellen a copy of Audrey Williamson's book as a thank you, and he wrote back to say that he'd known her. And a friend of mine later, quite by chance, encountered one of McKellen's relatives walking the battlefield trail, having been inspired by the production to visit it. So, for all the harm that the Shakespeare play has done to Richard's reputation, I think fewer people would have come to know the real Richard without it.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> P.S. A lot more theatre is now being filmed for archive purposes, but it's a huge shame that so little is commercially released. There's a four-camera video of Harriet Walter's Cleopatra that I'd love to own, but the only way to see it is to apply to the V&A.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 15:51
>> Subject: Re: Shakespeare
>>
>> I have to disagree about McKellen who I found a cold fish on both stage and film.
>> The very best I have seen by miles was Antony Sher at Stratford in 1984, the same year as Branagh's magnificent Henry V on stage.
>> Sher played it on crutches, at times terrifying, at others sympathetic, and spoke the verse so beautifully that not only did he have us rooting for him the night before Bosworth, but made me forget Olivier's performance, the sound of which had hung over me since the early 50s film version.
>> i went back 11 times. If only they were filming theatre productions then as they do nowadays. All there is are a few minutes the BBC did during rehearsals.
>> As for Joe Public, coming out the Young Vic a few years ago after a performance of the RSC production of Henry VI parts 1 - 3, and Richard 3, marathon indeed, I heard a German man ask one of the ushers 'Is that really history?' to which the girl replied "Oh yes!" stopped me in my tracks and had me screaming before I realised I should quieten down before I got arrested. I managed to set the German right before he left!
>> Best thing about that version was casting the same actress to play Joan of Arc and Margaret of Anjou. We went off to "screw" the French, then they sent her to us to return the compliment!
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 31 Jul 2012, at 15:18, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>>> it is, unless the
>>> performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more
>>> ways than one.
>>> Most programmes now include a section on the sources and acknowledge the fact that they're hardly unbiased, and often also discuss the debt to the Vice figure etc. No one should look to Shakespeare - or, indeed, any dramatist or film-maker - for a history lesson. Arguably his buffing of Henry V's reputation is as damaging as his tarnishing of Richard's. Actually, it's far more insidious because the distortion is not so blatant.
>>> There's also the fact that many people come to the historical Richard via Shakespeare. The very first thing that attracted my interest 30-odd years ago was being taken to Bosworth on a school trip and seeing a portrait of Henry VII that looked rather more like Olivier in full make-up than the one of Richard! I'd go as far as to suggest that there might not even be a Richard III Society - at least, nothing beyond a small scholarly body - without the the huge cultural impact of the play to react against.
>>> The best Richard of at least the last 20 years is Ian McKellen (the NT stage production more so than the film, although the film's very striking), and I suspect, despite it being the darkest reading of the role that I've seen, his performance created more Ricardians than adherents to Henry Tudor.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 31 July 2012, 14:44
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> it is, unless the performance has an intro or closing explaining that real richard did not do what the play says he did. otherwise the play is a tragedy in more ways than one.
>>>
>>> a misrepresentation of richard is also presented in shakespeare's henry vi.
>>>
>>> as long as these two plays are produced, without additional commentary, the false history of richard continues to be fed to the general public. and that is a bad thing.
>>>
>>> roslyn
>>>
>>> --- On Tue, 7/31/12, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Received: Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 5:29 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>>
>>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced
>>>
>>> I'm intrigued. You say that like it's a bad thing. :-)
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, 30 July 2012, 21:51
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>
>>>
>>> a great many people don't even have a clue about who richard is/was. he is frequently parodied..lord farquar in the animation of shrek..was caricature of richard. so, you have a whole new generation of children who see a portrait of richard, and think of the jerk in a cartoon.
>>>
>>> productions of shakespeare's richard are still being produced..the mis or ill informed fail to know the truth.
>>>
>>> so, until it becomes common knowledge that richard isn't "as" portrayed by actors, cartoonists and lazy subjective and public "authoritive" historians...the beat goes on to clear richard's name.
>>>
>>> within the last year, i've had to explain to my cardiologist who richard was and the lies told about him. he asked because i was reading a book about richard while i waited to be seen by him, the doctor..he knew the shakespeare version..but not the truth.
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>> To:
>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 4:12 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You COMPLETELY misunderstand what I am saying! I am NOT saying that Richard committed ALL of the crimes of which he was accused by the "Tudor Myth." WHY must the dicussion of Richard become so "black and white"? Noticing this "trait" in some of the members of this forum is the reason WHY I believe that, for some, Richard is a "Cause" about which they have developed an "emotional" response which is NOT justified by the CURRENT state of Richard's reputation.
>>> WHO today view's Richard as a "monster" who committed ALL of the crimes attributed to him by the "Tudor Myth"?
>>>
>>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> here's a challenge for you warren
>>>> produce evidence..from offical records..that richard iii was guilty of the allegations produced by tudor propaganda machine..morton, more, shakespeare, et al.
>>>> Â
>>>> i'll be happy to refute many of the allegations with official records to prove richard was nowhere near or involved in the deeds that gave him the blackened reputation.
>>>> Â
>>>> i'm also quite sure many of the long term forum members will also join in producing offical records to refute..to your offical record "rap sheet".
>>>> Â
>>>> g'head warren..you do not have an easy task. are you up to the challenge?
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>> --- On Mon, 7/30/12, warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: warrenmalach <warrenmalach@...>
>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>> To:
>>>> Received: Monday, July 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it legitimate to ask WHY a majority of "Ricardians" are convinced of Richard's innocence? Are they merely "weighing the facts" or acting like "defense attorneys," no matter WHAT the "facts" say? What does Richard's "innocence" MEAN to them? You see, all of this takes us AWAY from the "sober study of history" by way of trying to verify facts, into the realm of "the Cause." I'm not saying that one CAN'T indulge in such partisanship, only let's call it what it IS, history being "used" for "other purposes."
>>>>
>>>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Karen,
>>>>>
>>>>> Had you laid aside your hammer, you'd have read (and interpreted) my mention of you rather more benignly, which was as intended. It was objective truth that you and Warren were the only ones on the board at that time, dialoguing almost indistinguishably, but seeing that citation of Prof. Hicks, who makes me see red under the best of circumstances, I recused myself to another universe, rather than type something "regrettable." I didn't expect you to so conflate my subsequent remark, and therefore I apologize to you (and to Brian W., under whose "roof" it all flamed up"). This does not change my opinion of Michael Hicks and his unprofessional antics, but I do not go about, abusing anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's important to keep in mind the majority of Ricardians are in support of Richard's innocence. ÃÂ Trying to change this will be - must be - frustrating for you. But consider this: Why is it so important to you that they be awakened from their "ignorance," if that's how you see it? What will this achieve? Will it make their lives more rich and meaningful? Even as I suggested you needed the comfort of the last word. Some things must be left dangling and unfinished, and we fill in the dots on our own.ÃÂ
>>>>>
>>>>> Your argument about being shunted aside, when viewed from outside, looks slightly differently. Try being friendlier. It doesn't cost a thing. What was it Sir Paul rasped, the other night? "...And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
>>>>>
>>>>> Judy
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:07 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ÃÂ
>>>>> Judy
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm certainly not forcing anyone to choose unnuanced black or white on any
>>>>> issue. Quite the contrary. One of the things that bothers me is the seeming
>>>>> dichotomy of Richard/Good:Everyone Else/Bad. If you look back over the
>>>>> discussions I've (tried to) take part in, you'll find that's a very strong
>>>>> motif of mine. There are vast grey areas surrounding Richard, the Wars of
>>>>> the Roses and the 15th century in general. It's the black and white views I
>>>>> perceive here and other places that frustrate me. I'd much rather discuss
>>>>> these nuances than be silenced (or mocked on facebook). No-one has made any
>>>>> 'strafing runs' and I find the suggestion yet another example of the
>>>>> hostility that I've been subjected to in this forum. Maybe I bring up ideas
>>>>> that are difficult for the more diehard Richard supporters to deal with, I
>>>>> don't know. All I know is that every time I try to discuss anything, I feel
>>>>> that I'm being pushed into a corner, told to sit down and be quiet. This
>>>>> really shouldn't happen on this forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for people 'ganging up', not that long ago you responded to something I
>>>>> said with "Ok, you get the last word"; Annette responded to something else
>>>>> with "And your point is?"; and Paul suggested that I must be some kind of
>>>>> fan of Henry VII! I found that quite hostile, as I found your facebook
>>>>> comment. I have no problems with you, or anyone else, not liking Michael
>>>>> Hicks and his work. None at all. You can like whoever you like and despise
>>>>> whoever you like. I'd love to be given the same freedom of choice! You
>>>>> certainly did make a personal attack against me, Judy. You stated quite
>>>>> clearly, on facebook, that you believed that warren and I were the same
>>>>> person, virtually accusing me of being a dual-identity troll. I responded
>>>>> with calmness and reason. And politeness. You were not bullied. I accepted
>>>>> totally your point of view regarding Hicks, even though I don't agree. As I
>>>>> said, you're entitled to it. I don't like Kendall. I don't rate his books at
>>>>> all. If anyone were to ask me why, I'd be happy to tell them. But I wouldn't
>>>>> write anyone off because they enjoyed his work and got something they valued
>>>>> from it, and I wouldn't rush to facebook with "Ugh! She's quoting Kendall! I
>>>>> hate him!".
>>>>>
>>>>> I also made it quite clear that, whatever your views of Richard, I have not
>>>>> and would never call you 'silly' or 'ignorant'. All I ask for is the same
>>>>> courtesy that other people expect and demand. If asking for that is
>>>>> 'bullying', then clearly the word has changed meaning without anyone letting
>>>>> me know. As I said in my response to you on facebook, I'm tired of this 'us'
>>>>> and 'them' attitude. As I also said, if you want to mock someone behind
>>>>> their back, make sure it is actually behind their back! I didn't think that
>>>>> was 'nice' at all. I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell and hope things get
>>>>> better soon, but you're having recently been in hospital isn't sufficient
>>>>> reason for me not to respond to your mockery on facebook.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the Society was set up to clear Richard's name, but if members
>>>>> (individually or collectively) come to the view that perhaps there are some
>>>>> aspects of his life and reign where his name can't be cleared, then they
>>>>> should be allowed to discuss it. And it's a sad indictment on this forum
>>>>> that those who believe he may have murdered his nephews feel the need to be
>>>>> quiet.(I don't 'believe' this, as I said, I simply don't know. No-one does.)
>>>>> I really think your final sentence sums it all up, though. You liken belief
>>>>> in Richard's total innocence to a religion. And this disturbs me, to be
>>>>> frank. I didn't join the Society to become a worshipper. Those who did are,
>>>>> in my view, quite entitled to worship. I should be entitled not to without
>>>>> the 'atheist' analogy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it's my long academic background and my willingness to debate issues
>>>>> without pussyfooting around that causes some people problems. But this is
>>>>> what scholarly debate is all about, stating your case, listening to others,
>>>>> disputing bits, agreeing with bits, changing your mind about other bits.
>>>>> None of it (from me) is either provocative or deliberately contentious. You
>>>>> talk about backing up arguments with sources, but when I do I'm told that
>>>>> they're no good (Hicks), or they're ignored, as was the link to my blog
>>>>> where I posted and discussed a letter from the Countess of Warwick to
>>>>> parliament.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like this to end, I really would. I'd like to join in the conversation
>>>>> without being pushed aside, gossipped about, mocked or silenced. I'd like to
>>>>> share the results of my research on this forum, as and when I can, as others
>>>>> do. (I focus on the Nevills, and am currently deep in the 1450s. There's a
>>>>> lot I've found out about various people and events. Fascinating stuff!) I'd
>>>>> also like to be able to share (where useful) the benefits of my training,
>>>>> research and work in linguistics. I tried that once and what I said wasn't
>>>>> hugely respected. Rightly or wrongly, some responses to the things I've said
>>>>> here have come across as hostile. It's no wonder others are afraid to speak
>>>>> up!
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that I've made myself and my intentions clear. They're actually quite
>>>>> good intentions. I do hope you're feeling better soon. Though I haven't been
>>>>> in hospital lately, I am currently suffering from a rather nasty chest
>>>>> infection. Being unwell is no fun!
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>>>> Reply-To: <>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
>>>>> To: ""
>>>>> <>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Kaye. This is the point some of us have tried to make. It's not
>>>>> the POV represented we object to, but the manner in which it's presented and
>>>>> the total monopolization by one or two people for many hours - a virtual
>>>>> barrage of rhetorical questions or queries for which there have been no
>>>>> ready, much less easy answers in over 500 years, thus resulting in no
>>>>> perceivable advancement among us in knowledge, understanding, or even
>>>>> general camaraderie (which is at least worth something around here, hence
>>>>> the OT chat that sometimes floats up).
>>>>>
>>>>> Warren and Karen, you would be surprised at the range of opinion on Richard,
>>>>> if you didn't force people to choose an unnuanced Black or White on the
>>>>> issues. For example, if one believes the Duke of Buckingham may have born
>>>>> responsibility for the disappearance of the boys - and I don't even say
>>>>> their death - Richard might bear the moral burden for allowing this to
>>>>> happen on his "watch." There are so many shades and tones of grey. There are
>>>>> also possibilities of good intentions gone seriously awry. We'll never know,
>>>>> will we?
>>>>>
>>>>> But making strafing runs (and this is how some people have perceived,
>>>>> rightly or wrongly, the past few days) through this Forum is no way to win
>>>>> friends and make Common Cause. There has also been a kind of "ganging up" on
>>>>> people. Poor Linda was vocal in her departure; we don't know how many just
>>>>> quietly slipped out the back door.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen, I made no personal attack upon you, except to mention you and Warren
>>>>> were the only ones on the Forum, and you were citing Michael Hicks, whom
>>>>> I've personal reasons to dislike, yet you chose to bully me on Facebook.
>>>>> Nice, especially since I'm only recently out of hospital.
>>>>>
>>>>> The questions come across, intentionally or not, as contentious and
>>>>> provocative, rather than spurring friendly debate. We do not, as a rule,
>>>>> conduct our conversations on the rapid-fire, adversarial model. No points
>>>>> are awarded for one-upmanship. This is more like an old, established
>>>>> neighborhood. A goodly percentage of the people hold Richard totally
>>>>> innocent. Some are fence-sitters. There may be a few who think him guilty of
>>>>> killing his nephews, but they are quiet. We certainly don't "out" them or
>>>>> encourage them to leave. If they wish to state their cases, we would listen.
>>>>> Just no shouting, please, and always back up arguments with sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Richard III Society was founded to clear his name, regardless what the
>>>>> literature says, so coming into the group with the sense of "He done it" is
>>>>> a little bit like an Atheist walking into a Franciscan convent to give a
>>>>> talk - you've got to expect a certain disconnect, and maybe adjust your
>>>>> presentation accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Abraham Maslow once said, To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a
>>>>> nail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Judy
>>>>>
>>>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: Kaye Mabboni <kayenorfolk@ <mailto:kayenorfolk%40yahoo.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>> To: "
>>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
>>>>> <
>>>>> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 9:42 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Buckingham - and beyond
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Warren. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and although I
>>>>> don't post here I find much pleasure in reading other members messages,
>>>>> opinions and information.
>>>>> I am not an English native speaker, so forgive me if I am wrong but I
>>>>> couldn't afford noticing some aggressiveness in your posts. This is a
>>>>> Ricardian forum after all and it seemed to me that you came here to pick
>>>>> arguments with other members that, as far as I saw, were very courteous in
>>>>> answering all your questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am speaking for myself but I do not feel comfortable about the fact that
>>>>> you have been polarizing this otherwise very productive forum not to
>>>>> exchange knowledge, but to impose your point of view. It seems to me that
>>>>> you have plenty of time to dedicate yourself to this wonderful and
>>>>> intriguing period of time so.please do us all and yourself a favour and
>>>>> bring some research, quote authors and historians ( not just your personal
>>>>> opinion) and try not pick fights.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I already mentioned, this forum is supposed to be about Richard III, not
>>>>> about it's members.
>>>>> Having said that, I do not intend to continue this line of discussion and
>>>>> would rather prefer that the forum returned to it's main purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> A good week to all!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.