BBC Newsnight

It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.

They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.

The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.

Jessica

it is possible that the authors who have played at gaining fame and fortune by bashing richard are "distancing" themselves from the dig.
 
should the remains be found to be that of richard; they would be on recent record as being proven wrong.
 
not too great for credibility rankings.
 
however, the lesser knowns are probably very willing and "honoured" to be giving their opinions regarding richard's tudor fabricated life and death.

--- On Mon, 9/24/12, casildis <jessica.rydill@...> wrote:


From: casildis <jessica.rydill@...>
Subject: BBC Newsnight
To:
Received: Monday, September 24, 2012, 8:34 PM



 



It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.

They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.

The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.

Jessica

Was it a repeat?

Cancel that- just realised it was that silly PBS thing, instead.

--- In , Edward Shine <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> Was it a repeat?
>
>
>

I missed it, how annoying1  Hopefully it is on i player.  I was thinking of buying Dan Jones book, Ir ead a good reviw.  Has anyone else got it?


From: casildis <jessica.rydill@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 1:34
Subject: BBC Newsnight


 
It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.

They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.

The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.

Jessica

I saw newsnight. Mostly played for laughs.Thank goodness for Annette and Phillipa


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: BBC Newsnight


 
I missed it, how annoying1  Hopefully it is on i player.  I was thinking of buying Dan Jones book, Ir ead a good reviw.  Has anyone else got it?

From: casildis <mailto:jessica.rydill%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 1:34
Subject: BBC Newsnight

 
It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.

They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.

The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.

Jessica

Dan Jones did make the point that the possible finding of Richard's bones won't change the central "crime" of the deposition of his nephew Edward V.

What annoyed me about this airing was the juxtaposition of the bad Richard and a purely good Richard. It was back in the medieval imagination of Thomas More of devils and angels. Maybe he believed in fairies also.

Richard was an effective administrator and soldier (except at Bosworth,) but his father York rebelled against Henry VI, Richard's brother Edward IV also rebelled against Henry VI and had him killed, Clarence, another brother, was a synonym for treachery, as was Richard's father in law: Warwick. But was Richard `good' in the sense of saintly or angelic?

Richard, as far as I can see it, reacted against Elizabeth Woodville's and her large family's coup to immediately oust Richard from the protectorship, having Edward's half-brother: Grey and uncle Rivers executed, Richard alienated Edward V, Elizabeth's son, and was, as soon as becoming king, faced with a dangerous rebellion with Edward V as the head. Richard to protect himself and his family may've panicked and done Edward and his younger brother down; burying them sufficiently deeply in the hope they would never be found. The man at Guildhall, Leicester said that Richard had the motive, opportunity and the princes disappeared during his reign and, as we know, he's been tarred with that during his reign and ever since.


--- In , carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...> wrote:
>
> I saw newsnight. Mostly played for laughs.Thank goodness for Annette and Phillipa
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: BBC Newsnight
>
>
>  
> I missed it, how annoying1  Hopefully it is on i player.  I was thinking of buying Dan Jones book, Ir ead a good reviw.  Has anyone else got it?
>
> From: casildis <mailto:jessica.rydill%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 1:34
> Subject: BBC Newsnight
>
>  
> It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.
>
> They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.
>
> The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> But was Richard `good' in the sense of saintly or angelic?

Obviously no he was in no sense saintly or angelic. Who is? Can a man not be called a good man without someone saying he was not an saint....No one is saying he was....What I am saying personally is that in comparison to a lot of his contemporaries and other medieval kings yes he was a good man...Catapulted into a dangerous situation and hit with personal tragedy he still strove to do good in his short reign. I believe if he had lived and reigned longer he would have proven to be one of the best kings we eve had...Eileen



> Richard, as far as I can see it, reacted against Elizabeth Woodville's and her large family's coup to immediately oust Richard from the protectorship, having Edward's half-brother: Grey and uncle Rivers executed, Richard alienated Edward V, Elizabeth's son, and was, as soon as becoming king, faced with a dangerous rebellion with Edward V as the head. Richard to protect himself and his family may've panicked and done Edward and his younger brother down; burying them sufficiently deeply in the hope they would never be found. The man at Guildhall, Leicester said that Richard had the motive, opportunity and the princes disappeared during his reign and, as we know, he's been tarred with that during his reign and ever since.
>
>
> --- In , carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@> wrote:
> >
> > I saw newsnight. Mostly played for laughs.Thank goodness for Annette and Phillipa
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: BBC Newsnight
> >
> >
> >  
> > I missed it, how annoying1  Hopefully it is on i player.  I was thinking of buying Dan Jones book, Ir ead a good reviw.  Has anyone else got it?
> >
> > From: casildis <mailto:jessica.rydill%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 1:34
> > Subject: BBC Newsnight
> >
> >  
> > It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.
> >
> > They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.
> >
> > The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.
> >
> > Jessica
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n3gg7/Newsnight_24_09_2012/
(from about 34:00 onwards)

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > But was Richard `good' in the sense of saintly or angelic?
>
> Obviously no he was in no sense saintly or angelic. Who is? Can a man not be called a good man without someone saying he was not an saint....No one is saying he was....What I am saying personally is that in comparison to a lot of his contemporaries and other medieval kings yes he was a good man...Catapulted into a dangerous situation and hit with personal tragedy he still strove to do good in his short reign. I believe if he had lived and reigned longer he would have proven to be one of the best kings we eve had...Eileen
>
>
>
> > Richard, as far as I can see it, reacted against Elizabeth Woodville's and her large family's coup to immediately oust Richard from the protectorship, having Edward's half-brother: Grey and uncle Rivers executed, Richard alienated Edward V, Elizabeth's son, and was, as soon as becoming king, faced with a dangerous rebellion with Edward V as the head. Richard to protect himself and his family may've panicked and done Edward and his younger brother down; burying them sufficiently deeply in the hope they would never be found. The man at Guildhall, Leicester said that Richard had the motive, opportunity and the princes disappeared during his reign and, as we know, he's been tarred with that during his reign and ever since.
> >
> >
> > --- In , carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I saw newsnight. Mostly played for laughs.Thank goodness for Annette and Phillipa
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:13 AM
> > > Subject: Re: BBC Newsnight
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > I missed it, how annoying1  Hopefully it is on i player.  I was thinking of buying Dan Jones book, Ir ead a good reviw.  Has anyone else got it?
> > >
> > > From: casildis <mailto:jessica.rydill%40gmail.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 1:34
> > > Subject: BBC Newsnight
> > >
> > >  
> > > It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.
> > >
> > > They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.
> > >
> > > The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.
> > >
> > > Jessica
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I don't want to sound rude but who is this man at the Guildhall you keep quoting?  Presumably he is a guide and while he may know all about the history of the Guildhall I suspect he knows as much about Richard as any of us on this forum(and probably less than some.)  It is only his personal opinion.   
 
Yes Richard had opportunity, but he had less motive than some.  Tudor of course had the biggest motive but - unfortunately for us - no opportunity.  Buckingham probably had both. 
 
As for Richard of course he wasn't angelic but he was a darn sight better than some of his contemporaries. 
 
Liz 

From: HI <hi.dung@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 13:15
Subject: Re: BBC Newsnight


 
Dan Jones did make the point that the possible finding of Richard's bones won't change the central "crime" of the deposition of his nephew Edward V.

What annoyed me about this airing was the juxtaposition of the bad Richard and a purely good Richard. It was back in the medieval imagination of Thomas More of devils and angels. Maybe he believed in fairies also.

Richard was an effective administrator and soldier (except at Bosworth,) but his father York rebelled against Henry VI, Richard's brother Edward IV also rebelled against Henry VI and had him killed, Clarence, another brother, was a synonym for treachery, as was Richard's father in law: Warwick. But was Richard `good' in the sense of saintly or angelic?

Richard, as far as I can see it, reacted against Elizabeth Woodville's and her large family's coup to immediately oust Richard from the protectorship, having Edward's half-brother: Grey and uncle Rivers executed, Richard alienated Edward V, Elizabeth's son, and was, as soon as becoming king, faced with a dangerous rebellion with Edward V as the head. Richard to protect himself and his family may've panicked and done Edward and his younger brother down; burying them sufficiently deeply in the hope they would never be found. The man at Guildhall, Leicester said that Richard had the motive, opportunity and the princes disappeared during his reign and, as we know, he's been tarred with that during his reign and ever since.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, carole jenkins <carolejenkins57@...> wrote:
>
> I saw newsnight. Mostly played for laughs.Thank goodness for Annette and Phillipa
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: BBC Newsnight
>
>
>  
> I missed it, how annoying1  Hopefully it is on i player.  I was thinking of buying Dan Jones book, Ir ead a good reviw.  Has anyone else got it?
>
> From: casildis <mailto:jessica.rydill%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 1:34
> Subject: BBC Newsnight
>
>  
> It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.
>
> They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.
>
> The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks, Jessica - This was a summons to London at unbelievably short notice, pursuant to BBC TV sending a crew to Edinburgh to film Philippa, an outlay which we mistakenly thought might mean they intended to have a serious discussion. But alas no, the angle was sardonic and the presenter was just pushing topics that neither Dan nor I thought had much relevance, like 'digging up' the alleged remains of the princes in Westminster Abbey (at one point he pulled a face, which at least I avoided!). So it ended up just a piece of fluff at the end of the show. Fortunately I know Dan Jones hasn't yet published his take on Richard III, so his feet aren't dug in, and we had an interesting chat afterwards. He certainly agrees Richard was a victim of propaganda, and said so on camera, so it's good to hear someone saying this upfront even if he's wheeled out to represent the opposition.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: casildis
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:34 AM
Subject: BBC Newsnight



It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.

They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.

The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.

Jessica

I watched it on i player at work today.  I thought Dan was pretty reasonable considering he was meant to be the "opponent" but the frivolous treatment really annoys me.  People seem to think it's hilarious that Richard ended up in a car park, as if he was deliberately buried in one! 



________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 18:10
Subject: Re: BBC Newsnight


 
Thanks, Jessica - This was a summons to London at unbelievably short notice, pursuant to BBC TV sending a crew to Edinburgh to film Philippa, an outlay which we mistakenly thought might mean they intended to have a serious discussion. But alas no, the angle was sardonic and the presenter was just pushing topics that neither Dan nor I thought had much relevance, like 'digging up' the alleged remains of the princes in Westminster Abbey (at one point he pulled a face, which at least I avoided!). So it ended up just a piece of fluff at the end of the show. Fortunately I know Dan Jones hasn't yet published his take on Richard III, so his feet aren't dug in, and we had an interesting chat afterwards. He certainly agrees Richard was a victim of propaganda, and said so on camera, so it's good to hear someone saying this upfront even if he's wheeled out to represent the opposition.
Regards, Annette

----- Original Message -----
From: casildis
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:34 AM
Subject: BBC Newsnight

It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.

They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.

The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.

Jessica

It was good to see you on Newsnight Annette.You were very professional even if they were more inclined to the "Horrible Histories. Whatever the results of the tests, and I am pretty confident that it is Richard, the dig has started a massive amount of interest in the real history of Richard and the Wars of the Roses. We may not be able to prove if the Princes even died or were murdered but your evidence in the Maligned King will come to the fore and that can only do some good. You and Philippa and John have done wonders for the Ricardian cause. It is good to discuss and debate the various scenarios and hopefully our grandchildren will be taught the truth about the late 15th century, instead of Tudor propaganda.

Incidentally my nine year old grandaughter is very excited about the discovery in the Greyfriars.

--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jessica - This was a summons to London at unbelievably short notice, pursuant to BBC TV sending a crew to Edinburgh to film Philippa, an outlay which we mistakenly thought might mean they intended to have a serious discussion. But alas no, the angle was sardonic and the presenter was just pushing topics that neither Dan nor I thought had much relevance, like 'digging up' the alleged remains of the princes in Westminster Abbey (at one point he pulled a face, which at least I avoided!). So it ended up just a piece of fluff at the end of the show. Fortunately I know Dan Jones hasn't yet published his take on Richard III, so his feet aren't dug in, and we had an interesting chat afterwards. He certainly agrees Richard was a victim of propaganda, and said so on camera, so it's good to hear someone saying this upfront even if he's wheeled out to represent the opposition.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: casildis
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:34 AM
> Subject: BBC Newsnight
>
>
>
> It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.
>
> They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.
>
> The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I know what you mean, Annette - Kirsty Wark's flippant approach was disappointing, but it was a pleasure to see even such a short piece. I hadn't heard of Dan Jones before and it's good to know that he might be keeping an open mind!

It is rather disappointing that they seem unable to give the topic serious treatment.

Cheers

Jessica


--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Jessica - This was a summons to London at unbelievably short notice, pursuant to BBC TV sending a crew to Edinburgh to film Philippa, an outlay which we mistakenly thought might mean they intended to have a serious discussion. But alas no, the angle was sardonic and the presenter was just pushing topics that neither Dan nor I thought had much relevance, like 'digging up' the alleged remains of the princes in Westminster Abbey (at one point he pulled a face, which at least I avoided!). So it ended up just a piece of fluff at the end of the show. Fortunately I know Dan Jones hasn't yet published his take on Richard III, so his feet aren't dug in, and we had an interesting chat afterwards. He certainly agrees Richard was a victim of propaganda, and said so on camera, so it's good to hear someone saying this upfront even if he's wheeled out to represent the opposition.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: casildis
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:34 AM
> Subject: BBC Newsnight
>
>
>
> It was great to see Annette and Philippa appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight to discuss the implications of the Leicester dig. Though the journalist reporting the piece took a humorous approach, they did attempt to give the Richard III Society - and Annette - a fair hearing.
>
> They showed the Leicester dig site and the place where the remains were found.
>
> The historian putting the 'opposing' case, Dan Jones, who is the author of a book called 'The Plantagenets' did not seem to be particularly doctrinaire, and I'm rather relieved they didn't trot out David Starkey.
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 25 Sep 2012, at 15:48, EileenB wrote:

> I believe if he had lived and reigned longer he would have proven to be one of the best kings we eve had..


Here you go again Eileen, voicing my very thoughts!:-)
Well said.
Totally agree. If only those damn vested interests hadn't got in the way and Richard could have been as ruthless with the few as Tudor would be!
Paul



Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul sadly this was the problem....because if he had been as ruthless as the Tudors he would not have been the man we admire so much....

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2012, at 15:48, EileenB wrote:
>
> > I believe if he had lived and reigned longer he would have proven to be one of the best kings we eve had..
>
>
> Here you go again Eileen, voicing my very thoughts!:-)
> Well said.
> Totally agree. If only those damn vested interests hadn't got in the way and Richard could have been as ruthless with the few as Tudor would be!
> Paul
>
>
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>